the world XI's

[age_master]

richard doesn't understand the point of taking ODI wickets

 

[marc71178]

All he's interested in is if the economy is below 4.5 (even if they're flat wickets with small boundaries) - as shown by his disappointment at Ntini conceding 4.65 an over when Pakistan where hitting at far more than that and Ntini was taking a wicket every 3 and a bit overs.

 

[Richard]

yes most of those 350 odd wickets came by luck......

No, one hell of a lot of them came by good bowling in seaming or uneven conditions, which he can exploit devestatingly.
Most wickets on flatter pitches came by virtue of the fact that if you bowl enough deliveries you'll get poor strokes played at you eventually. Something you mentioned when you described some bowling as "Pollockesque".

 

[Richard]

Yes you do. If frontline bowlers like Pollock don't take wickets then even if the score is 60-0 after 20 overs, the opposition know they have a lot of batting resources left. They can then go hell for leather against the lesser bowlers, and often post a good total. You never see first innings ODI scores of 190-1 do you?

If the frontline bowlers do breakthrough, the batting team know that their remaining batting resources are limited, so they have to treat the lesser bowlers with more caution and safeguard their wickets. Consequently, you often see first innings ODI scores of 204-8.

The reason for this is because if you keep bowling accurately eventually the batsmen will have to try something, and if you keep up the accuracy they'll pay for trying that.
You don't need to bowl wicket-taking deliveries in one-day cricket if you can bowl accurately. Of course, the wickets will come due to scoreboard pressure eventually, anyway.
No matter how many wickets you have in hand, it doesn't make accurate bowling any easier to score off.

 

[Richard]

All he's interested in is if the economy is below 4.5 (even if they're flat wickets with small boundaries) - as shown by his disappointment at Ntini conceding 4.65 an over when Pakistan where hitting at far more than that and Ntini was taking a wicket every 3 and a bit overs.

When have I mentioned 4.5-an-over as being good?
I've just said that's the absolute maximum any good bowler should hope for.
Small boundaries are infuriating, yes, but still, a good ball isn't any easier to score off.

 

[marc71178]

If a bowler is supremely accurate and bowls every ball in the same spot, then runs will flow easily.

 

[Raj123]

The reason for this is because if you keep bowling accurately eventually the batsmen will have to try something, and if you keep up the accuracy they'll pay for trying that.
You don't need to bowl wicket-taking deliveries in one-day cricket if you can bowl accurately. Of course, the wickets will come due to scoreboard pressure eventually, anyway.
No matter how many wickets you have in hand, it doesn't make accurate bowling any easier to score off.

Richard, dont you think you are contradicting yourself in this post and the one above.
you say pollock isnt worthy of his wickets when batsmen play poor strokes (due to the pressure) although he is solely responsible for creating that pressure and forcing the batsman to play that false stroke

 

[Richard]

I'm talking about Test-matches, where there is no scoreboard pressure, in relation to Pollock and poor strokes getting him wickets.
In ODIs it's different.
So no, there is no contradiction, just misunderstanding.

 

[cbuts]

Look at the stats since August 1 2003 till July 31 2004 and you'll see that no New Zealander warrants a place. NZ is a good side, but you don't have any stand out superstars who anyone, not just those selectors, would of chosen in a best XI.

flemming stats for the past year are better than pontings. and as was pointed out on cricinfo, pointing has the luxury of coming in after people like gilchrist, hayden, and got toerh players such as martyn etc. flemmings average is better, and given team ability probally has worked alot harder to achieve.

there is no better test opener in the world than richardson. orams odi bowling is better than pollock - look at the stats bud. from memeory after our summer series he was no,1 odi bowler.

 

[Richard]

If a bowler is supremely accurate and bowls every ball in the same spot, then runs will flow easily.

Well, if that spot's a leg-stump Half-Volley, then yes, they will.

 

[cbuts]

So that's why his economy-rate for the voting period is 3.45-an-over - a whole 0.28-an-over lower than his whole career.
Not to mention his batting-average of 23.50 - perfectly acceptible for someone regularly coming in with not very long left.
Sorry, whether or not all these people can take it that someone can be phenominally brilliant for 9 years without any denegration in performance or not, I'm afraid Pollock is every bit as good now as he was 7 years ago.

look at the stats
SM Pollock - ODIs - Innings by innings list
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

unfiltered 220 2257 75 24.53 0 9 303 6/35 23.67 4 87 0
filtered 24 298 54 29.80 0 2 24 4/26 31.12 0 8 0


the filtered stats are from 9 of july 2003.


JDP Oram - ODIs - Innings by innings list
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

unfiltered 66 786 81 17.86 0 3 79 5/26 27.68 2 16 0
filtered 26 342 81 21.37 0 2 40 5/36 24.73 1 7 0

must admit pollocks batting average is pretty good considering where he comes in the order. looking at the stats one could say theyre pretty even. but in my books pollock is deteriating day by day.

 

[Raj123]

I'm talking about Test-matches, where there is no scoreboard pressure, in relation to Pollock and poor strokes getting him wickets.
In ODIs it's different.
So no, there is no contradiction, just misunderstanding.

you have to bat first, then get the opposition out, then bat again, then get the opposition out. sure, you can waste a session, but other than that you have to get going (remembering that bowlers are allowed to waste a lot of deliveries (wides, bouncers etc)) unless of course you are someone like a bangla (weak) side and your sole aim is to acheive a draw. i think the score board pressure would still be on even in test matches.

