*Congratulations* Brian Lara 10,000 Test Runs!

[Swervy]

Yes, but he did come from a height that few if any have ever come from.

all i am saying is that there have been many successful yorkers which havent moved.

Another example would be some of the ones Jeff Thomson used to bowl..he didnt rely on movement and he wasnt a particularly tall man.

 

[marc71178]

No, it couldn't, because good batsmen don't lose balls because they're too quick for them.

So there we have it, Lara isn't a good batsman.

He tried to get out of the way of that ball, but it was too good for him and he edged it to slip.

 

[Richard]

all i am saying is that there have been many successful yorkers which havent moved.

Another example would be some of the ones Jeff Thomson used to bowl..he didnt rely on movement and he wasnt a particularly tall man.

Jeff Thomson didn't rely on movement?
Given that I would guess you've actually seen him bowl I'm surprised you'd make that misfounded ascertation. I've heard plenty who didn't see him bowl say that, but it's most untrue.
The Thomson outswinging-Yorker was quite a ball! Especially given that it was probably bowled at about 95mph on occasions.

 

[Richard]

So there we have it, Lara isn't a good batsman.

He tried to get out of the way of that ball, but it was too good for him and he edged it to slip.

No, not at all - he lost sight of it for a split second, and that made all the difference.
Losing sight of the ball doesn't make someone into "not a good batsman".

 

[Swervy]

Jeff Thomson didn't rely on movement?
Given that I would guess you've actually seen him bowl I'm surprised you'd make that misfounded ascertation. I've heard plenty who didn't see him bowl say that, but it's most untrue.
The Thomson outswinging-Yorker was quite a ball! Especially given that it was probably bowled at about 95mph on occasions.

mmm...well he is also famous for his toe crushing yorker delivered from wide of the crease straight in towards the stumps with no movement at all...he didnt need movement in the mid 70's,he was too quick for most batsmen.

95mph on occasions!!!! Pretty much all the time I would have thought

 

[marc71178]

No, not at all - he lost sight of it for a split second, and that made all the difference.

Oh no, it was a real ripper of a ball, and he couldn't get out of the way of it, hence it hitting his bat.

That ball was similar to what Flintoff has shown he can bowl.

 

[Richard]

mmm...well he is also famous for his toe crushing yorker delivered from wide of the crease straight in towards the stumps with no movement at all...he didnt need movement in the mid 70's,he was too quick for most batsmen.

95mph on occasions!!!! Pretty much all the time I would have thought

Pretty much all the time?
I hardly think that's likely.
That would make him about 4 or 5 mph quicker on average than Shoaib, who only bowls 95 on occasions.
And how many times do I have to say a bowler who is too quick for a good batsman is just about non-existant?
A very, very occasional ball will see a good batsman beaten for pace (the only time I've ever seen it was Gilchrist bowled by Shoaib at Sophia Gardens, NWS2001).
If he was so good, why then did he only end-up with the mediocre average of 28, rather than 25-6?
Thomson wasn't especially good, and David Steele hammering him all over Headingley in 1975 (though I'd guess you never saw that) must have been one of the best sights in the history of English cricket.

 

[Swervy]

Pretty much all the time?
I hardly think that's likely.
That would make him about 4 or 5 mph quicker on average than Shoaib, who only bowls 95 on occasions.
And how many times do I have to say a bowler who is too quick for a good batsman is just about non-existant?
A very, very occasional ball will see a good batsman beaten for pace (the only time I've ever seen it was Gilchrist bowled by Shoaib at Sophia Gardens, NWS2001).
If he was so good, why then did he only end-up with the mediocre average of 28, rather than 25-6?
Thomson wasn't especially good, and David Steele hammering him all over Headingley in 1975 (though I'd guess you never saw that) must have been one of the best sights in the history of English cricket.

well there are people who have the opinion that Thommo was faster than Shoaib.

I think you need to watch the game more closely, batsmen are relatively (relative to very very occasionally anyway) often beaten for pace and pace alone, although obviously it helps if you do stuff with the ball as well

Why did Thomson average 28....well...Thomson was like Tyson in the 50's, of such express pace with a demanding action that the peak performances were only going to last a fairly short period. 1974 to 1976 inclusive were Thommo's times..and on the bouncier faster wickets of Australia he was by many accounts a very scary bowler to face..and he used that batsmans fear to his advantage, sometimes hamming it up with comments like wanting to see blood on the pitch etc. In England he wasnt as successful because in England you need more tools than just pure speed (a reason for Lillee's successes in this country).

