*Congratulations* Brian Lara 10,000 Test Runs!

[Richard]

yet when bowlers like mcgrath do the same they dont deserve their wickets and you call them lucky.....

Maybe because they don't do the same - they take 4 wickets with 0 good balls.

and kumble didnt look anywhere near threatening in that match, if he did, it would have taken far less than 51 overs and a score far less than what england eventually got.

England's score and overs-faced would have been lower but for Dasgupta missing at least 2 simple chances.
These things don't mean anything - get that into your head and stop bringing them up.

yes thats either when you're not bowling well or when the wicket is flat.....obviously if they batted so long against him and that he didnt deserve about half his wickets he wasnt threatening......

Except they wouldn't have batted so long and he'd have taken wickets quicker if Dasgupta hadn't missed chances.

rubbish, it takes poor batting for a bowler to exploit slow turn, if they were so good then they would have exploited it by taking wickets with wicket taking balls then, when in fact they didnt.

Oh, yes, they did.

and because it happens almost every game then every game is misleading

Every game, how ridiculous is that? Missed chances off good balls are pretty rare. And certainly they are rare on pitches like that.

2 things....
1)that SR is far worse than vaughans...he certainly would have been credited if he had scored 51 off 100 balls.
2)had he scored 51 not out he might have saved his career, only a jackass would go after the bowling when hes struggling to score runs, for a place in the side and when wickets are falling at the other end.

Except his place wasn't under immidiate threat then, but he would have been widely castigated had he played a similar innings to Vaughan.

which if you could read is not the issue in the first place.....the issue was that giles bowled negatively for most of the first innings too.....just like he did in the 2nd innings.

And he might have bowled over-the-wicket a lot, but he was far more negative in the second-innings than in the first.

OMG are you accusing me of not watching?
did you not see kumbles wicket?the ball turned and bounced significantly because it landed in the rough in the first place!!

Yes, I am. The ball turned because the pitch was turning a lot. It also drifted and looped, making it totally realistically impossible to play.

do you have a point here? or are you trying to contradict yourself?

Yep, and nope - it was a perfectly good, wicket-taking, ball.

 

[Richard]

rubbish we see edges between slip,over slip,through gully etc far more often than we see them go to the hands of the fielders.

Yes, we will - that's why a third-man is such an essential position, especially against the new-ball.
We see it more often, but not far more often.

yes we've seen it several times, times that you call lucky wickets....
and swinging balls are far easier to keep down thats why people say play with soft hands....

Not just to combat swinging balls, to combat any ball that moves away, off the pitch or in the air.
I do call spooned catches lucky, yes - because far, far, far more often than they'll occur off those sorts of balls, they'll not.

and just because youve watched it more times, it doesnt mean that you cant be wrong.....ive watched it enough times to make my opinion about it, watching it a million times more wouldnt make a difference

If you watched it a long time ago, and I watched it many times, including recently, it is very easy to misrecall it.
I do it sometimes, too.
However, when I'm watching it regularly (and now, of course, every time I watch it I look harder and harder for any deviation - and repeatedly see none) that's not going to happen.

 

[Richard]

yes i would, you wouldnt though....

Oho, yes I would.

how many times do i have to say it? ER doesnt bare any relation to how accurate or how well a bowler bowls in a test match! and he could quite easily have had 2-3 good spells where he deserved a shedload of wickets and then had a few poor ones.

Except he didn't - he was crap full-stop.
If you've been expensive in a Test-match, the chances of you having not bowled waywardly are very, very slim indeed. Believe me, Fernando, Zoysa, Perera or whoever we're talking about here were all very wayward in that Test-match.

the sun came out sometime after stewart got out yes? stewart got out on over 58, and england only batted 73 overs.....where do you come up with such b/s?

I don't need to come-up with it - I don't control the weather, it just does what it does.

and if he hasnt been performing on seamer friendly conditions that is what we must assume.....thats like saying just because someone like james kirtley has failed in his international career so far, it doesnt mean that he cant bowl....

No, we must assume that more often than not his poor performances have come when conditions have suited seam. The fact that he has expoited them on occasion shows quite clearly that he can - he has failed an equal number of times on pitches that suit cut\spin. He just tends to bowl in seam-friendly conditions far less often cut\spin-friendly ones.

and his past record suggests that he probably would have.....not like speculating what you believe is going to prove something.....

No, it's not - we can only guess.

 

[Richard]

OMG how many times do you keep bringing up the same old rubbish?
yes i know that there have been times where batsman have gone on to score despite struggling....and take a look smart ass at how many times they've failed, its far more often that they've failed.....

