Dravid goes to number 1 in test ratings

[Richard]

The speed gun tells the truth but statistics lie?

Richard, you have missed your calling. Give up posting and become a politician (I hear that the Raving Loony Party has an opening) as you selective reasoning will be better received there.

The speed-gun tells the truth (provided it's working properly, of course) and statistics tell the truth as long as you use them carefully.
Something any fool will realise.

 

[sledger]

The speed-gun tells the truth (provided it's working properly, of course) and statistics tell the truth as long as you use them carefully.
Something any fool will realise.

yes indeed so, although we must indeed be very careful, looking at antony mcgraths stats, esspecially his averages at test level, you could be tricked into believing his is the best test match alrounder in the world, maybe ever

 

[C_C]

And you haven't got a CLUE on the history of the game, so you can't talk

Much better clue than you'd think.

Anyone knows what a wicket-taking delivery is, and you can't bowl one unless the ball's moving.

The ball doesnt HAVE to move for it to be a wicket taking delivery. A straight yorker speared in at 99mph is a wicket taking delivery.

Oh and a wicket-taking delivery is one that INDUCES an error in a batsman...whether wicket is taken off of it or not is irrelevant.

You fail to see that unless you got brutal pace, you pick up wickets by inducing errors in batsmen...every bowler does that and that is how they get the bulk of their wickets....inducing an error in the batsman's judgement by clever variations of the ball.

Something any fool will realise.

but you dont.... so does that make you a special fool ?

 

[Richard]

yes indeed so, although we must indeed be very careful, looking at antony mcgraths stats, esspecially his averages at test level, you could be tricked into believing his is the best test match alrounder in the world, maybe ever

Exactly - which is why you must not use the surface crust and must look deeper.
Most significantly, you must use only the record against up-to-standard teams (which numbers just 2 Tests); you then get the true picture.

 

[Richard]

Much better clue than you'd think.

No, I've studied the thing, believe it or not, even closer than you, and I also have a better grasp of three basic truths: the start of the professional age, the age of cricket's embryonic stage, and the fact that no-one will ever have much of a clue how quick bowlers were before speed-guns.

The ball doesnt HAVE to move for it to be a wicket taking delivery. A straight yorker speared in at 99mph is a wicket taking delivery.

Oh and a wicket-taking delivery is one that INDUCES an error in a batsman...whether wicket is taken off of it or not is irrelevant.

You fail to see that unless you got brutal pace, you pick up wickets by inducing errors in batsmen...every bowler does that and that is how they get the bulk of their wickets....inducing an error in the batsman's judgement by clever variations of the ball.

And any error not induced by the moving ball is totally crass on the batsman's part and the bowler doesn't deserve any credit for it.
Except, of course, an incredibly fast Yorker. Not that very many of them get bowled.

but you dont.... so does that make you a special fool ?

No, I do. Dur.

 

[C_C]

No, I've studied the thing, believe it or not, even closer than you, and I also have a better grasp of three basic truths: the start of the professional age, the age of cricket's embryonic stage, and the fact that no-one will ever have much of a clue how quick bowlers were before speed-guns.

Can you please tell me how you came to the conclusion that you've studied it CLOSER than me ?
Telepath, are we ?

I too have a grasp of those three basic facts....however, unlike most, i am not spewing anglocentric propagandaistic nonsense outta my ****.

And any error not induced by the moving ball is totally crass on the batsman's part and the bowler doesn't deserve any credit for it.

And why is that ?
Why is error induced from moving ball = bowlers greatness and error induced from a ball shooting off of good length but holding its line = batsman's fault ?

As usual, you display complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals of bowling and batting.

No, I do. Dur.

Oh the pity. Self praise is what you are reduced to. Pity indeed.

 

[Richard]

Can you please tell me how you came to the conclusion that you've studied it CLOSER than me ?
Telepath, are we ?

I too have a grasp of those three basic facts....however, unlike most, i am not spewing anglocentric propagandaistic nonsense outta my ****.

I'm certainly not doing that, I'm every bit as willing to acknowledge the non-Anglo players; hence I'm not hesitant to label George Headley as the 2nd-best batsman of the 20th-century.
You don't have any grasp of those facts, you've repeatedly stated that things are a way they aren't.

And why is that ?
Why is error induced from moving ball = bowlers greatness and error induced from a ball shooting off of good length but holding its line = batsman's fault ?

As usual, you display complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals of bowling and batting.

Fine, then - moving sideways or bouncing unevenly.
Uneven bounce can't ever be too much to a bowler's credit, either.
And the actual ball doesn't have to move (whether sideways or up-and-down), it just has to be doing so, so as to create reasonable doubt in the batsman's mind.
Any doubt created by constant length is unreasonable.
But it's not a mistake not to know whether the next ball's going to go to off or leg, or whether it's going to bounce where you'd normally expect.

Oh the pity. Self praise is what you are reduced to. Pity indeed.

No self-praise, simply correcting your misfounded comment.

 

[psxpro]

Richard stop being an idiot.
Mgrath imo is as good as any bowler ever to play the game becasue he has dominated batsmen in an era where batsmen have generally dominated thanks to flat pitches.

You can bowl wicket taking deiliveries on any wicket.

 

[C_C]

You don't have any grasp of those facts, you've repeatedly stated that things are a way they aren't.

You definately havnt justified your position like Faaip did. And you definately havnt put even the most nominal case on saying how things were/wernt. Common pre-war propaganda viewed through a rose-tinted glass is all you are spewing....with very little knowledge and analysis to back it up.

Any doubt created by constant length is unreasonable.

So you think constant length equals identical clone deliveries ?

