Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Maybe because they don't do the same - they take 4 wickets with 0 good balls.tooextracool said:yet when bowlers like mcgrath do the same they dont deserve their wickets and you call them lucky.....
England's score and overs-faced would have been lower but for Dasgupta missing at least 2 simple chances.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.
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.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......
Oh, yes, they did.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.
Every game, how ridiculous is that? Missed chances off good balls are pretty rare. And certainly they are rare on pitches like that.and because it happens almost every game then every game is misleading
Except his place wasn't under immidiate threat then, but he would have been widely castigated had he played a similar innings to Vaughan.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.
And he might have bowled over-the-wicket a lot, but he was far more negative in the second-innings than in the first.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.
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.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!!
Yep, and nope - it was a perfectly good, wicket-taking, ball.do you have a point here? or are you trying to contradict yourself?