Dravid goes to number 1 in test ratings

[Richard]

hahaha..re-educated....hehehehehe

Yes, that's right.

 

[aussie]

aussie

Watching the wickets he's got.

No, of course, couldn't have anyone being re-educated on the game of cricket that has had so many misunderstandings for so long, could we?

so by watching McGrath u have discovered that he gets wickets off, off deliveries batsmen dont need to play at, i find that very hard to believe because i have seen a lot of McGrath and i can see how could come up with that generalisation on how glenn gets his wickets, for me its nonsense.

And what do mean by u couldnt have anyone being re-educated on the game of cricket that has so many misunderstandings for so long? I dont get that...

 

[Richard]

so by watching McGrath u have discovered that he gets wickets off, off deliveries batsmen dont need to play at, i find that very hard to believe because i have seen a lot of McGrath and i can see how could come up with that generalisation on how glenn gets his wickets, for me its nonsense.

I've seen almost every single wicket McGrath has taken between summer 2001 and season 2004, and on flat pitches (not on seamers or uneven bouncers) almost every single one has come because of poor strokes

And what do mean by u couldnt have anyone being re-educated on the game of cricket that has so many misunderstandings for so long? I dont get that...

That plenty of people assume things which simply aren't true.

 

[aussie]

aussie

I've seen almost every single wicket McGrath has taken between summer 2001 and season 2004, and on flat pitches (not on seamers or uneven bouncers) almost every single one has come because of poor strokes

So have I, i looking back i have to agree but has we all know cricket is a batsman's game and the bowler has to do all th hard yards to get the batsman out and McGrath does that well, he is so metronomical with his line that he forces batsmen to play poor strokes but there has been the odd superb delivery bowled.

 

[aussie]

aussie

That plenty of people assume things which simply aren't true.

ok i understand now but what exactly does people assuming things that aren't true have to do with cricket pundits hearing what u have to say

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think your main problem in assessing McGrath's wickets is that you have no respect for consistent accuracy and subtle planning. As you pointed out, McGrath VERY often gets wickets by making a batsman play at a ball that wouldn't have hit the stumps. This is not however anything to do with luck, it is to do with the fact that batsman get into a negative frame of mind against him. When this happens, they seek to leave everything outside off stump and block anything straight, and McGrath is free to adjust his line, length, pace and movement at will to force an error from the batsman. When this happens it doesn't mean he is lucky, it means he has comprehensively outplayed the batsman by firstly being accurate enough to force them into their shell and then good enough to force an error from a batsman intent on survival.

An example involving other bowlers is yesterdays Indian collapse. Once the Indian batsmen retreated into a purely defensive mindset in order to play out the remaining overs they were doomed to eventually be worked out by the bowlers. The fact that the wickets fell with balls that might not always have got them has nothing to do with luck.'

It's so completely daft to claim that something that happens OVER and OVER and OVER again is because of luck. Why the hell does McGrath get all this luck and nobody else does?

 

[aussie]

aussie

well said faaip, couldn't have assesed glenn better

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Amusingly enough, after just a few tests in a brief space of time the rankings have changed to a significant degree.

Dravid has lost 1st spot to Kallis again after having a poor time of it in the final test against India, while Sehwag has moved up into the top 5 for the first time, into 4th place at the expense of Martyn who drops to 6th.

Also, Younis Khan jumps all the way from 26th to 9th, and Inzy from 14th to 8th after their great performances in the final test against India.

Among the bowlers, Warne moves back into the top 5 at the expense of Kumble, and McGrath extends his lead in first and moves within 3 points of breaking the 900 mark again. Kaneria also moves into the top 10 for the first time.

 

[C_C]

Question: how did they determine where to Put Warne in after he returned from his 1 year ban ?

 

[marc71178]

Just as if he'd missed all the games through injury I believe, so he lost a certain percentage for each Test missed.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Question: how did they determine where to Put Warne in after he returned from his 1 year ban ?

Yeah, as marc said he just lost a percentage of his rating for each game he missed, just like Lee and Murali are doing at the moment. There's also a time element of it, where if a player doesn't appear in their international side for a particular amount of time (two years, I think) they lose their rating all together. Warne returned to the top 10 immediately after he took 25+ at 20 in Sri Lanka, but hasn' t been in the top 5 again until now.

Interesting that he has a shot at 600 wickets in the Ashes, just 17 short now.

 

[aussie]

aussie

yep Glenn approaching 500, warne 600,dizzy 250 test wickets, Langer possible 7000 test runs, if lee plays 150 test wickets, Ponting 7000 test & 8000 ODI runs & Martyn 4000 test runs, so has we can see a lot of personal milestones for the australians in this series

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've seen almost every single wicket McGrath has taken between summer 2001 and season 2004, and on flat pitches (not on seamers or uneven bouncers) almost every single one has come because of poor strokes

That plenty of people assume things which simply aren't true.