Look, you are not going to accept that in my experience they come through more often than they are affected by it, I am not going to accept otherwise. Inevitably, though, that's always going to cause problems.

and now you continue to put words on my keyboard.....no pressure is not slow scoring rates, its frustrating the batsman by putting the balls in the right places. of course if you could stop the scoring rate against someone like sehwag or gilchrist then you'd obviously be putting them under pressure, indeed if you had watched any amount of the lords test vs new zealand you would have seen that fleming got out due to the slow scoring rate....the ball that jones bowled to get him out was ordinary.....but the bowling prior to that was brilliant.
and no on that occasion in SA the bowlers where not putting the balls in the right places....

Yes, they were.
You seem to be stating both sides of the argument here - Fleming got out due to the slow scoring-rate, but you've many times said it's not the slow scoring-rate, it's putting the ball in the right place.
In my perception, anyway, the ball wasn't being aimed very well, Fleming's poor stroke was more due to his frustration at himself for being unable to hit the bad balls through, he kept finding the fielders.

and if they can be wrong then so can you, however its extremely unlikely that 2 of them can be wrong.....

It's not extremely unlikely at all.

yes but his eye is ordinary as is his technique, in fact he carries a flaw in his technique.

Well, no, actually he carries two flaws in his attacking shots - he goes after balls a long way outside off with a flailing bat instead of a supple one, and he plays the pull-shot uppish instead of down. However, both of these flaws affect him only sometimes - sometimes they don't affect him.

nope there are different amounts of temperament, indeed someone like steve waugh or hussain had a much better temperament than someone like tendulkar does....but then would you say that tendulkar doesnt have a temperament?

I'd say Tendulkar's temperament is every bit as good as Hussain's and Stephen Waugh's - otherwise it would constantly get to him that there were however many million Indians upon whose hopes and dreams his achievements lay.

yes which is the point im making, to be under pressure you are usually outbowled, therefore anyone who gets a wicket from a poor shot must receive credit for outbowling the batsman in the first place.

IMO they deserve credit only if they've outbowled the batsman with that particular ball.

yet they've gotten out extremely often, you've just put it down to luck on most occasions.

I have put it down to luck because, in my perception, they have gotten out very infrequently.
You're not going to change my mind on this and I'm not going to change yours, because every time a wicket falls to a short-ball, you can say "look, there's another example", when it is far harder for me to say "look, there's x number of examples", because no-one takes down the exact number of short-balls in a certain time.

 

[tooextracool]

Maybe because they don't do the same - they take 4 wickets with 0 good balls..

0 wicket taking balls you mean(even though they actually do take 1-2 wickets with wicket taking balls)? which is precisely the same thing that kumble did.

England's score and overs-faced would have been lower but for Dasgupta missing at least 2 simple chances.
These things don't mean anything - get that into your head and stop bringing them up.
Except they wouldn't have batted so long and he'd have taken wickets quicker if Dasgupta hadn't missed chances.

and kumble got 2 lucky wickets that shouldnt have happened in the first place, it all evens out.

Oh, yes, they did.

no they didnt, it was fairly evident, on a slow wicket there are only so many balls that do something uncharacteristic, but on the whole the wicket doesnt do much at all.

Every game, how ridiculous is that? Missed chances off good balls are pretty rare. And certainly they are rare on pitches like that.

no they are not, we see dropped catches every game, equally we see poor umpiring decisions etc every game too. if the bowler is good enough, he'll go back to his crease and get him out again anyways, its interesting how you say that its 'rare on pitches like that', the same wicket that you called a complete turner you mean?

Except his place wasn't under immidiate threat then, but he would have been widely castigated had he played a similar innings to Vaughan.

and how many times do i have to say that it would not? one must remember that even vaughan then wasnt a certainity in the side so if his career didnt come under any threat after that innings neither would ramprakash's.

And he might have bowled over-the-wicket a lot, but he was far more negative in the second-innings than in the first.

no he was not as ive shown already, he did exactly the same thing that he did in the first innings, except it worked on that occasion assisted by some poor batting. certainly explains why all the wickets came from around rather than over too.

Yes, I am. The ball turned because the pitch was turning a lot. It also drifted and looped, making it totally realistically impossible to play.

rubbish you clearly didnt watch the game did you? the reason why giles bowled around was to exploit the rough outside the leg stump. the ball that got kumble turned and bounced,something that the rest of the pitch didnt offer.
a quote from cricinfo might help - "Ashley Giles produced a gem of a delivery to dismiss Anil Kumble, who was bowled off stump as the ball turned out of the rough around middle and leg."
heres more mention of the rough- "Bearing in mind that it appeared in India's favour to slow things down, it seemed that Kumble erred when he elected to go round the wicket to the right handers. While there was a chance of unpredictable bounce out of the rough, but the change of angle lifted the pressure on the batsmen who got the scoreboard moving again"
i think that says enough.

Yep, and nope - it was a perfectly good, wicket-taking, ball.

it pitched in the rought outside the leg stump and turned and bounced, and all DDG had to do was not sweep it,given that there was a fielder positioned for him just for that shot.

