MacGill must tour India - Ganguly

[tooextracool]

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.

the thing is that i know with just about the same certainity that it did move off the seam , except that i cant prove it with 100% certainity because that would require video tape evidence.....something that i cant show to you on this forum...

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.

find me these 10 articles then? AFAIS so far ive got 1 article against you and you've got none, therefore you cant go on to try and convince me that you are not wrong.....

 

[Richard]

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

No, it doesn't - but what does is the comment which was actually mentioned wasn't about the death overs, it was about the first 15 - and anyone with any sense would notice that the attributes required for bowling in the first 15 are the same as those required for the 15-40 period. They would also notice that good bowlers don't have a problem bowling in the first 15, and that it is as easy to be economical there as in the 15-40 period - for a seamer, anyway. Not for a spinner.

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.

Yes, it is. 4.1-an-over is good for any time in the first 40. It's even better when you consider the regularity with which he had to bowl in the last 10, while, thankfully, not that often in the last 5. If he had never bowled in the last 10 overs, I'm all but certain his ER would be under 4-an-over.

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....

No, White did not. White had only a short good spell in his ODI career - 1999\2000 and 2000.

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

No more so than the God-knows-how-many other bowlers who had their records tainted by having to bowl in the last 10 despite being far better used in the first 40.

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.

No, they might assume that, but in fact most of the most economical bowlers of today (Chaminda, McGrath, Pollock, Gillespie to name 4) all open the bowling and hence usually bowl 5 of the first 10.
Of course, it's best to bowl when you can have 6 in the circle and 3 on the boundary, but so often incompetant captaincy doesn't allow bowlers that.

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

Do they? In spite of the fact that you and me are the only two who've ever commented on that match in the last couple of months? It seems that we can only say whether everyone knows that if anyone else remembers the match. I've asked Corey, Andre and Kyle, but sadly no-one has yet responded.

 

[Richard]

the thing is that i know with just about the same certainity that it did move off the seam , except that i cant prove it with 100% certainity because that would require video tape evidence.....something that i cant show to you on this forum...

Except that you haven't actually got any tape - you've merely got your faulty memory, and a faulty CricInfo article.

find me these 10 articles then? AFAIS so far ive got 1 article against you and you've got none, therefore you cant go on to try and convince me that you are not wrong.....

No, but I don't really care - I know you're wrong, that's all that really matters to me.

 

[tooextracool]

Except that you haven't actually got any tape - you've merely got your faulty memory, and a faulty CricInfo article.

err ive watched the match live, which is just about the same as 'video' tape....

No, but I don't really care - I know you're wrong, that's all that really matters to me.

then why bring up garbage like those 10 articles then?i doubt you can find me even one article that proves me wrong anywhere because i am absolutely 100 percent certain that you are wrong about this. you have absolutely no article or anything else that comes close to supporting your claims.....
if you know that im wrong then what is the point in posting here at all?if we could all just stick to our opinions then there would be no reason for us to try and convince someone that he is wrong...

 

[tooextracool]

No, it doesn't - but what does is the comment which was actually mentioned wasn't about the death overs, it was about the first 15

err yes i know but you were the one that asked me why it was easier to bowl in the mid overs than it was at the death.

- and anyone with any sense would notice that the attributes required for bowling in the first 15 are the same as those required for the 15-40 period. They would also notice that good bowlers don't have a problem bowling in the first 15, and that it is as easy to be economical there as in the 15-40 period - for a seamer, anyway. Not for a spinner..

oh bowling in the first 15 and bowling in overs 15-40 require plenty of different attributes believe me.....hoggard will tell you that pitching the ball up on a flat wicket doesnt work at all in the first 15, you also need to be capable of bowling slower balls and certain other methods of slowing the scoring down when the batsmen are off to a flyer.

Yes, it is. 4.1-an-over is good for any time in the first 40. It's even better when you consider the regularity with which he had to bowl in the last 10, while, thankfully, not that often in the last 5. If he had never bowled in the last 10 overs, I'm all but certain his ER would be under 4-an-over..

rubbish, if he had bowled in the last 10 and first 10 his ER would be hovering around the 4.6- 4.7s if you ask me. and how can you be certain about something when it hasnt been done?you only think he would, but there are many people who think he wouldnt.

