*Congratulations* Brian Lara 10,000 Test Runs!

[tooextracool]

No, you're not - you can't lie if you don't know the truth.
And there are times, quite a few of them, where you clearly don't know the truth.

oh i know the truth very well indeed, i just dont modify it to suit myself.

No, it's not. It is not a case of any chance, it is a case of certainty - you are wrong and I am right.
It is not in the least unusual for correspondants to credit bowlers for something they have not done.
That is exactly what happened in the case of Zoysa's ball to Trescothick.
You tried to use that to say there were seaming conditions Vaas should have exploited and didn't.

and i remember quite distinctly that there was conditions for the bowlers to use to good effect....and as usual vaas failed in them. its nothing new.

No, I'm not. The Motera wicket turned throughout the match.

and it did turn, except that it was slow turn.....if it was indeed half as much a turner as you describe it then there should have been a result....except there wasnt and india instead survived 100 overs.

And have you thought of this, genius?
It is very common for cricket followers, of repute and not, to label a pitch "flat" because lots of runs have been scored on it. It is far less common for people to do what Mark Butcher did earlier this season and say "in the last few years we've seen some terrible wickets here at Headingley that have had enormous amounts of runs scored on them".
People judge wickets on the scorecards far more often than they judge them on watching closely. Partly because, obviously, so few actually watch closely and just use things that jump out.

rubbish, i watched the perth match extremely closely, there was no turn whatsoever....and i can twist that comment around too, that you seem to label a pitch as a 'turner' depending on how well a finger spinner does on it....which is just plain stupid.

Well, let's see some examples of this, then?
I refer you to this:

The fact is, I doubt many people are really taking much notice of our long-winded drawn-outs.

and in how many threads have we seen marc, swervy and son of coco argue against your opinions instead of mine?

 

[Richard]

if you're waiting for me to give up.....then you better lie down.

Well so far I've not yet given-up - your disappearance meant I had the last word on all threads so far.

 

[Richard]

oh i know the truth very well indeed, i just dont modify it to suit myself.

You can't modify the truth - you do, however, make a reasonable effort to, such as the case of Ealham's bowling in ODIs.

and i remember quite distinctly that there was conditions for the bowlers to use to good effect....and as usual vaas failed in them. its nothing new.

And as usual you remember wrong.
Vaas, of course, can exploit any conditions and so whenever he fails to get good figures he has failed to exploit the conditions.
But for all other bowlers in that match there were no conditions they were capable of exploiting. There was no seam, and no fingerspin-turn. Swing, too, was precious rare, while not non-existant.

and it did turn, except that it was slow turn.....if it was indeed half as much a turner as you describe it then there should have been a result....except there wasnt and india instead survived 100 overs.

Well half the time you've said it was a slow turner, half the time you've said it didn't turn and was "dead". Make your mind up.
Of course it got easier as the last day progressed, and Giles didn't bowl anywhere near as well as in the first-innings.
Otherwise England might well have won.

rubbish, i watched the perth match extremely closely, there was no turn whatsoever....and i can twist that comment around too, that you seem to label a pitch as a 'turner' depending on how well a finger spinner does on it....which is just plain stupid.

No, I don't, but it is a fairly safe guess that any pitch on which a fingerspinner achieves good figures is turning quite a bit.
So the WACA pitch now offered "no turn whatsoever"? Including, then, the ball that dismissed Gilchrist, which turned almost 45 degrees?
And no, that wasn't the only one, demonstrating yet again that your idea of "watching closely" is rather different to the conventional one.

and in how many threads have we seen marc, swervy and son of coco argue against your opinions instead of mine?

Not many for SOC, he's only been here 5 minutes, I've argued with him on 2 or 3 threads, all of them on exactly the same topic.
Most of my arguments with marc, however many threads they streatch over, involve the same two things - the merits or otherwise of first-chance scores, and whether or not good batsmen feel pressure in the First-Class game due to a slow scoring-rate. Swervy and me tend to argue about the same things, and also recently we've had whether or not playing the game to the highest level enables you to judge the game better - or not.
Of course, you've found it neccessary to get involved in the lot of them.

 

[Swervy]

Well so far I've not yet given-up - your disappearance meant I had the last word on all threads so far.

of course last word doesnt mean the right word

 

[Richard]

I doubt whether anyone gives much of a toss whether me or tooextracool is right, so all that remains is for me to "win" the argument by him not replying.

 

[luckyeddie]

I doubt whether anyone gives much of a toss whether me or tooextracool is right, so all that remains is for me to "win" the argument by him not replying.

That is the truest (if such a thing exists) statement you have made today.

I know exactly how you feel too.

 

[Richard]

Why, thank-you.

 

[tooextracool]

Well so far I've not yet given-up - your disappearance meant I had the last word on all threads so far.

except that last words dont mean anything at all.....i could still go back to all those threads and reply to them, but i really dont have the time to do so and im not really motivated to either because those threads all reached a standstill, we just kept repeating the same thing over and over again. you couldnt make me see otherwise and i could make you see my side either. just because you said the same thing for the 101st time while i said my same thing 100 times it doesnt mean that you win the argument. and quite frankly i think ive done a pretty good job in proving you wrong in most of those threads.