 

[tooextracool]

Look, you are not going to accept that in my experience they come through more often than they are affected by it, I am not going to accept otherwise. Inevitably, though, that's always going to cause problems.

personally i think that even you know that you are wrong here and are just being stubborn about it. you certainly havent been able to come up with a logical explanation as to why mcgrath and others have managed to pick up so many wickets. you need to analyse all the wickets that have fallen even over the last year, and see how many of them have come after a good spell of bowling.

Yes, they were.
You seem to be stating both sides of the argument here - Fleming got out due to the slow scoring-rate, but you've many times said it's not the slow scoring-rate, it's putting the ball in the right place.
In my perception, anyway, the ball wasn't being aimed very well, Fleming's poor stroke was more due to his frustration at himself for being unable to hit the bad balls through, he kept finding the fielders.

then you need to read properly, every batsman gets frustrated when bowlers bowl balls in the right places, however some players, especially those who are agressive often tend to frustrate themselves once the scoring rate goes down. someone like richardson wouldnt care about scoring rate though, but he would if bowlers bowled in the right places.
of course if you had actually watched that first test you would have seen that both flintoff and jones bowled in the right places and were unlucky to not pick up any wickets, so the pressure was caused there by good bowling as well as slowing down the scoring.

It's not extremely unlikely at all.

yet its far more likely that you are wrong.....

Well, no, actually he carries two flaws in his attacking shots - he goes after balls a long way outside off with a flailing bat instead of a supple one, and he plays the pull-shot uppish instead of down. However, both of these flaws affect him only sometimes - sometimes they don't affect him.

oh yes those 2, but both of them arent serious flaws, because its not something that he does everytime.

I'd say Tendulkar's temperament is every bit as good as Hussain's and Stephen Waugh's - otherwise it would constantly get to him that there were however many million Indians upon whose hopes and dreams his achievements lay.

nope its not, if it was then he would be somewhere near as good as bradman, probably even better. there has probably never been a player with as good a technique or as good an eye as tendulkar has. when it comes to concentration and temperament though it isnt all that brilliant.

IMO they deserve credit only if they've outbowled the batsman with that particular ball.

and then my dear friend neither should bicknell deserve credit for that out swinger that got rudolph, because it certainly wasnt anything brilliant.

I have put it down to luck because, in my perception, they have gotten out very infrequently.
You're not going to change my mind on this and I'm not going to change yours, because every time a wicket falls to a short-ball, you can say "look, there's another example", when it is far harder for me to say "look, there's x number of examples", because no-one takes down the exact number of short-balls in a certain time.

yes but im quite certain that if you took an analysis and observed how many wickets were taken with short balls and how many wickets were taken as a direct result of the short ball you would see that it is extremely frequent indeed.

 

[tooextracool]

Oho, yes I would.

good comeback that.....

Except he didn't - he was crap full-stop.
If you've been expensive in a Test-match, the chances of you having not bowled waywardly are very, very slim indeed. Believe me, Fernando, Zoysa, Perera or whoever we're talking about here were all very wayward in that Test-match.

no they are not slim at all, they're less likely yes, you can be wayward for 2-3 spells and then bowled brilliantly for 2-3 others.. result being that you end up going at 4 an over and still get wickets.

I don't need to come-up with it - I don't control the weather, it just does what it does.

conveniently ignoring the point, the sun came out only towards the end of that england innings.

No, we must assume that more often than not his poor performances have come when conditions have suited seam. The fact that he has expoited them on occasion shows quite clearly that he can - he has failed an equal number of times on pitches that suit cut\spin. He just tends to bowl in seam-friendly conditions far less often cut\spin-friendly ones.

and how often has he succeeded in seamer friendly conditions? im sure we could put those times down to anomalies and luck too.

No, it's not - we can only guess.

yes we can only guess, therefore your claim that he would have reaked havvock had he played on some of those pitches is ludicrous. given the number of times he has succeeded in seamer friendly conditions, we could quite easily say that its more likely that he'll fail.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, we will - that's why a third-man is such an essential position, especially against the new-ball.
We see it more often, but not far more often.

and that bares relation to the chances that edges carry to the fielder is 50:50 how?

Not just to combat swinging balls, to combat any ball that moves away, off the pitch or in the air.
I do call spooned catches lucky, yes - because far, far, far more often than they'll occur off those sorts of balls, they'll not.

no its often a lot harder to keep a short ball(given that its well directed) down as opposed to a swinging ball. regardless of which both kind of balls deserve credit if they have managed to pick up wickets off it.

If you watched it a long time ago, and I watched it many times, including recently, it is very easy to misrecall it.
I do it sometimes, too..

like the perth pitch was a turner you mean?

However, when I'm watching it regularly (and now, of course, every time I watch it I look harder and harder for any deviation - and repeatedly see none) that's not going to happen.

you could quite easily be mistaken even by watching it time and time again, because your first opinion is what usually sticks till the end. i've watched it in the past, and i remember it clearly, the cricinfo report only confirms that i am right.