No self-praise, simply correcting your misfounded comment.
Today 04:23 PM

Oh it wasnt misfounded. A clear statistical analysis shows McGrath to be one of the best ever bowlers and an excellent bowler on batsmen friendly surfaces.
You are the one reaching here, which is based on no statistical research and then misdirecting people by saying it is. In short, you violate your own axiom, thereby you mus be a special kinda fool.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Exactly - which is why you must not use the surface crust and must look deeper.
Most significantly, you must use only the record against up-to-standard teams (which numbers just 2 Tests); you then get the true picture.

Hang on... did you just say Mcgrath has played just two tests against up-to-standard opposition? Which two tests are those, praytell?

So, the batting lineup he faced in India in 2001 and 2004 was not up to standard? The 1995 West Indies side he dominated was not up to standard? The 2001/02 South African team was not up to standard? What on earth are you smoking?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Exactly - which is why you must not use the surface crust and must look deeper.
Most significantly, you must use only the record against up-to-standard teams (which numbers just 2 Tests); you then get the true picture.

In that case, we can also omit Giles', Flintoff's and Harmison's wickets for all of their Tests except those against Australia.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've got a perfect amount of practical knowledge, gained by watching cricket like anyone else.
And having an idea of what bowling is about is about analysing, not making assumptions and sticking to them.

So I'm making assumptions based on? I think you're making more assumptions by sitting in front of a TV watching or reading an article than I am basing my thoughts on what I know from years of playing Richard.

Just out of interest, aren't you making assumptions and then sticking to them now?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Because not absolutely everyone has to bowl wicket-taking deliveries to take wickets.

Not true at all, you're unspeakably lucky if you only move a handful of deliveries a day and they are in the right spot to take a wicket.

I'm afraid you're wrong yet again Richard. It's not always the balls that get some movement that are going to get wickets, but if you move just a handful in all day (i.e in the same direction as McGrath usually does) it's very unlikely that the batsman will get comfortable enough to leave anything hovering around off to a foot outside. As has been explained to you before, this is one of the reasons Mcgrath is dangerous on most wickets.

 

[Son Of Coco]

A wicket-taking delivery is one that took a wicket without complete error on the batsman's part.
Anyone knows what a wicket-taking delivery is, and you can't bowl one unless the ball's moving.

Really? So fooling someone with a slower ball is complete error on the batsman's part? What exactly do you define as complete error? Does it take into account what's happened up to that point? Or just that ball?

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, I've studied the thing, believe it or not, even closer than you, and I also have a better grasp of three basic truths: the start of the professional age, the age of cricket's embryonic stage, and the fact that no-one will ever have much of a clue how quick bowlers were before speed-guns.

And any error not induced by the moving ball is totally crass on the batsman's part and the bowler doesn't deserve any credit for it.
Except, of course, an incredibly fast Yorker. Not that very many of them get bowled.

No, I do. Dur.

*sigh*

 

[Richard]

Richard stop being an idiot.
Mgrath imo is as good as any bowler ever to play the game becasue he has dominated batsmen in an era where batsmen have generally dominated thanks to flat pitches.

You can bowl wicket taking deiliveries on any wicket.

Some people can - McGrath between 2001 and 2004 certainly could not.

 

[Richard]

You definately havnt justified your position like Faaip did. And you definately havnt put even the most nominal case on saying how things were/wernt. Common pre-war propaganda viewed through a rose-tinted glass is all you are spewing....with very little knowledge and analysis to back it up.

No, with plenty of knowledge.
The knowledge that no-one can ever know remotely accurately how fast bowlers were before 1998, and certainly that comparisons can't be made with any accuracy without two deliveries right in front of you at the exact same moment. And the fact that there's no realistic reason why bowlers should be bowling any slower 70 years ago.
And also the wholly basic knowledge that cricket was mostly professional for all the 20th-century; and the even more basic knowlege that cricket was formed in the mid-18th-century, so therefore the 1930s was certainly nothing close to the embryonic stage.

So you think constant length equals identical clone deliveries ?

Err. eh? No, for the record, but what's it to do with anything?

Oh it wasnt misfounded. A clear statistical analysis shows McGrath to be one of the best ever bowlers and an excellent bowler on batsmen friendly surfaces.
You are the one reaching here, which is based on no statistical research and then misdirecting people by saying it is. In short, you violate your own axiom, thereby you mus be a special kinda fool.

No, it's based on no statistical research, it's based on viewing research - McGrath between 2001 and 2004 was not capable of bowling wicket-taking deliveries on pitches that offer neither seam-movement or uneven-bounce.

 

[Richard]

Hang on... did you just say Mcgrath has played just two tests against up-to-standard opposition? Which two tests are those, praytell?

So, the batting lineup he faced in India in 2001 and 2004 was not up to standard? The 1995 West Indies side he dominated was not up to standard? The 2001/02 South African team was not up to standard? What on earth are you smoking?

Try Anthony McGrath, instead of jumping to the conclusion that every time I use the name "McGrath" I am putting-down Australia's finest etc.

 

[Richard]

In that case, we can also omit Giles', Flintoff's and Harmison's wickets for all of their Tests except those against Australia.

Nope, but we can knock off what's happened against Bangladesh and post-WC2003-Zimbabwe (not relevant in Flintoff's case).
It certainly makes a hell of a difference in Harmison's case, though not much in Giles'.

 

[Richard]

So I'm making assumptions based on? I think you're making more assumptions by sitting in front of a TV watching or reading an article than I am basing my thoughts on what I know from years of playing Richard.

Just out of interest, aren't you making assumptions and then sticking to them now?

I'm basing my thoughts on what I know from watching a whole stack of cricket; my playing, like anyone else's, doesn't make me any better at analysing stuff at the top level.