Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[tooextracool]

Which provides no problem whatsoever to anyone.

well it clearly does to you,AFAIC anyone who has watched sufficient cricket would know that im right.

 

[tooextracool]

It can afford to be ordinary but it cannot afford to be below a certain standard.
If it is, you will be beaten for pace all the time by a really quick bowler.

nope because no one has that bad eyes, once you get your eye in, i dont care who you are, if you apply yourself, you wont have too many problems surviving at the crease.

 

[tooextracool]

It's not amazing - I didn't ignore it - but nonetheless the match produced a not-outstanding total from him.
And for crying-out-loud - any batsman who gets out to a RUD must be considered unlucky - but they're all part of bowler-friendly pitches! Bad luck is part of bowler-friendly pitches. It still contributes to a pattern of failing on them - anyone must be expected to do less well on bowler-friendly pitches than batsman-friendly ones - but if there's a significant difference, someone can be said to be a flat-track bully.

he was the top scorer on a deadly pitch, and he survived everything that any batsman possibly could. he cant be blamed for getting out to a ball like that and therefore it cant be considered a failure. its just as bad as getting run out, possibly worse because even a run out requires some amount of a mistake from a batsman, an RUD doesnt.
seriously the 40 odd on that wicket should be taken as a success,because he accomplished something that no won else could.

And the two reports I read on this match both described the surface as a turner, which Nicky Boje took advantage of. So I didn't just assume actually - but I don't think too many people would really consider Boje that good a bowler on non-turners.

and these 2 reports are? and just because boje took wickets on a wicket it doesnt automatically make it a turner. there could be 2 explanations for that, the batsmen either batted poorly, which by all accounts they did, and/or boje actually bowled well.

Because that's what the case has been.

and it could be the same here too.....

No, I actually saw the pitch and most of the wickets in this case - it was poor batting and high-class swing bowling (neither of which have any reflection on the pitch). No turn, no seam..

precisely there was no turn.....

No, you think it does - I think it does not..

so despite scoring a 50 when the pitch was at its worse and no one else got higher than 28, his performances in the test must be considered a failure....you really do get dumber

You can - and he did.

no you cant because you can only do as well as the pitch allows you to do on it.....do you even know the definition of failure? its when you dont assist the team in any significant way, scoring 2/5th of the runs that your team makes is not a failure.

No, you don't - you just play well on an odd occasion.

and even 6 out of 15 is not the odd occasion(despite the fact that hes actually succeeded far more often)....succeeding 40% of the time on seamer friendly wickets is an extremely good effort whatever way you look at it....definetly not what i would call 'the odd occasion'. give it up richard, even you know you have lost it.

 

[tooextracool]

He might possibly have done - nonetheless, it's just a tiny bit of a coincidence that someone can have 2 of those isolated incidents, 3 years apart, where something of a very similar nature happens. It's even more of a coincidence that the relative player was a Western Australian - batsmen who've always been notorius for weakness against spin because of not facing very much of it.

yes having an off day twice in 3 years is an amazing coincidence isnt it?

No, you've said I have.
There have been many, many occasions where you have stated "you've said this" and I have shown that you are incorrect. So, in your perception, I have twisted what I've said. Except that I've never said what you want me to have twisted.

go ahead twisting them around even further....

They might - and if they have, well bowled.
If they haven't - try again.
Otherwise, all you'll get yourself is the reputation of an unlucky bowler - like Collymore and Flintoff (until last winter, when he became a lucky bowler).

yes and if all it takes is the same performance to take wickets sometimes then why should a player be criticised when sometimes his wickets come from non wicket taking balls?

 

[tooextracool]

If you say so...

and that adds another 400 lucky wickets.....

I'd say it's about 19\20.

and whatever way you look at it, you cant assume that bowling accurately = good ER.

Yes, he has - he's been accurate far more often, though.

not often enough to be considered a quality bowler.....and the average reflects that. if he was indeed as accurate as ambrose etc he would also be just about as 'lucky'

Rubbish, I've never praised him for bowling poorly.

no youve called him unlucky on those occasions...