No, White did not. White had only a short good spell in his ODI career - 1999\2000 and 2000...

rubbish in 96 white came out with an ER of 4.16
in 01 he only played 3 games, and came out with an ER of 4.09 in SL
after that we all know that he wasnt the same bowler for a while and it was only in the world cup where he really started to get everything right, and ended up with an ER of 3.98 at an average of 19...
and if white was better in 99/00 he should still have been in the side ahead of ealham, who if i remember correcly was almost a regular in the side during those times.

No more so than the God-knows-how-many other bowlers who had their records tainted by having to bowl in the last 10 despite being far better used in the first 40.

yes and all those bowlers are looked at in context, most of them bowled quite often in the death, even if it meant that they got smashed often. so if their record is tainted it only means that they werent as good as someone who had a better record despite bowling everywhere.

No, they might assume that, but in fact most of the most economical bowlers of today (Chaminda, McGrath, Pollock, Gillespie to name 4) all open the bowling and hence usually bowl 5 of the first 10.
Of course, it's best to bowl when you can have 6 in the circle and 3 on the boundary, but so often incompetant captaincy doesn't allow bowlers that..

point being?just because they open the bowling and happen to be economical overall it doesnt mean that they would have even better figures if they bowled only in the middle overs....

Do they? In spite of the fact that you and me are the only two who've ever commented on that match in the last couple of months? It seems that we can only say whether everyone knows that if anyone else remembers the match. I've asked Corey, Andre and Kyle, but sadly no-one has yet responded.

not that it matters if they do though, if they did happen to disagree with you , you would only claim that they didnt know half as much about cricket as you do and that you had footage of it etc...

 

[Richard]

err ive watched the match live, which is just about the same as 'video' tape....

Wrong - the fact that you watched it three or four times more than 2 years ago compared to me about 50 times the last yesterday does actually make a difference.

then why bring up garbage like those 10 articles then?i doubt you can find me even one article that proves me wrong anywhere because i am absolutely 100 percent certain that you are wrong about this. you have absolutely no article or anything else that comes close to supporting your claims.....

I didn't "bring-up" anything of the sort - I just threw a random for-instance at you and suggested your reaction.
I'll try to find some more articles about that game, but sadly The Times Online and and stuff like that don't tend to keep links to 2-and-1\4-year-old articles.

if you know that im wrong then what is the point in posting here at all?if we could all just stick to our opinions then there would be no reason for us to try and convince someone that he is wrong...

I'm simply trying to do the same thing as you - yet I guess we both know it is impossible...

 

[Richard]

err yes i know but you were the one that asked me why it was easier to bowl in the mid overs than it was at the death.

I did? The way I remember it I never once mentioned that the death is comparable with any other time.

oh bowling in the first 15 and bowling in overs 15-40 require plenty of different attributes believe me.....hoggard will tell you that pitching the ball up on a flat wicket doesnt work at all in the first 15, you also need to be capable of bowling slower balls and certain other methods of slowing the scoring down when the batsmen are off to a flyer.

No, you just need to be able to hit a good line and length consistently - just like you do in the 15-40 period.

rubbish, if he had bowled in the last 10 and first 10 his ER would be hovering around the 4.6- 4.7s if you ask me. and how can you be certain about something when it hasnt been done?you only think he would, but there are many people who think he wouldnt.

And the same applies to your theories.
And you are quite possibly right about the fact that his ER would be about 4.5-4.6 had he always bowled 3 or 4 overs in the last 10. However, had he never done so I'm almost certain it'd be under 4. And equally, I don't think he'd have been any more expensive if his first 6 overs had been 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 than if they were 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23 which was about a typical time for them to be bowled.

rubbish in 96 white came out with an ER of 4.16
in 01 he only played 3 games, and came out with an ER of 4.09 in SL
after that we all know that he wasnt the same bowler for a while and it was only in the world cup where he really started to get everything right, and ended up with an ER of 3.98 at an average of 19...
and if white was better in 99/00 he should still have been in the side ahead of ealham, who if i remember correcly was almost a regular in the side during those times.

