Howz dinesh karthik?

[Richard]

and the fact that looking at E/R in tests doesnt give any indication of how accurate a bowler is means what ? quite frankly if you bowled wide outside the off stump at trent bridge most batsmen wouldnt bother to go after it and you'll still end up with a good enough E/R.

Yes, of course, despite the fact that in pitch conditions such as those any width had to be capitalised on.
Believe me, I watched most of that Trent Bridge match and I was amazed at how accurately Harmison bowled, we'd never seen anything like that in a Test-match before.
He then repeated it at The Oval, on a very good pitch where batsmen seized on width more often than not.

 

[Richard]

And I wonder if you were watching so intently and critically back then?

Only in 1999\2000 and 2000\01 (winter seasons) plus the summers, and given that things were similar in the few preceding years I've guessed that the same bowlers were doing the same things.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, of course, despite the fact that in pitch conditions such as those any width had to be capitalised on.

not necessarily, if someone went after a ball wide outside the off stump and ended up edging it you would call it poor batting....

Believe me, I watched most of that Trent Bridge match and I was amazed at how accurately Harmison bowled, we'd never seen anything like that in a Test-match before.
He then repeated it at The Oval, on a very good pitch where batsmen seized on width more often than not.

yes i know he was accurate at the oval thats why he got those wickets, whats your point? he was not very accurate for the first 2 tests was he? he was accurate for not even half the series while in the WI he was accurate throughout the series...gee i wonder where i got the idea that 'harmison wasnt half as accurate vs SA as he was in the WI'?

 

[Richard]

not necessarily, if someone went after a ball wide outside the off stump and ended up edging it you would call it poor batting....

Well, yes, but South Africa would almost certainly have come closer to winning.

yes i know he was accurate at the oval thats why he got those wickets, whats your point? he was not very accurate for the first 2 tests was he? he was accurate for not even half the series while in the WI he was accurate throughout the series...gee i wonder where i got the idea that 'harmison wasnt half as accurate vs SA as he was in the WI'?

Err, I never claimed he was accurate in the First and Second Tests, but I did in the Third and Fifth. And he was. Similarly, he was in the Zimbabwe series and his first 2 Championship matches.
However, he was successful in just 1 out of those 3 innings in which he bowled accurately against South Africa, as supposed to 6 out of 7 against West Indies.

 

[tooextracool]

Well, yes, but South Africa would almost certainly have come closer to winning.

yes but how many batsmen will take that chance? most batsmen would rather clip the ball on leg stump or smash the half volley for 4 instead.

Err, I never claimed he was accurate in the First and Second Tests, but I did in the Third and Fifth. And he was. Similarly, he was in the Zimbabwe series and his first 2 Championship matches.
However, he was successful in just 1 out of those 3 innings in which he bowled accurately against South Africa, as supposed to 6 out of 7 against West Indies.

and i said that he wasnt half as accurate in the WI as he was against SA.....and if you havent realised yet i was referring to the ENTIRE series against SA, not just the tests that you selectively picked out. and i still continue to say that he wasnt anywhere near as accurate in the 3rd test as he was in the WI..

 

[Richard]

yes but how many batsmen will take that chance? most batsmen would rather clip the ball on leg stump or smash the half volley for 4 instead.

Why?
Why not try and score as many runs as you can before you get the inevitable ball-with-your-name-on-it?
That's your best chance of getting a good score.

and i said that he wasnt half as accurate in the WI as he was against SA.....and if you havent realised yet i was referring to the ENTIRE series against SA, not just the tests that you selectively picked out. and i still continue to say that he wasnt anywhere near as accurate in the 3rd test as he was in the WI..

Well, no way to prove it for certain.
And if you haven't realised that I couldn't possibly be claiming that he was as accurate in the First and Second Tests. I didn't "selectively pick-out" anything, I just took it from a point onwards. Ie The Third Test.