 

[tooextracool]

You can't modify the truth - you do, however, make a reasonable effort to, such as the case of Ealham's bowling in ODIs.

and you have come up with such amazing evidence in proving me wrong about that havent you?

And as usual you remember wrong.
Vaas, of course, can exploit any conditions and so whenever he fails to get good figures he has failed to exploit the conditions.
But for all other bowlers in that match there were no conditions they were capable of exploiting. There was no seam, and no fingerspin-turn. Swing, too, was precious rare, while not non-existant.

yet other apparently useless bowlers managed to get more wickets and get the ball to move off the seam then. the key here is that 'vaas can exploit any conditions', the fact that he hasnt suggests that he cant be rated half as highly.

Well half the time you've said it was a slow turner, half the time you've said it didn't turn and was "dead". Make your mind up.

except that if you could actually read ive clearly stated that a slow turner is a dead wicket, because quality batsman will not be troubled by slow turn.

Of course it got easier as the last day progressed, and Giles didn't bowl anywhere near as well as in the first-innings.
Otherwise England might well have won.

oh so now it got easier eh?total rubbish. first you say that it was a total turner, now you say that it got easier. ive never seen a wicket that offered significant turn and bounce early on in a test match and then stopped turning and made life a lot easier for the batsman.
and giles bowled just as well as he did in the first innings...except that the indian batsman applied themselved a lot better and didnt fall for any of hussains traps.

No, I don't, but it is a fairly safe guess that any pitch on which a fingerspinner achieves good figures is turning quite a bit.

which is just another one of your assumptions,without actually watching any cricket.

So the WACA pitch now offered "no turn whatsoever"? Including, then, the ball that dismissed Gilchrist, which turned almost 45 degrees?
And no, that wasn't the only one, demonstrating yet again that your idea of "watching closely" is rather different to the conventional one.

rubbish there was no such delivery that turned 45 degrees.....are you continuing to make up things that didnt happen?
and no the wicket didnt offer anything for the spinners, of course the fact that any spinner can turn the ball marginally on any surface cannot be ignored. the wicket wasnt a turner, i can bet absolutely everything on it.

Not many for SOC, he's only been here 5 minutes, I've argued with him on 2 or 3 threads, all of them on exactly the same topic.
Most of my arguments with marc, however many threads they streatch over, involve the same two things - the merits or otherwise of first-chance scores, and whether or not good batsmen feel pressure in the First-Class game due to a slow scoring-rate. Swervy and me tend to argue about the same things, and also recently we've had whether or not playing the game to the highest level enables you to judge the game better - or not.
Of course, you've found it neccessary to get involved in the lot of them.

point being? so now they just argue with you occasionally then? so occasionally that they should be dismissed as anomalies too?
first you say that " you are wrong and its obvious to anyone thats even bothering to follow", then to argue the fact that those who are actually following are arguing with you instead of me you say that they are only doing so occasionally. brilliant that.....go on twisting your statments in every direction.

 

[Linda]

Er. Congratulations to Mr. Lara

 

[lord_of_darkness]

tehehehe... .. you woulda thought this was something else if it wasnt for the topic

 

[tooextracool]

and all threads that go on for 19 pages tend to evolve, indeed if there was such a thread that didnt then it would be closed for repitition.

 

[luckyeddie]

Evolve - or mutate?

 

[Richard]

except that last words dont mean anything at all.....i could still go back to all those threads and reply to them, but i really dont have the time to do so and im not really motivated to either because those threads all reached a standstill, we just kept repeating the same thing over and over again. you couldnt make me see otherwise and i could make you see my side either. just because you said the same thing for the 101st time while i said my same thing 100 times it doesnt mean that you win the argument. and quite frankly i think ive done a pretty good job in proving you wrong in most of those threads.

And I think I've done a pretty good job of proving you wrong, too.
Almost every thread reaches the same conclusion, so if you can't be bothered on some, why you're bothered on others I don't really know.

 

[Richard]

and you have come up with such amazing evidence in proving me wrong about that havent you?

Yes, I have, but I haven't shown it here, for reasons I've mentioned several times.

yet other apparently useless bowlers managed to get more wickets and get the ball to move off the seam then. the key here is that 'vaas can exploit any conditions', the fact that he hasnt suggests that he cant be rated half as highly.

Oh, yes, he has - he has simply exploited seamers far less often in Test-matches.
And no-one got the ball to move off the seam that Lord's match, I can assure you - yes, some got them to move down the slope (though not the Zoysa-Trescothick-wicket ball) but that pitch did not allow seam-movement.

except that if you could actually read ive clearly stated that a slow turner is a dead wicket, because quality batsman will not be troubled by slow turn.

Oh, yes, they will - if the bowling is good, and especially quick, enough - that's why Kumble was so effective in the first-innings. If you can use a few quicker-balls, bowl with that bit of topspin, and still spin the ball, you'll cause trouble for any good batsman.

oh so now it got easier eh?total rubbish. first you say that it was a total turner, now you say that it got easier. ive never seen a wicket that offered significant turn and bounce early on in a test match and then stopped turning and made life a lot easier for the batsman.

Oh, it didn't turn any less, it just got slower - and if you've never seen a wicket that got slower, you've not watched much cricket.

and giles bowled just as well as he did in the first innings...except that the indian batsman applied themselved a lot better and didnt fall for any of hussains traps.

Yes, they did - and Giles didn't bowl as well.

which is just another one of your assumptions,without actually watching any cricket.

No, with watching a lot of cricket, and reading a lot of match-reports.

rubbish there was no such delivery that turned 45 degrees.....are you continuing to make up things that didnt happen?
and no the wicket didnt offer anything for the spinners, of course the fact that any spinner can turn the ball marginally on any surface cannot be ignored. the wicket wasnt a turner, i can bet absolutely everything on it.

Good, good - you'd lose everything, then. It's like the sun going down on you, as Elton would say.
Of course any spinner can turn the ball marginally on any surface, but a deviation of a couple of inches isn't remotely threatening. However, here both Warne and Vettori were turning it appreciably, and threateningly. Warne, however, didn't get his line and length right - Vettori, in the first-innings, did.
And I'm making-up nothing with regards the Gilchrist ball - rather yet another example of how poor and selective your memory is.

point being? so now they just argue with you occasionally then? so occasionally that they should be dismissed as anomalies too?
first you say that " you are wrong and its obvious to anyone thats even bothering to follow", then to argue the fact that those who are actually following are arguing with you instead of me you say that they are only doing so occasionally. brilliant that.....go on twisting your statments in every direction.

Most of these supposed twists come from the fact that you've repeatedly misinterpreted my words - quite possibly deliberately - to attempt to manufacture my saying things I've never said, and help your accusations of hypocrisy.
In this instance, yes, it is true that marc and SOC agree with you on the subject of pressure - all three of you, as far as I'm concerned, have got it wrong. However, there's not been one other case of the three of you arguing against me.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yes, I have, but I haven't shown it here, for reasons I've mentioned several times.

Oh, yes, he has - he has simply exploited seamers far less often in Test-matches.
And no-one got the ball to move off the seam that Lord's match, I can assure you - yes, some got them to move down the slope (though not the Zoysa-Trescothick-wicket ball) but that pitch did not allow seam-movement.

Oh, yes, they will - if the bowling is good, and especially quick, enough - that's why Kumble was so effective in the first-innings. If you can use a few quicker-balls, bowl with that bit of topspin, and still spin the ball, you'll cause trouble for any good batsman.

Oh, it didn't turn any less, it just got slower - and if you've never seen a wicket that got slower, you've not watched much cricket.

Yes, they did - and Giles didn't bowl as well.

No, with watching a lot of cricket, and reading a lot of match-reports.

Good, good - you'd lose everything, then. It's like the sun going down on you, as Elton would say.
Of course any spinner can turn the ball marginally on any surface, but a deviation of a couple of inches isn't remotely threatening. However, here both Warne and Vettori were turning it appreciably, and threateningly. Warne, however, didn't get his line and length right - Vettori, in the first-innings, did.
And I'm making-up nothing with regards the Gilchrist ball - rather yet another example of how poor and selective your memory is.

Most of these supposed twists come from the fact that you've repeatedly misinterpreted my words - quite possibly deliberately - to attempt to manufacture my saying things I've never said, and help your accusations of hypocrisy.
In this instance, yes, it is true that marc and SOC agree with you on the subject of pressure - all three of you, as far as I'm concerned, have got it wrong. However, there's not been one other case of the three of you arguing against me.

That should be all three of us and pretty much anyone that's ever played the game at a high level, has got it wrong in your opinion.

 

[Richard]

Yes, that's about right.
Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but I don't form my opinions on exclusively what everyone around me is saying, I use my own initiative where possible.
And in this case my initiative tells me that everyone who thinks batsmen feel under pressure due to a slow scoring-rate in the First-Class-game almost invariably are wrong.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes, that's about right.
Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but I don't form my opinions on exclusively what everyone around me is saying, I use my own initiative where possible.
And in this case my initiative tells me that everyone who thinks batsmen feel under pressure due to a slow scoring-rate in the First-Class-game almost invariably are wrong.

Ans seeing as the ones who actually say that there IS pressure are first-class or international cricketers, it is not just arrogant but incredibly naive.

 

[marc71178]

Meh, what would they know about it?

They've only played the game.

Far better to be watching on TV - that really tells you a lot about the thought processes of the players.

 

[tooextracool]

And I think I've done a pretty good job of proving you wrong, too.
Almost every thread reaches the same conclusion, so if you can't be bothered on some, why you're bothered on others I don't really know.

because i dont think any of the current threads have reached a dead end yet.....normally i would go back and argue everything but quite frankly that would take a long long time to do so and i really dont have that kind of time at the moment.