 

[Richard]

So does just about everyone else.
Nonetheless, in my experience a slow scoring-rate doesn't bother many good batsmen.
And certainly there was no contradiction.

 

[Swervy]

So does just about everyone else.
Nonetheless, in my experience a slow scoring-rate doesn't bother many good batsmen.
And certainly there was no contradiction.

you see this is it...it isnt your experience..its your perception of the batsmens experience...and your perception goes against what most people ,whether they be us, or commentators, or ex players or current players actually thinks that happens

 

[Richard]

And just because you or anyone else thinks it happens, it doesn't change what has happened in my perception.
How many times do I have to say that?

 

[Swervy]

And just because you or anyone else thinks it happens, it doesn't change what has happened in my perception.
How many times do I have to say that?

yes I agree it is your perception..but I think we can certainly challenge some of the things you say on here,because ,as most of us see it,you are floating around in your own little 'Richardworld' when it comes to the game of cricket,where everything seems to be black or white ,and assumes that cricket is played by robots that are either good or bad players,that feel no pressure...a game where people who have played the game at the highest level dont know what they are talking about,whereas as some kid with a few pieces of footage on video knows so much about the game 'because he watches the game when he eats....in Richardworld really there is no need to watch games at all..why do that when you can see that a bowler is no good coz the averages say so...in Richardworld Flintoff was as good a bowler 3 years ago as he is now...in Richardworld,the only ball that deserves a wicket is one that is pitched up and seams/swings a little,with little regard for what type of bowler they are, or how the ball is bowled within a specific gameplan etc.

So, its just that no-one else on this planet lives in Richardworld..we live on this planet where we can enjoy things like Harmison having a smack about at the end of an innings,or see that ramprakash didnt do what most people thought he should do at test level, ie score runs consistantly at any period in his career or wherever he was batting in the england line up..or enjoy watching 20/20 cricket despite the fact that a good players figures may take a pounding sometimes etc etc.

Richard, a lot of the time you are right..but only in your own head..which as you have said before is the only thing that matters.

Most people on this forum appear to have a pretty solid knowledge on the game, and yet you dismiss there ideas completely..just accept the fact that in 'our' world, a lot of the time we are correct in what we say.

 

[biased indian]

If a bowler is supremely accurate and bowls every ball in the same spot, then runs will flow easily.

 

[luckyeddie]

Not wacko at all - the batsman would then be able to predict with 100% certainty where the next ball was coming and set his feet accordingly, thus putting himself in the perfect position to smash Parthan's half-volley through the covers for four.

I mean 'the bowler's half-volley', of course

 

[Richard]

yes I agree it is your perception..but I think we can certainly challenge some of the things you say on here,because ,as most of us see it,you are floating around in your own little 'Richardworld' when it comes to the game of cricket,where everything seems to be black or white ,and assumes that cricket is played by robots that are either good or bad players,that feel no pressure...a game where people who have played the game at the highest level dont know what they are talking about,whereas as some kid with a few pieces of footage on video knows so much about the game 'because he watches the game when he eats....in Richardworld really there is no need to watch games at all..why do that when you can see that a bowler is no good coz the averages say so...in Richardworld Flintoff was as good a bowler 3 years ago as he is now...in Richardworld,the only ball that deserves a wicket is one that is pitched up and seams/swings a little,with little regard for what type of bowler they are, or how the ball is bowled within a specific gameplan etc.

So, its just that no-one else on this planet lives in Richardworld..we live on this planet where we can enjoy things like Harmison having a smack about at the end of an innings,or see that ramprakash didnt do what most people thought he should do at test level, ie score runs consistantly at any period in his career or wherever he was batting in the england line up..or enjoy watching 20/20 cricket despite the fact that a good players figures may take a pounding sometimes etc etc.

Richard, a lot of the time you are right..but only in your own head..which as you have said before is the only thing that matters.

Most people on this forum appear to have a pretty solid knowledge on the game, and yet you dismiss there ideas completely..just accept the fact that in 'our' world, a lot of the time we are correct in what we say.

Look, some of this stuff makes sense - it's about what, concerning the game, you enjoy - there is no right\wrong.
I can dislike short-balls taking wickets, you can lap it up - there is no right or wrong about that, whatever anyone else might think.
I can dislike Twenty20 because there's not much at stake and I don't enjoy the sort of stuff it encourages.
I can dislike Harmison slogging runs.
And all of this cannot be wrong, or incorrect, or against the spirit of cricket to do so.
I've never said you have no right to enjoy these things. You, meanwhile, have no right to say I cannot dislike them.
WRT to things which can have their right\wrong disputed - well, we'll dispute it. I don't doubt that. And if one person has generalised that pressure has to happen due to slow scoring-rates, they're probably not going to believe anything shows otherwise. If, in someone else's experience, the reverse is true, they're probably going to be equally obstinate.
However, there is never any way to conclusively "prove" anything of this type - all it is ever going to be is the belief of "Richardworld" or "Swervyworld" (whatever your name is). The people whose Worlds overlap are going to concur that the correct one is theirs.
But it's almost certain that those Worlds which don't overlap are going to dispute regularly.

 

[Raj123]

Not wacko at all - the batsman would then be able to predict with 100% certainty where the next ball was coming and set his feet accordingly, thus putting himself in the perfect position to smash Parthan's half-volley through the covers for four.

I mean 'the bowler's half-volley', of course

supreme accuracy ....pathan.....