Exactly, as you've just proven.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I think your main problem in assessing McGrath's wickets is that you have no respect for consistent accuracy and subtle planning. As you pointed out, McGrath VERY often gets wickets by making a batsman play at a ball that wouldn't have hit the stumps. This is not however anything to do with luck, it is to do with the fact that batsman get into a negative frame of mind against him. When this happens, they seek to leave everything outside off stump and block anything straight, and McGrath is free to adjust his line, length, pace and movement at will to force an error from the batsman. When this happens it doesn't mean he is lucky, it means he has comprehensively outplayed the batsman by firstly being accurate enough to force them into their shell and then good enough to force an error from a batsman intent on survival.

An example involving other bowlers is yesterdays Indian collapse. Once the Indian batsmen retreated into a purely defensive mindset in order to play out the remaining overs they were doomed to eventually be worked out by the bowlers. The fact that the wickets fell with balls that might not always have got them has nothing to do with luck.'

It's so completely daft to claim that something that happens OVER and OVER and OVER again is because of luck. Why the hell does McGrath get all this luck and nobody else does?

Well said, another reason so many batsmen play at McGrath deliveries that are just outside off is the movement he gets in off the seam. We've seen a couple of NZ batsmen leave balls this series (not all against McGrath) and have them seam in and bowl them. If you move the ball in as a rule then you're going to see batmen playing at balls that are floating around off.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Watching the wickets he's got.

No, of course, couldn't have anyone being re-educated on the game of cricket that has had so many misunderstandings for so long, could we?

Sometimes Richard the only thing that distracts me from some of the rubbish in your posts (note I'm not calling it all rubbish) is overwhelming displays of arrogance such as this.

Personally, I think you're claiming of the mantle in regards to great cricket thought is akin to a beginner wanting to play pull shots "like Adam Gilchrist" - I just don't think the basics are there, and am getting impatient waiting for evidence to the contrary.

 

[SJS]

Well said, another reason so many batsmen play at McGrath deliveries that are just outside off is the movement he gets in off the seam. We've seen a couple of NZ batsmen leave balls this series (not all against McGrath) and have them seam in and bowl them. If you move the ball in as a rule then you're going to see batmen playing at balls that are floating around off.

Absolutely spot on.

If people think its all about leaving these deliveries well alone, let them try it and they will get one that will knock of the stumps or have them trapped leg before as they shoulder arms.

It is the common fans "fascination" about express deliveries, flying stumpd, speed guns and what have you that has reduced their appreciation of what really great pace bowling is all about.

Its not for nothing that MacGrath and Pollock are the most successful bowlers in the world today from their ilk and not Shoaib and Lee.

Accuracy in line and length, subtle movements in the air and off the wicket, playing with a batsman over a few overs and trapping him finally is not just done by great spinners. All great fast and medium fast bowlers over the history of the game (all those who had longer careers and were successful over many years) have been renowned for these. Its just that their numbers are declining with the propensity of the limited over game as is the number of cricket fans who appreciate the subtle nuances of bowling.

Sad but true.

 

[Richard]

Interesting that he has a shot at 600 wickets in the Ashes, just 17 short now.

A shot? I'll be astonished if he doesn't get 17 wickets in a 5-Test series.

 

[Richard]

Sometimes Richard the only thing that distracts me from some of the rubbish in your posts (note I'm not calling it all rubbish) is overwhelming displays of arrogance such as this.

Personally, I think you're claiming of the mantle in regards to great cricket thought is akin to a beginner wanting to play pull shots "like Adam Gilchrist" - I just don't think the basics are there, and am getting impatient waiting for evidence to the contrary.

Maybe the only reason you haven't spotted this evidence is that you haven't looked for it, because you're so certain that it can't possibly exist.

 

[Richard]

So have I, i looking back i have to agree but has we all know cricket is a batsman's game and the bowler has to do all th hard yards to get the batsman out and McGrath does that well, he is so metronomical with his line that he forces batsmen to play poor strokes but there has been the odd superb delivery bowled.

It is not possible to force a poor stroke.

 

[Richard]

Well said, another reason so many batsmen play at McGrath deliveries that are just outside off is the movement he gets in off the seam. We've seen a couple of NZ batsmen leave balls this series (not all against McGrath) and have them seam in and bowl them. If you move the ball in as a rule then you're going to see batmen playing at balls that are floating around off.

Exactly, which is why McGrath is such a fantastic bowler when the ball is moving off the seam.
When it isn't, though, is when things change.