MacGill must tour India - Ganguly

[Richard]

which shows how dyslexic you really are....time and time again ive said that its easier to bowl in the middle overs than it is in the first 15 because there are no field restrictions, indeed any fool will know that. and bowling in the last 10 overs is obviously a lot harder because the batsman generally throw everything at it. the fact that ealham has a high average and a low ER makes him fit the bill of 15-40 overs bowler perfectly.

Dyslexic, hahahahahaha, that's a good one.
You're moving into the territory of one other forum member I once got into a spat with, who tried to venture into diagnosis of matters he had no authority to comment on.
And it really does show how stupid you are if you just generalise that because Ealham seems to have the record of someone who bowled in the 15-40 overs so he must have done so, instead of actually looking at the stages his overs really came in.
And good bowlers are more than capable of bowling in the first 15, it's not especially different to bowling in the 15-40 stages, the requirements are exactly the same - line and length. Both are totally different to bowling at the death which requires constant control of a full length and quick reactions when the batsman moves too soon.
There are bowlers who are suited to bowling in the first 40 overs, and there are those who are not suited to bowling in the last 10. Being not so is no disgrace. Ealham is a more than capable opening bowler, more than capable of coming on 2nd change in the 20th over. Either way, he shouldn't be bowling at the death and any captain who bowls him there is very poor.

oh and warne has wasted many a helpful wicket, but the difference being that on all those wickets he got turn on them. the fact is on this wicket he didnt get much turn at all, because the wicket wasnt a turner!!

Ah, yet again you didn't watch properly I see.
Oh, no, I forgot, you deny that Warne can turn it on anything. Despite the fact he quite clearly can.

 

[Richard]

Please, I missed the bit about Warne wasting helpful pitches, I need to hear it. It may well go along side Lucky McGrath and his 400 wickets haha

You've forgotten, then, the two times Warne has toured India, played on pitches exactly like you expect in India (ie dustbowls) and come out with a very poor average?
Yet Warne has proven many times that no matter how good the batsmen are at playing spin and no matter how little turn there is in the pitch for fingerspinners, he can beat them if he's at the top of his game. As have all the other great wristspinners who've played the game.
Another example of when Warne wasted a helpful surface was 2001\02 at The WACA. But Vettori exploited it. Well, in the first-innings, anyway.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yes, it is.
But this is not a case of opinion - it is fact that Trescothick's dismissal did not result from movement, but from playing inside the line. Just because you and someone else has got that wrong does not suddenly make you right.

Trescothick has next to no footwork, so you don't have to move it a great deal to have him in trouble.

 

[Son Of Coco]

You've forgotten, then, the two times Warne has toured India, played on pitches exactly like you expect in India (ie dustbowls) and come out with a very poor average?
Yet Warne has proven many times that no matter how good the batsmen are at playing spin and no matter how little turn there is in the pitch for fingerspinners, he can beat them if he's at the top of his game. As have all the other great wristspinners who've played the game.
Another example of when Warne wasted a helpful surface was 2001\02 at The WACA. But Vettori exploited it. Well, in the first-innings, anyway.

You've forgotten then that on at least one of these occasions Warne was coming back from injury (I've got a feeling it was both). But it will be interesting to see if it happens again this time around as there'll be no excuses.

 

[Richard]

Whatever the reasons, the instances happened.
I'm not saying they mean Warne is a poor bowler, God no, just that for Warne to waste a helpful wicket is not unheard of and "Warne didn't get wickets on it" is not a valid excuse to say "it didn't turn".

 

[Richard]

Trescothick has next to no footwork, so you don't have to move it a great deal to have him in trouble.

You don't have to move it at all, you just have to pitch it in the right areas consistently.
Keep hitting a line just outside off, he'll be torn between playing his leave, blocking and driving. I've noticed that ever since his very first Ashes innings, at Edgbaston in 2001, when Gillespie exploited it.
It was a fault Nuwan exploited in this particular instance - he didn't move the ball off the seam.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, it is.
But this is not a case of opinion - it is fact that Trescothick's dismissal did not result from movement, but from playing inside the line. Just because you and someone else has got that wrong does not suddenly make you right.

no it doesnt, and as i have said time and time again, it makes it far more likely for me to be right than it does for you.

