Page 35 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2533343536 LastLast
Results 511 to 525 of 535

Thread: Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

  1. #511
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    a lot more actually....
    Yes, of course - in your perception.
    Not so in mine.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #512
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    no he was never too wide, only too short.
    As demonstrated by Gayle repeatedly thrashing him through the covers at the start of most innings.

  3. #513
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    no it happens far less often then you seem to realise....
    Going round in circles here...
    no its the same thing except that with a death-threat you end up being a lot more nervous and under a lot more pressure.
    Incomparably so, in fact.

  4. #514
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    no your eye can afford to be ordinary if you can make up for it in other skills.....
    It can afford to be ordinary but it cannot afford to be below a certain standard.
    If it is, you will be beaten for pace all the time by a really quick bowler.


  5. #515
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    yes but a ball like that would 99 times out of a 100 have been played and missed at, therefore any batsman that got an edge on that must be considered unlucky. and its amazing how you completely ignored the fact that he was the top scorer from either side in that innings.
    It's not amazing - I didn't ignore it - but nonetheless the match produced a not-outstanding total from him.
    And for crying-out-loud - any batsman who gets out to a RUD must be considered unlucky - but they're all part of bowler-friendly pitches! Bad luck is part of bowler-friendly pitches. It still contributes to a pattern of failing on them - anyone must be expected to do less well on bowler-friendly pitches than batsman-friendly ones - but if there's a significant difference, someone can be said to be a flat-track bully.
    ive said time and time again that just because a finger spinner takes wickets on a surface it doesnt automatically mean that it is a turner
    And the two reports I read on this match both described the surface as a turner, which Nicky Boje took advantage of. So I didn't just assume actually - but I don't think too many people would really consider Boje that good a bowler on non-turners.
    we've seen several other bowlers do it on non-spinner friendly wickets and on those occasions you have put it down to poor shots etc.
    Because that's what the case has been.
    and there we go again, wherever convenient you say that it was poor batting was what got bowlers wickets yet when boje gets 8 wickets you dont do the same.
    No, I actually saw the pitch and most of the wickets in this case - it was poor batting and high-class swing bowling (neither of which have any reflection on the pitch). No turn, no seam.
    so it adds to the list that refutes the case then?
    No, you think it does - I think it does not.
    no its not, if someone scored 40 when the entire team scored 100 you cant say that he failed
    You can - and he did.
    oh no,even if you look at it your way 6 successes and 9 failures on seamer friendly wickets suggests that hes definetly not a FTB......you dont just magically play well so often on seamer friendly wickets.
    No, you don't - you just play well on an odd occasion.

  6. #516
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    yet 2 isolated incidents from 2 different seasons dont prove a thing, i wouldnt be surprised if he succeeded against other spinners in the same season.
    He might possibly have done - nonetheless, it's just a tiny bit of a coincidence that someone can have 2 of those isolated incidents, 3 years apart, where something of a very similar nature happens. It's even more of a coincidence that the relative player was a Western Australian - batsmen who've always been notorius for weakness against spin because of not facing very much of it.
    you've expained your statements by twisting them around some more....
    No, you've said I have.
    There have been many, many occasions where you have stated "you've said this" and I have shown that you are incorrect. So, in your perception, I have twisted what I've said. Except that I've never said what you want me to have twisted.
    and in my experience short bowling has got wickets just about as often while cutters havent been half as effective on flat wickets.
    Then we've reached another dead-end... that will resurface next time we get someone discussing the merits of bowling.
    yes they have bowled well enough its just that they havent been fortunate enough. indeed on another day the same 30 plays and misses might have got many more wickets....
    They might - and if they have, well bowled.
    If they haven't - try again.
    Otherwise, all you'll get yourself is the reputation of an unlucky bowler - like Collymore and Flintoff (until last winter, when he became a lucky bowler).

  7. #517
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    no mcgrath and ambrose have been extremely similar in the kind of wickets that they take, indeed if mcgrath doesnt deserve the wickets hes taken neither does ambrose.
    If you say so...
    yes and ambrose always had a fantastic ER, because he was deadly accurate.
    Indeed.
    Well, or rather, like any rule, there was the odd exception, but any time Ambrose was expensive it was an anomaly.
    its almost always, not always, id say that its 8/10 times that it is the case, therefore you cant use something like that to prove me wrong.
    I'd say it's about 19\20.
    and by your counts hes been wayward on several occasions.
    Yes, he has - he's been accurate far more often, though.
    no he has, except that anything that vaas does whether it be a ball on leg stump ends up being lauded for some reason or the other..
    Rubbish, I've never praised him for bowling poorly.
    and because batsman only play poor strokes when you can penetrate and create pressure.....
    If batsmen play poor strokes you don't need to bowl penetratively!
    nowhere near as accurate as someone like flintoff was in the last series...i dont remember him trying to bounce lara out at the start of his innings and i dont remember him pitching the ball up every now and again either.
    If you say so - nonetheless, his figures were far better than they normally are. And it still doesn't change the fact that, in Lara's 13-year career, there are bound to be more than a few occasions where people have tried that.
    so now its just 3 years then? and based on those 3 years you say that mcgrath and pollock dont deserve their wickets throughout their careers?
    No, I don't - I've always said I can only guess at the rest of their careers before 2000\01-2001.