No almost about it - he missed 3 games between Texaco Trophy 1997 and the SL 3-match series in 2001 - despite being the best bowler when he did finally get a game. He missed those these 3 games (Emirates Trophy 1998), incidentally, because he was injured.
In WC2003, meanwhile, White's record in the games that mattered was poor against Pakistan and India and good against Australia.
In the 1994\5-1996\7 period of his career White came-out with an average of 29.73 and an ER of 4.4-an-over - neither are disgraceful, but neither are they very good and certainly not in Ealham's class, the ER more than 0.3 higher.
In the 1999\2000-2000 time, his record was outstanding with an average of 17.76 and an ER of 4.04-an-over.
After 2000, his record, once games against Bangladesh, Holland and Namibia are removed, reads: average 38.05, ER 4.73-an-over
So you'll see why I don't rate White quite so highly in ODIs as I do in Tests, and certainly you'll see why Ealham was the better bowler.

yes and all those bowlers are looked at in context, most of them bowled quite often in the death, even if it meant that they got smashed often. so if their record is tainted it only means that they werent as good as someone who had a better record despite bowling everywhere.

Er, yes, so? What does that have to do with Ealham? Ealham, fortunately, didn't have to bowl at the death all that often, though still more than he should have done.

point being?just because they open the bowling and happen to be economical overall it doesnt mean that they would have even better figures if they bowled only in the middle overs....

I know it doesn't mean they would. In fact, I'd say they certainly wouldn't.

not that it matters if they do though, if they did happen to disagree with you , you would only claim that they didnt know half as much about cricket as you do and that you had footage of it etc...

I don't have any footage of that WACA match, and I certanly wouldn't claim to remember better than Andre, Kyle or Corey - neither of them have agendas to pursue (as far as I know... ). So if all three of them were to tell me I'm mistaken in my memory that that pitch turned quite a bit, I'd accept that they probably remembered better than me. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Corey didn't need to remember, he might well have extensive footage of the match.

 

[tooextracool]

Wrong - the fact that you watched it three or four times more than 2 years ago compared to me about 50 times the last yesterday does actually make a difference.

no it doesnt make a difference because you can only say that you did so, i can say that ive watched it twice as many times as you did, that still doesnt say anything.....

I didn't "bring-up" anything of the sort - I just threw a random for-instance at you and suggested your reaction.

and you suggested wrong, because if you can in fact come up with anywhere near as many as 10 articles that prove me to be clearly wrong then i will gladly concede....

I'll try to find some more articles about that game, but sadly The Times Online and and stuff like that don't tend to keep links to 2-and-1\4-year-old articles..

and i cant wait to see them.....

I'm simply trying to do the same thing as you - yet I guess we both know it is impossible...

then maybe just maybe we should back off a little, particularly on certain arguments that we know have become extremely repititive.....

 

[tooextracool]

I did? The way I remember it I never once mentioned that the death is comparable with any other time..

you never said that it was comparable, u asked me why it was easier for ealham to bowl from overs 15-40....

No, you just need to be able to hit a good line and length consistently - just like you do in the 15-40 period...

nope you can often get away with poor balls in the 15-40 over period, because you have the field back. you can pitch the ball up, knowing that you have a fielder at long on or long off, you cant do that in the first 15 because you'll get smashed out of the park.....

And the same applies to your theories.
And you are quite possibly right about the fact that his ER would be about 4.5-4.6 had he always bowled 3 or 4 overs in the last 10. However, had he never done so I'm almost certain it'd be under 4.

maybe it might have, but the fact is that he rarely ever bowled from 40-50 and he probably never bowled from 45-50.

And equally, I don't think he'd have been any more expensive if his first 6 overs had been 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 than if they were 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23 which was about a typical time for them to be bowled.

and ive explained my reasons why it would be earlier.....