Thomson injured his shoulder later on and he never was the bowler he once was..although even in 85 in England he could bowl at a fair pace (probably consistantly 85mph mabe reaching 90mph sometimes) but he didnt have the same blasting ability although he certainly could move the ball a bit later in his career, because he had to learn those skills after injury (much like Lillee did in the early 70's..which actually made Lillee a better bowler)

 

[Swervy]

If he was so good, why then did he only end-up with the mediocre average of 28, rather than 25-6?
Thomson wasn't especially good, and David Steele hammering him all over Headingley in 1975 (though I'd guess you never saw that) must have been one of the best sights in the history of English cricket.

Richard..why does everything have to boil down to a number to sum up the effect of a bowler.

hahaha...yeah I am sure it was great stuff to watch, the stuff that great test matches are made of...however I dont really think in retrospect Thomson would be TOO ashamed of figures of 22-8-53-2 and 20-6-67-1 andwhether Steele really went so beserk as you seem to make out (73 in 169 balls with 8 fours and 92 in 222 balls with 7 fours and a six...i know these highlght videos can make a batsman look like Superman)

 

[Richard]

Honestly, d'you think I haven't checked the scorecard?
Yes, I know he didn't "hammer him around the park" the way traditional thinking would have it.
Remember, of course, that scoring-rates were generally slower in the '70s.
But the main thing is he played shots that people were rarely able to play against Thomson, and made him go for a few in the second-innings especially. Even if he didn't go so much at the others, and ended-up striking at only 41.44.

 

[Richard]

Richard..why does everything have to boil down to a number to sum up the effect of a bowler.

Because how many times does it have to be said that there has been no good bowler without a good average.

 

[Richard]

well there are people who have the opinion that Thommo was faster than Shoaib.

And we'll never know totally for certain because the only technology used to time him was very primative compared to that used today.
However, if both were accurate to the same degree they were almost exactly the same.

I think you need to watch the game more closely, batsmen are relatively (relative to very very occasionally anyway) often beaten for pace and pace alone, although obviously it helps if you do stuff with the ball as well

So why are batsmen bowled or lbw, beaten purely for pace, almost never, then?

Why did Thomson average 28....well...Thomson was like Tyson in the 50's, of such express pace with a demanding action that the peak performances were only going to last a fairly short period. 1974 to 1976 inclusive were Thommo's times..and on the bouncier faster wickets of Australia he was by many accounts a very scary bowler to face..and he used that batsmans fear to his advantage, sometimes hamming it up with comments like wanting to see blood on the pitch etc. In England he wasnt as successful because in England you need more tools than just pure speed (a reason for Lillee's successes in this country).

So that's why Tyson averaged an astonishing 18.something, then?
Yes, true: Thomson between 1973 and 1977 averaged 23 at home (27.4 away).
But to compare Thomson to Tyson is an insult to Tyson, he was nowhere near as good.
Thomson also averaged 19 in Australia against England in 1982\83.
If he was scary that's probably because protective equipment wasn't good enough in those days.

Thomson injured his shoulder later on and he never was the bowler he once was..although even in 85 in England he could bowl at a fair pace (probably consistantly 85mph mabe reaching 90mph sometimes) but he didnt have the same blasting ability although he certainly could move the ball a bit later in his career, because he had to learn those skills after injury (much like Lillee did in the early 70's..which actually made Lillee a better bowler)

Lillee was a swing-bowler in 1972, I can assure you of that. Not so sure about Thomson in 1972\73 (when Pakistan hammered him all over the park).

 

[Swervy]

Ok Richard you win

 

[Richard]

So you're conceding defeat because you're bored?

 

[luckyeddie]

So you're conceding defeat because you're bored?

No stamina, Richard.

 

[Richard]

And they all try to tell me mental stamina is the most important part of the game... and one by one they all admit I've got more of it than them.
Well, except tooextracool, though thankfully he's disappeared of late.

 

[Swervy]

And they all try to tell me mental stamina is the most important part of the game... and one by one they all admit I've got more of it than them.
Well, except tooextracool, though thankfully he's disappeared of late.

oh i will be back..i am suffering from the flu atthe moment, so my patience for stubborn know it alls is low ...when I feel like it, I might continue with this, futile as it may be...but I do enjoy seeing what other BS you may come out with...now wheres the Lemslip

 

[Richard]

Well, when you've recovered I'll be interested to know which part of the most recent post was bull.

 

[tooextracool]

And they all try to tell me mental stamina is the most important part of the game... and one by one they all admit I've got more of it than them.
Well, except tooextracool, though thankfully he's disappeared of late.

and im back(in limited capacity though), so you can expect someone to prove your baseless arguments wrong once again.

 

[Richard]

Yes, and of course you've always managed that so magnificently well, haven't you?
Maybe you might have if things had happened the way you said they had, but sadly for you, they didn't. And no amount of straw-polls will change that.