  8. #518
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    and did those other options work as successfully as flintoffs?? laras average against all the teams suggest that it didnt....
    Lara's failed in other series, believe me - especially between 1994\95 and 2001\02.
    Just because he's done well at times against everyone doesn't disguise the fact that even the best are outdone at times.
    One such occasion was in 2000 (England). Another in 2000\01 (Australia).
    no there were several edges etc that went over the fielders and over the slips.
    Yes, there were, I just said that. There weren't, however, any chances.
    if it was too short at times then it obviously wasnt good ball after good ball then was it??do you not understand what bowling ball after ball in the right areas means?
    makhaya ntini is a master of bowling absolute rubbish short stuff on flat wickets and this was no exception....
    It wasn't just Ntini, it was all the bowlers - and yes, shortish balls can be good balls, as long as they're on the right line. All the bowlers bowled plenty of good-line balls, and Gayle thrashed many of them through the covers.
    err its called 'luck'?
    Yes, it is - nonetheless, it results in a fast scoring-rate without wickets falling, which is no use to the fielding side and a lot of use to the batting side.
    no that is frustration using economy rates, something that you completely denied ever happened with quality batsmen. and it usually doesnt given that both harmison and giles didnt cause significant problems to the respective sides.
    I've not once said it never happens - I have, however, said it doesn't happen very often to quality batsmen, and when it does it doesn't result in wickets falling anywhere near as often as some seem to think.

  9. #519
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Nothing is impossible.
    and id take an opinion of someone who is 99% right....of course the fact that several other experts happened to agree with him on the fact that the motera wicket was dead makes totally impossible for all of them to be wrong.
    Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
    Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
    Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

  10. #520
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Rather an ignorant definition of "ignorance", there.
    once again showing your ignorance.....

  11. #521
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Which provides no problem whatsoever to anyone.
    well it clearly does to you,AFAIC anyone who has watched sufficient cricket would know that im right.

  12. #522
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    It can afford to be ordinary but it cannot afford to be below a certain standard.
    If it is, you will be beaten for pace all the time by a really quick bowler.
    nope because no one has that bad eyes, once you get your eye in, i dont care who you are, if you apply yourself, you wont have too many problems surviving at the crease.

  13. #523
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    It's not amazing - I didn't ignore it - but nonetheless the match produced a not-outstanding total from him.
    And for crying-out-loud - any batsman who gets out to a RUD must be considered unlucky - but they're all part of bowler-friendly pitches! Bad luck is part of bowler-friendly pitches. It still contributes to a pattern of failing on them - anyone must be expected to do less well on bowler-friendly pitches than batsman-friendly ones - but if there's a significant difference, someone can be said to be a flat-track bully.
    he was the top scorer on a deadly pitch, and he survived everything that any batsman possibly could. he cant be blamed for getting out to a ball like that and therefore it cant be considered a failure. its just as bad as getting run out, possibly worse because even a run out requires some amount of a mistake from a batsman, an RUD doesnt.
    seriously the 40 odd on that wicket should be taken as a success,because he accomplished something that no won else could.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    And the two reports I read on this match both described the surface as a turner, which Nicky Boje took advantage of. So I didn't just assume actually - but I don't think too many people would really consider Boje that good a bowler on non-turners.
    and these 2 reports are? and just because boje took wickets on a wicket it doesnt automatically make it a turner. there could be 2 explanations for that, the batsmen either batted poorly, which by all accounts they did, and/or boje actually bowled well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Because that's what the case has been.
    and it could be the same here too.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    No, I actually saw the pitch and most of the wickets in this case - it was poor batting and high-class swing bowling (neither of which have any reflection on the pitch). No turn, no seam..
    precisely there was no turn.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    No, you think it does - I think it does not..
    so despite scoring a 50 when the pitch was at its worse and no one else got higher than 28, his performances in the test must be considered a failure....you really do get dumber

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    You can - and he did.
    no you cant because you can only do as well as the pitch allows you to do on it.....do you even know the definition of failure? its when you dont assist the team in any significant way, scoring 2/5th of the runs that your team makes is not a failure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    No, you don't - you just play well on an odd occasion.
    and even 6 out of 15 is not the odd occasion(despite the fact that hes actually succeeded far more often)....succeeding 40% of the time on seamer friendly wickets is an extremely good effort whatever way you look at it....definetly not what i would call 'the odd occasion'. give it up richard, even you know you have lost it.

  14. #524
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    He might possibly have done - nonetheless, it's just a tiny bit of a coincidence that someone can have 2 of those isolated incidents, 3 years apart, where something of a very similar nature happens. It's even more of a coincidence that the relative player was a Western Australian - batsmen who've always been notorius for weakness against spin because of not facing very much of it.
    yes having an off day twice in 3 years is an amazing coincidence isnt it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    No, you've said I have.
    There have been many, many occasions where you have stated "you've said this" and I have shown that you are incorrect. So, in your perception, I have twisted what I've said. Except that I've never said what you want me to have twisted.
    go ahead twisting them around even further....

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    They might - and if they have, well bowled.
    If they haven't - try again.
    Otherwise, all you'll get yourself is the reputation of an unlucky bowler - like Collymore and Flintoff (until last winter, when he became a lucky bowler).
    yes and if all it takes is the same performance to take wickets sometimes then why should a player be criticised when sometimes his wickets come from non wicket taking balls?

  15. #525
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    If you say so...
    and that adds another 400 lucky wickets.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    I'd say it's about 19\20.
    and whatever way you look at it, you cant assume that bowling accurately = good ER.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Yes, he has - he's been accurate far more often, though.
    not often enough to be considered a quality bowler.....and the average reflects that. if he was indeed as accurate as ambrose etc he would also be just about as 'lucky'

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Rubbish, I've never praised him for bowling poorly.
    no youve called him unlucky on those occasions...

Page 35 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2533343536 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Vic Bushrangers 04/05 Squad
    By Hoggy in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 28-06-2004, 12:22 AM
  2. England squad named
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 24-02-2004, 12:11 PM
  3. Aussie 30 man Prelim World Cup Squad annouced
    By Blewy in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-12-2002, 03:56 PM
  4. Player Movements.
    By Graham in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 14-09-2002, 05:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •