*Congratulations* Brian Lara 10,000 Test Runs!

[tooextracool]

Make me look like a fool to yourself as many times as you want - I doubt I look like one to too many other people, rather you do for making so many attempts to manufacture stuff that can make me look foolish.

oh really? so now you think that not many other people on here think you are a fool then?
ok mr 'mcgrath and pollock have taken their wickets by luck'

 

[luckyeddie]

oh really? so now you think that not many other people on here think you are a fool then?
ok mr 'mcgrath and pollock have taken their wickets by luck'

I think you'll find that an awful lot of people are getting thoroughly fed up of the seemingly endless one-upmanship, rather than passing judgement over who is the less foolish.

Come on. It's almost happening in every thread

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, it is - how many times do we see people prosecuted for "withholding evidence" (and more significantly, how often do we not find-out and prosecute someone)? Ie not telling something that is significant. Just because it has not been disclosed does not mean it isn't evidence.
In any case, I can show them to you, it's not beyond possibility, but I'd prefer you to keep stating that something which happened didn't. Then if you ever want to find-out, you can find-out for yourself.

so i could also claim that i have video tape 'evidence' of what happened and that it proved that i am right.....so now both of us have 'evidence' against each other then?

Well he certainly didn't in the first 2 Tests in England in 2002, nor at Kingsmead in 2000\01. Can't comment on the others but I don't really see that 2 Tests prove conclusively that someone is incapable of bowling well on a seamer.

oh durban was a seamers pitch that played progressively worse, dilhara fernando got 5/98

No, it just goes to show that the others were very poor, he was even worse.

poor enought to pick up wickets and restrict england for under 300 you mean?

And the cloud-cover (which wasn't all that often present during that series) doesn't influence seam-movement at all, anywhere in The World. Of course it always makes the ball more likely to swing, and if you remembered correctly you'd know that he did swing it on occasions, both conventionally and reverse - he just didn't hit the right areas.

and if he didnt hit the right areas its his inability to use helpful conditions to his favour.....

 

[garage flower]

277 v Aus, 375 v Eng, 152 v Eng, 179 v Eng, 209 v SL, 400* v Eng. Granted WI are poor enough that he's had a few more that have been losing efforts in the end.

Yes, these are all examples of Lara making big scores in drawn games, but I'd dispute the description "flogging huge scores in drawn games", which to me implies that Brian was happy to pile on the runs, taking few risks and under little pressure, thereby devaluing those runs.

Of the innings you've listed, I'd make the following points:

277 v Aus - Lara's strike rate was 74 compared to a match SR of 51, suggesting he was trying to be positive and move the game along (as usual). It was in the first innings and he was dismissed before Windies reached the Aus total.

375 v Eng - Came in under a lot of pressure at 12/2; SR of 70 compared to match SR of 50; approx 8 sessions left to win the game when he was dismissed.

152 v Eng - SR of 84, match SR 47.

179 v Eng - SR of 87 (!) as Windies raced to 692 (Lara was dismissed with score on 390), giving Amby, Walsh and Bishop more than a day to bowl England out.

209 v SL - I'll give you that, though he was facing an in-form Murali (doosra and all).

400* - Agreed to some extent. I thought he should have been more adventurous, particularly after breaking the record, but he still declared with more than half of Day 3 remaining and might have won the match if he hadn't literally thrown away a slip catch off Flintoff.

 

[tooextracool]

It doesn't - I was simply pointing-out that not everything was due to batsman error, but partly due to Umpiring error.".

which actually makes your situation worse, it shows that kumble was fortunate to pick up certain wickets......further proving that england didnt have much trouble against him

England would have scored nowhere near the number they did but for Deep "Drop" Dasgupta, who missed three simple chances in the innings himself. Not to mention the other dropped-catches.

and given that dropped catches ar a part of every game, the same can be said about those too.

Oh, this rubbish again. Ramprakash failed in the second-innings because of the need for quick runs.

because hes too useless to score when quick runs are needed then? if your place is under jeopardy, id say you should be scoring whereve you get the chance, vaughan did that

He didn't fail in the first-innings, just couldn't carry on with a 37 - which, considering his average from the previous few games, wasn't a particularly heinous crime..

what average in the previous games? that was his biggest problem! he couldnt convert those starts into big scores. AFAIS against australia other than the 1 100 he couldnt get a 50 in any other game, that isnt something especially brilliant that he can afford failures after that series. and the 37 is also a heinous crime given what he did after that, if ramprakash had scored a century here, he might have got the opportunity to play in the summer.

The wicket lost a bit of pace, the batting was better - and Giles didn't hit the right areas as much as he did in the first-innings.

what rubbish, giles has almost always been extremely accurate, and he was even in this test match

This is ridiculous.
Your comment was "first you say x, then you say y", now it's "where did you say x or y?"
You state yourself I have said both, now you ask where I have said either.
.

seriously can you read at all? you said that you've said that several times IN THE PAST! i know what you've said in this thread, i'd like to see those 'several times' that youve made those comments in the past...
not that it matters of course because it doesnt prove anything....

And how do I know what I know? By watching where I can, by reading where I cannot watch.

so you only read the match reports of games you dont watch then? and yet when these match reports are brought up to prove you wrong you categorically deny that they can even be right...

Get it down - get it to the ground before reaching a fielder?
Clear enough? Can you make some sense of a straightforward sentance now?

just like every other ball you mean? obviously the chances of an edge carrying to a fielder is small but it happens often enough in a test match.....

So that's why there are so often mistakes in CricInfo and Wisden reports, then.
If it is checked (and it might well be) the mistakes are not noticed. Mistakes in spelling etc. are the likelier things which are picked-up on in proof-reading.

and the fact that they arent wrong in this case means what?

Well, yes, it should have been "anyone who is following who hasn't already decided that I'm wrong".

and i know there are certain people who read your comments before thinking that you are wrong.....

 

[Richard]

And here was me thinking that taking wickets was important...That is the key isnt it???

Just becuase I say by product doesnt mean its not important

So you think that accurate bowling, which ends-up not resulting in slow scoring, will still apparently make the batsmen feel the pressure that causes them to lose their wicket?

 

[Richard]

what the ****ing hell are you talking about?
where have i said that slow scoring causes pressure in tests? common lets see a quote then? stop involving me in an argument that i've actually stayed out of.....

Right, then, let's get things absolutely crystal clear:
What do you believe causes batsmen to feel pressure in First-Class-cricket, limitless-over stuff?

oh it happens quite a bit, it doesnt have to be beaten 4 times in a row though....one over consisting of 2 balls that beat the bat, one edge that goes between the slip/over slip, one ball thats left alone and one ball thats played rather uncomfortably would still cause just about as much pressure on the last ball as being beaten 4 times in a row.....

Yes, it might.
On the other hand, the batsman might forget the previous deliveries and concentrate on the next.

 

[Richard]

and because i've never made any comment of the sort you are just trying to put words on my keyboard.....

If so I apologise, and so we can come back to the question I asked you in the first part of my last post.

 

[Richard]

oh really? so now you think that not many other people on here think you are a fool then?
ok mr 'mcgrath and pollock have taken their wickets by luck'

I don't think many people think I'm a fool, no.
Ask them, though.
From what they've said - directly to me, and just general messages to the masses - I'd say certainly no-one thinks I'm a fool.

 

[Richard]

so i could also claim that i have video tape 'evidence' of what happened and that it proved that i am right.....so now both of us have 'evidence' against each other then?

If you have evidence, good on you.
Funnily, I've never heard you mention any.

oh durban was a seamers pitch that played progressively worse, dilhara fernando got 5/98

I know - he bowled uncharecteristically well, far better than Vaas and Zoysa.
But he did owe most of his wickets to poor strokes.

poor enought to pick up wickets and restrict england for under 300 you mean?

In one innings - in the rest, their substandardness was ruthlessly exposed.

and if he didnt hit the right areas its his inability to use helpful conditions to his favour.....

Yes, but it doesn't mean he's incapable of bowling seam and swing, something you've either claimed or come very close to claiming.

 

[Richard]

which actually makes your situation worse, it shows that kumble was fortunate to pick up certain wickets......further proving that england didnt have much trouble against him

No, but he still bowled plenty of very, very good deliveries - either Jaffas or wicket-taking balls - incidentally, he created more chances than his figures show.

and given that dropped catches ar a part of every game, the same can be said about those too.

Yes, but it does mean that the ease of the pitch cannot be assumed nearly so easily when looking at the scores.

because hes too useless to score when quick runs are needed then? if your place is under jeopardy, id say you should be scoring whereve you get the chance, vaughan did that

Vaughan scored 31* off 64 balls - striking at less than 50.
He played for himself, when there was not much left to play for with the team.
Fortunate for him that he did, too. I'm glad.
Sadly, Ramprakash would have been castigated if he'd scored 53 off 130 balls. In spite of the fact that that innings would have been better remembered in the long-term, once it had faded into almost-obscurity.

what average in the previous games? that was his biggest problem! he couldnt convert those starts into big scores. AFAIS against australia other than the 1 100 he couldnt get a 50 in any other game, that isnt something especially brilliant that he can afford failures after that series. and the 37 is also a heinous crime given what he did after that, if ramprakash had scored a century here, he might have got the opportunity to play in the summer.

He almost certainly would have. Never know, it might even have inspired him to play better than he did in New Zealand.
Nonetheless, he'd done more than enough to keep himself in the side in the previous 5 games.

what rubbish, giles has almost always been extremely accurate, and he was even in this test match

Yes, he was accurate in the sense of keeping the runs down. But too often he bowled too far down leg-side, instead of either attacking leg-stump (as he had for much of the first-innings) or bowling round-the-wicket (which he also did sometimes in the first-innings).

seriously can you read at all? you said that you've said that several times IN THE PAST! i know what you've said in this thread, i'd like to see those 'several times' that youve made those comments in the past...
not that it matters of course because it doesnt prove anything....

It does - Giles didn't bowl as well, the pitch got slower - that's ample reason for India finding batting easier. They also batted better than they had in the first-innings - Dravid not trying to defend balls that were nowhere near the line of the stumps and all.

 

[Richard]

so you only read the match reports of games you dont watch then? and yet when these match reports are brought up to prove you wrong you categorically deny that they can even be right...

I've never contradicted a match-report of a match I didn't see. Because I don't have any evidence to contradict it on.
I do, however, whenever I see a mistake.

just like every other ball you mean? obviously the chances of an edge carrying to a fielder is small but it happens often enough in a test match.....

It's not small - it's about 50:50. Of course, batsmen can do things that lower the chances of some balls carrying; equally, they can do nothing about others.

and the fact that they arent wrong in this case means what?

It might mean something - if they were in fact not wrong.
Sadly, they are wrong.

and i know there are certain people who read your comments before thinking that you are wrong.....

Yes, there are. Full credit to those.
Some, however, have got so bored with our 20-quote posts that they've stopped taking any notice of them.

 

[marc71178]

No, as a spectator.

Which tells you nothing about the onfield activities and nuances.

I've watched lots of films, does that mean I know more about acting than eg Russell Crowe?

 

[marc71178]

Oh, this rubbish again. Ramprakash failed in the second-innings because of the need for quick runs. He didn't fail in the first-innings, just couldn't carry on with a 37 - which, considering his average from the previous few gams, wasn't a particularly heinous crime.

Especially as it was almost his career best.

 

[marc71178]

So you think that accurate bowling, which ends-up not resulting in slow scoring, will still apparently make the batsmen feel the pressure that causes them to lose their wicket?

Even though you claim that accurate bowling is hard to score off?

 

[Richard]

Which tells you nothing about the onfield activities and nuances.

I've watched lots of films, does that mean I know more about acting than eg Russell Crowe?

It might do - it doesn't neccesarily mean you're better at doing it, but there's no reason why you can't learn everything there is to know about acting by watching those good at it.
Like many things, acting is as much about natural gift and skill as it is about learning the things you can learn.

 

[Richard]

Even though you claim that accurate bowling is hard to score off?

It is - almost invariably.
Like most things, though, this trend has it's anomalies and there has been the odd innings (like Gayle's innings at Kingsmead or wherever it was, and Kluesner's 174 at Port Elizabeth in 1999\2000) which has involved repeatedly hitting what would normally be perfectly decent deliveries to the boundary.

 

[Richard]

Especially as it was almost his career best.

Yes, of course, 37 bears so much resemblence to 154 doesn't it? Mathematical genius amongst us here.









(BTW, in case anyone wonders, I DID pick the sarcasm)

 

[tooextracool]

Right, then, let's get things absolutely crystal clear:
What do you believe causes batsmen to feel pressure in First-Class-cricket, limitless-over stuff?

pressure is caused by bowling every ball at the right places at the right pace, the places can often shift depending on weaknesses etc.....

Yes, it might.
On the other hand, the batsman might forget the previous deliveries and concentrate on the next.

and that rarely ever happens, the batsman might still end up getting a big score, but anyone who watches that innings would see that he looked extremely jittery during and a short while after that period. the bowler deserves as much credit for getting his wicket later, even if it wasnt a wicket taking ball, for having frustrated him with good bowling.....

 

[tooextracool]

I don't think many people think I'm a fool, no.
Ask them, though.
From what they've said - directly to me, and just general messages to the masses - I'd say certainly no-one thinks I'm a fool.

if you say so

If you have evidence, good on you.
Funnily, I've never heard you mention any..

except that whether or not i have evidence doesnt get this argument anywhere, because neither of us can prove it.

I know - he bowled uncharecteristically well, far better than Vaas and Zoysa.
But he did owe most of his wickets to poor strokes...

nope he owed it to the wicket, that actually offered something for the bowlers....and as the argument has been made before, just because some of his wickets werent from wicket-taking deliveries, it doesnt make him not deserve those wickets.

In one innings - in the rest, their substandardness was ruthlessly exposed..

and strangely enough that was the inning which had cloud cover for most of it.....

Yes, but it doesn't mean he's incapable of bowling seam and swing, something you've either claimed or come very close to claiming.

never said anything of the sort, if he cant use those conditions though he cant be considered to be anywhere near as good as you make him out to be.