No almost about it - he missed 3 games between Texaco Trophy 1997 and the SL 3-match series in 2001 - despite being the best bowler when he did finally get a game.He missed those these 3 games (Emirates Trophy 1998), incidentally, because he was injured.

ok i'll take your word for it....he was a regular. but thats not the point im making here.

In WC2003, meanwhile, White's record in the games that mattered was poor against Pakistan and India and good against Australia.

yes because as we all know 3/33 against pakistan are appalling figures.....AFAIC 2/3 games of which mattered he got good figures, and he looked the part against australia......i still believe that it was a tactical mistake by hussain to not save white for the death.

In the 1994\5-1996\7 period of his career White came-out with an average of 29.73 and an ER of 4.4-an-over - neither are disgraceful, but neither are they very good and certainly not in Ealham's class, the ER more than 0.3 higher.

oh they are quite good believe me, id take 4.40 at 29.73 from someone that bowled extremely often in the death, unlike ealham.....you yourself said that anything less than 4.5 is good, therefore his performances were good.

After 2000, his record, once games against Bangladesh, Holland and Namibia are removed, reads: average 38.05, ER 4.73-an-over
So you'll see why I don't rate White quite so highly in ODIs as I do in Tests, and certainly you'll see why Ealham was the better bowler.

and ive already explained that white after injury wasnt half as good a bowler as he was before injury, his post 2001 record bares no relevance whatsoever because he wasnt competing with ealham for a place at the time. im saying that white should have been playing ahead of ealham from 96-01 which was when ealham was playing for england.

Er, yes, so? What does that have to do with Ealham? Ealham, fortunately, didn't have to bowl at the death all that often, though still more than he should have done.

it has to do with ealham because all those bowlers bowled in the death irrespective of whether they got smashed out of the park or not, they tooked the stick so that bowlers like ealham could bowl in the easy overs and get good figures compared to them. therefore bowlers like ealham's record must be looked in context, therefore suggesting something stupid like craig white having an ER of 0.3 more than ealham bares no relevance whatsoever, craig white as we all know bowled extremely often at the death.

I know it doesn't mean they would. In fact, I'd say they certainly wouldn't..

and i've already given you reasons why, gee if one bowler bowls with the field up while another bowls with the field back who is going to go for more runs? who has greater margin for error?

I don't have any footage of that WACA match, and I certanly wouldn't claim to remember better than Andre, Kyle or Corey - neither of them have agendas to pursue (as far as I know... ). So if all three of them were to tell me I'm mistaken in my memory that that pitch turned quite a bit, I'd accept that they probably remembered better than me. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Corey didn't need to remember, he might well have extensive footage of the match.

rubbish, so now you need all 3 of them to disagree with you for you to be wrong? believe me if one of them actually did remember the game and said that it happened in the way i said it did you still wouldnt believe them, just like you dont believe cricinfo.

 

[Richard]

no it doesnt make a difference because you can only say that you did so, i can say that ive watched it twice as many times as you did, that still doesnt say anything.....

Except that you've already told me when the last time you watched it was. I've always told you that I've got that day's highlights on video so there's a pretty good chance of me remembering that delivery better than you.

and you suggested wrong, because if you can in fact come up with anywhere near as many as 10 articles that prove me to be clearly wrong then i will gladly concede....

Well, I'll try, but I doubt it.

and i cant wait to see them.....

Oh, I think you could, I think you are hoping I will be able to find nothing.
You are likely to be granted your hope, though.

then maybe just maybe we should back off a little, particularly on certain arguments that we know have become extremely repititive.....

For that we need to work-out why everything comes back to the same thing. One of the largest problems comes from our difference on when Zimbabwe became substandad; another, inevitably, on whether or not a certain spell deserved wickets; another, of course, on what conditions were like in several matches (The WACA 2001\02 and Motera 2001\02 dominate).
If we both continue to go on about these, and I can't help suspecting that whenever one of us mentions it (usually me first) the other will state their contradiction, there will be lots of threads like these.

 

[Richard]

you never said that it was comparable, u asked me why it was easier for ealham to bowl from overs 15-40....

No, I asked why what was different about bowling in 1-15 from 15-40.

nope you can often get away with poor balls in the 15-40 over period, because you have the field back. you can pitch the ball up, knowing that you have a fielder at long on or long off, you cant do that in the first 15 because you'll get smashed out of the park.....

Not neccessarily - you sometimes see balls being hit straight to fielders. Bad balls, in fact.
So you have to aim at a good line and length - exactly the same as what you have to do with 4 men in the circle, unless you want to have a good chance of going for at least 5 in every over.

maybe it might have, but the fact is that he rarely ever bowled from 40-50 and he probably never bowled from 45-50.

I can name you three specific occasions off the top of my head in which he bowled the last over - vs Aus at Bristol (2001), vs SA at East London (1999\2000) and vs SA at The Oval (WC99). There will, of course, be several more that I don't remember instantly.
He bowled from 40-45 on many occasions, a few off the top of my head: vs Pakistan at Lord's (2001), vs SA at Newlands (1999\2000), vs Pakistan at Karachi (2000\01).

and ive explained my reasons why it would be earlier.....

Yes, and I don't agree - he hardly ever bowls a Half-Volley, otherwise he'd be very expensive in the First-Class game. But - funny thing - his ER is under 2.9-an-over.

ok i'll take your word for it....he was a regular. but thats not the point im making here.

Good, good.

 

[Richard]

yes because as we all know 3/33 against pakistan are appalling figures.....AFAIC 2/3 games of which mattered he got good figures, and he looked the part against australia......i still believe that it was a tactical mistake by hussain to not save white for the death.

Yes, he would certainly have been better than Anderson.
3 for 33 against Pakistan, of course, has to be taken in context - by the time he came on, the game was won, and he still went for 33 off 5 overs, while getting the wickets of Razzaq, Wasim and Waqar when they had nothing to gain by either slogging or blocking.

oh they are quite good believe me, id take 4.40 at 29.73 from someone that bowled extremely often in the death, unlike ealham.....you yourself said that anything less than 4.5 is good, therefore his performances were good.

No, I didn't - I've never said that. I've just said that anything over it is invariably poor.
Bowling at the death, of course, gives more leeway - 4.4-an-over is acceptible. Don't know for certain how often he actually bowled at the death in that early phase of his career, though - no bbbs are available AFAIK. Might be some way to find-out, but I suspect Atherton would be reluctant to give an "inexperienced" bowler the death overs.

and ive already explained that white after injury wasnt half as good a bowler as he was before injury, his post 2001 record bares no relevance whatsoever because he wasnt competing with ealham for a place at the time. im saying that white should have been playing ahead of ealham from 96-01 which was when ealham was playing for england.

He was playing alongside Ealham in 1999\2000-2000, and both were performing outstandingly - not surprisingly, that was when England enjoyed most success.
White's loss of good figures begun not with his injury in summer 2001, but with the end of summer 2000.

it has to do with ealham because all those bowlers bowled in the death irrespective of whether they got smashed out of the park or not, they tooked the stick so that bowlers like ealham could bowl in the easy overs and get good figures compared to them. therefore bowlers like ealham's record must be looked in context, therefore suggesting something stupid like craig white having an ER of 0.3 more than ealham bares no relevance whatsoever, craig white as we all know bowled extremely often at the death.

0.3 is a massive difference.
And as I say, had Ealham never bowled in the last 10 overs that difference would almost certainly be even greater.

and i've already given you reasons why, gee if one bowler bowls with the field up while another bowls with the field back who is going to go for more runs? who has greater margin for error?

If they both bowl well (assuming the batting is equal), there's not going to be much difference.

rubbish, so now you need all 3 of them to disagree with you for you to be wrong? believe me if one of them actually did remember the game and said that it happened in the way i said it did you still wouldnt believe them, just like you dont believe cricinfo.

No, I'd certainly believe any one of them - but if one said it turned and two said it didn't we'd still have a stalemate.