 

[tooextracool]

Dyslexic, hahahahahaha, that's a good one.
You're moving into the territory of one other forum member I once got into a spat with, who tried to venture into diagnosis of matters he had no authority to comment on.

maybe you should learnt to read properly then?

And it really does show how stupid you are if you just generalise that because Ealham seems to have the record of someone who bowled in the 15-40 overs so he must have done so, instead of actually looking at the stages his overs really came in.

just as stupid as you generalising that any wicket on which a finger spinner takes wickets on must be a turner, without actually watching the game you might say?
ive watched enough of ealham to know that far more often he bowled from overs 15-40 and that he was never much of a bowler in the death or with the field up.

And good bowlers are more than capable of bowling in the first 15, it's not especially different to bowling in the 15-40 stages, the requirements are exactly the same - line and length. Both are totally different to bowling at the death which requires constant control of a full length and quick reactions when the batsman moves too soon.

yes i know, but thats assuming that ealham was a good bowler when the fact is that he wasnt even close.

There are bowlers who are suited to bowling in the first 40 overs, and there are those who are not suited to bowling in the last 10. Being not so is no disgrace. Ealham is a more than capable opening bowler, more than capable of coming on 2nd change in the 20th over. Either way, he shouldn't be bowling at the death and any captain who bowls him there is very poor.

and his record must therefore be looked at in context, the fact that his E/R happens to be better than someone like gough doesnt actually make him better than gough because gough was far more likely to bowl in the death.
and as far as ealham opening the bowling is concerned, IMO his record would have been a lot worse had he done so because it wouldnt take much to smash him over the infield.

Ah, yet again you didn't watch properly I see.
Oh, no, I forgot, you deny that Warne can turn it on anything. Despite the fact he quite clearly can.

and again you fail to read clearly, ive said time and time again that every spinner can turn it on anything, just that they cant turn it significantly on non turners.

 

[luckyeddie]

maybe you should learnt to read properly then?

Careful...

I could make fun of a statement like that

 

[Richard]

no it doesnt, and as i have said time and time again, it makes it far more likely for me to be right than it does for you.

And as I've said, a few times now, it's not a case of likelihood - it's a case of fact, not "if two opinions are against one, the two is likely to be the correct one".

 

[Richard]

maybe you should learnt to read properly then?

And maybe you should learn to write properly.

just as stupid as you generalising that any wicket on which a finger spinner takes wickets on must be a turner, without actually watching the game you might say?
ive watched enough of ealham to know that far more often he bowled from overs 15-40 and that he was never much of a bowler in the death or with the field up.

He isn't a death-bowler and there's no shame in that - few are.
He is, however, more than competant with the field up - indeed, he's best that way because they can't nudge him around for singles.

yes i know, but thats assuming that ealham was a good bowler when the fact is that he wasnt even close.

And there's no fact on that matter at all, it's all a case of opinion. In your opinion he wasn't close - in mine he was one of the better bowlers England have had in the modern ODI era.

and his record must therefore be looked at in context, the fact that his E/R happens to be better than someone like gough doesnt actually make him better than gough because gough was far more likely to bowl in the death.

The thing that was (I say was, he's been far less good in the last 3 or 4 years) so good about Gough was that he could bowl economically even at the death. Yes, that does make him better than Ealham, because Ealham finds it much harder to bowl economically at the death.

and as far as ealham opening the bowling is concerned, IMO his record would have been a lot worse had he done so because it wouldnt take much to smash him over the infield.

Yes, it would - it always takes something to smash an accurate bowler over the infield, especially one who can get the wicketkeeper up to the stumps. IMO if he'd opened and bowled 10 overs straight through his record would be far, far better than it is.

and again you fail to read clearly, ive said time and time again that every spinner can turn it on anything, just that they cant turn it significantly on non turners.

And both Warne and Vettori turned it significantly on that WACA pitch. Warne, of course, can turn it significantly on anything, most people notice that.

 

[luckyeddie]

And as I've said, a few times now, it's not a case of likelihood - it's a case of fact, not "if two opinions are against one, the two is likely to be the correct one".

But Richard, you seldom deal in 'fact' - conjecture, opinion and supposition is more your style.

 

[Richard]

Do you remember Trescothick's dismissal at in the first-innings at Lord's in 2002? I'd guess no.
Myself, I've got the thing on video, so I'd say I'm entitled to comment on the facts of it!

 

[Son Of Coco]

And as I've said, a few times now, it's not a case of likelihood - it's a case of fact, not "if two opinions are against one, the two is likely to be the correct one".

what actually happened is fact Richard, what you think it means is something completely different altogether.

 

[Richard]

Well in this instance the fact that the Zoysa ball didn't move off the seam means that tooextracool still has no instances of deliveries that moved off the seam in that match - unsurprising, given that none did - seam-movement which Chaminda Vaas apparently should apparently have been exploiting but didn't.
Except that no-one can exploit seam-movement when the pitch isn't offering it.

 

[tooextracool]

And as I've said, a few times now, it's not a case of likelihood - it's a case of fact, not "if two opinions are against one, the two is likely to be the correct one".

and considering that that is all we can do, no matter what we come up with we would never be 100% certain about anything, that is pretty close to being right...

 

[tooextracool]

And maybe you should learn to write properly.

which i have when i have mentioned on several occasions why it was easier to bowl in the mid overs than it is in the death....regardless any fool who watches cricket knows that.....it doesnt even require an explanation

He isn't a death-bowler and there's no shame in that - few are.
He is, however, more than competant with the field up - indeed, he's best that way because they can't nudge him around for singles.

few are, but those few do actually still bowl in the death and take the stick anyways. and because of people like them people like ealham come out with good figures. ealhams record can only be looked in context....4.10 is not particuraly brilliant when all you do is bowl in the mid overs.

And there's no fact on that matter at all, it's all a case of opinion. In your opinion he wasn't close - in mine he was one of the better bowlers England have had in the modern ODI era..

and the fact that there were many better bowlers in the era in which he played in means what?
as i said earlier gough,caddick,fraser,mullally and craig white deserved to play ahead of him....

The thing that was (I say was, he's been far less good in the last 3 or 4 years) so good about Gough was that he could bowl economically even at the death. Yes, that does make him better than Ealham, because Ealham finds it much harder to bowl economically at the death.

and therefore his record is tainted then......

Yes, it would - it always takes something to smash an accurate bowler over the infield, especially one who can get the wicketkeeper up to the stumps. IMO if he'd opened and bowled 10 overs straight through his record would be far, far better than it is..

rubbish almost every bowler( no matter how accurate) these days goes for more runs in the first 10 then he does i say overs 20-40.....everyone knows that.

And both Warne and Vettori turned it significantly on that WACA pitch. Warne, of course, can turn it significantly on anything, most people notice that.

no they didnt, everyone who watched that match knows that....

 

[tooextracool]

Do you remember Trescothick's dismissal at in the first-innings at Lord's in 2002? I'd guess no.
Myself, I've got the thing on video, so I'd say I'm entitled to comment on the facts of it!

and that i watched the match and saw something different to what you say is also just as much a fact. if you cant prove it to me, its not a fact, simple as that.

 

[tooextracool]

Well in this instance the fact that the Zoysa ball didn't move off the seam means that tooextracool still has no instances of deliveries that moved off the seam in that match - unsurprising, given that none did -

thats a very stupid claim to make given that every wicket offers some amount of seam movement with the new ball....

 

[Richard]

and considering that that is all we can do, no matter what we come up with we would never be 100% certain about anything, that is pretty close to being right...

In spite of the fact that I know, with as close to 100% certainty as anything, that the Zoysa ball to Trescothick did not move off the seam or down the slope.
Look, you're not going to accept that, even if I managed to find 10 articles that described the wicket accurately, you'd still claim that you and the CricInfo reporter are right, because you need it to make that pitch into the seamer that it wasn't, to fit your non-existant pattern of Chaminda failing on seaming pitches.