 

[tooextracool]

If batsmen play poor strokes you don't need to bowl penetratively!

have you been following any part of my argument about pressure?
good players dont play poor strokes whenever they feel like you know....

If you say so - nonetheless, his figures were far better than they normally are. And it still doesn't change the fact that, in Lara's 13-year career, there are bound to be more than a few occasions where people have tried that.

its quite possible that they did, except that those people probably didnt have the pace or the accuracy to carry it out well enough.....

No, I don't - I've always said I can only guess at the rest of their careers before 2000\01-2001.

no you cant because 3 years out of 10 doesnt make a career....thats like me saying ramprakash was total and complete garbage for all his test career by only watching his first few years in his test career.

 

[tooextracool]

Lara's failed in other series, believe me - especially between 1994\95 and 2001\02.
Just because he's done well at times against everyone doesn't disguise the fact that even the best are outdone at times.
One such occasion was in 2000 (England). Another in 2000\01 (Australia).

and hes played well far more often against those teams too, that doesnt really say much.

Yes, there were, I just said that. There weren't, however, any chances.

which is just as bad as chances, it suggests that gayle was lucky rather than gayle batted brilliantly and tore apart the attack.

It wasn't just Ntini, it was all the bowlers - and yes, shortish balls can be good balls, as long as they're on the right line.

funny that, not long ago you were saying that no short ball deserves wickets, yet now you are going on calling them good balls.

All the bowlers bowled plenty of good-line balls, and Gayle thrashed many of them through the covers.

then you didnt watch closely enough, i distinctly remember ntini bowling his short rubbish. and if gayle smashed many through the covers it only suggests that they bowled too wide.

Yes, it is - nonetheless, it results in a fast scoring-rate without wickets falling, which is no use to the fielding side and a lot of use to the batting side.

and i might add its not especially good batting either.....just like getting wickets with luck.

I've not once said it never happens - I have, however, said it doesn't happen very often to quality batsmen, and when it does it doesn't result in wickets falling anywhere near as often as some seem to think.

and it doesnt, depending on the type of batsman of course. if you managed to somehow contain viv richards by preventing him from scoring runs i wouldnt be surprised if you went on to get him out sooner rather than later. but as i've said time and time again, slow scoring doesnt usually affect quality batsmen in test match cricket.

 

[one_dayer]

Ruddy hell, never did I think this thread would reach 36 pages

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well I can never be proved correct in the "good batsmen don't feel pressure because of a slow scoring-rate" - it's something that I've heard in commentary since commentary began. Yes, that does include stuff in the days of not losing coming before winning.
All I can do is try to keep watching and working-out what I seem to be true.
In any case, even in today's cricket World - 500 in 170 overs might be perceived to be worse than 450 in 130, but IMO that will give you the best chance of the game.
I mean, it really is almost ridiculous that sides are making 500 and still not being anywhere near safe from defeat, because they're not batting long enough.
Even if winning is now more important than not losing, scoring ridiculously fast doesn't always give you the best chance of winning.
A side knowing they've got nothing other than a draw to play for can never have it's importance underestimated IMO.

If a team makes 500 and doesn't win maybe it's due to poor bowling on their behalf, instead of the fact they didn't bat long enough. If you've got the best all-round team then scoring 500 quickly will give you the best chance to bowl the opposition out twice, but if you have a talented batting team, but no bowlers, then you'll be in trouble regardless.

If you play for nothing but a draw from the start, then you might as well not be there.

 

[superwills]

england should try flintoff up the order...

 

[Richard]

Soooooooooo tempted to reply to all those unreplied tec posts TBH (why on EARTH did I let them go? ) but will resist for the sake of society.

 

[shortpitched713]

Do it. For the children. And because I'm bored. Out of my ****ing mind.

 

[Richard]

Hmm. Will wait for a few more seals-of-approval TBH.

 

[steds]

**** me this thread was dire.

 

[Richard]

EDIT: I'll say one thing... ^%$£ me, I'd forgotten about some of these threads... I really did have time to burn back in 2004, didn't I? How is it possible to go for the best part of 13 pages arguing against three different people?