Mickey Arthur?

[Richard]

And it's impossible that that is because the ball was too good for the batsman isn't it?

If you can explain to me how a delivery can be too good for a batsman by refusing to allow him to pick it up then it's possible.
Otherwise, it's not.

 

[Richard]

Tiny handful suggests its 2 or 3, when that's far from the case.

No, tiny handful suggests it's 5 or 6, which if you look fairly carefully you'll see is actually all it is. Those handful fade and amplify quite a bit, too.

 

[Richard]

rubbish you clearly werent watching closely. nearly every commentator pointed out in the last year how his seam position had improved signficantly. i myself hadnt payed close enough attention to his seam position in 02, and for a large part just thought that his action prevented him from doing anything with the ball. i went back and looked at some of his performances in 02/03 and i saw how poor his seam position was and that he couldnt land the ball on the seam most of the time.

Commentators said his seam-position had improved because they are looking for something to say has improved - aside from his attitude to bowling, which they might have been getting bored of going-on about.
Interesting that you looked at '02\03, when his play there was extremely limited compared to '01\02 and '02. And in those periods there were plenty of occasions where he bowled with immaculate seam-position, and on the rare occasion he hit the right length caused large problems (eg Bangalore 2001\02, Lord's vs India first-innings 2002).

with regards to his accuracy, i think its fairly obvious that he wasnt accurate pre 03, and his ER shows that. its inconceivable that they used crease manipulation or whatever before 03 and then just stopped doing it after that. because fact of the matter is that players only do that in the slog overs, in which case theyve still been doing it post 03.

It's not inconceivable at all, over half his games in 2001\02 and 2002 were against India, and Ganguly especially proved very adept at using his feet. Since the 10-15-2 against India in WC2003 you've rarely seen batsmen using crease-manipulation against him, and as such his accuracy has been very effective.
You can take a careful look at his games in 2001\02-2002\03 and see how accurate he actually was, too:
Kolkata - bowled reasonably, though not particularly well, to get 10-51-2, Ganguly managing to take to him a couple of times.
Cuttack - bowled very well for 10-35-1.
Chennai - even better, on a very bouncy pitch - 10-27-0.
Kanpur - very short game (38 overs), 3-25-0, totally meaningless.
Delhi - 7-41-1, bowled extremely poorly.
Mumbai - 9.5-38-3, bowled very, very well, especially at the end.
Christchurch - didn't bowl too badly, 8-30-1, used a seaming pitch better than the rest of the attack.
WPT Park, Wellington - 10-46-1, exceedingly poor on what could fairly be described as the slowest pitch ever, no New Zealand bowler went for even 3-an-over.
Napier, 7-34-0 - didn't actually bowl too badly but got the treatment from Fleming in particular, who used Ganguly-esque tactics.
Eden Park, 7-17-4 - quite outstanding, one of his best ODI spells ever.
Carisbrook, 9.5-56-1 - bowled terribly.
Trent Bridge, 10-49-3 - actually bowled extremely well, was very, very unlucky to go for as many as he did.
Lord's, 8-56-0 - didn't particularly bowl well but certainly nowhere near as poorly as those figures suggested, Ganguly again getting after him very effectively.
Headingley, 7-18-2 - quite brilliant on a pitch offering only minimal assistance and in another stupidly short game (32 overs).
The Riverside, 10-36-0 - bowled very well again.
Old Trafford, 5.4-29-1 - pretty poor, really, on a slow pitch.
The Oval, 4-33-1 - another idiotically short game, figures irrelevant (except for Ronnie Irani).
Lord's, 7.3-55-2 - actually bowled pretty well, this game the epitomy of Ganguly going for him, first 3 overs did little wrong but went for 26; later Yuvraj and Kaif managing, mostly through edges, to score off him.
MCG, 10-56-1 - only just coming back from a long, long lay-off, not really that surprising he bowled poorly.
So all in all you can see that there were 9 games where he bowled well, 3 where he was reasonable, 4 where he bowled poorly and 3 which are very misleading and best left unheeded, either because they were stupidly short games or because he was ring-rusty.
Overall when you get rid of those 3 games his record reads 4.51-an-over, average 28.09, not especially brilliant and certainly not as good as WC2003-onwards, but certainly not shockingly poor when you take into account he mostly bowls at the death.

 

[Richard]

Umm...no one said that cricket wasn't professional in the 20th century.20th century ended in 1999. Cricket definately has been professional since late 50s/early 60s.

No, it's been mostly the domain of professionals since the late 1890s.

Anyone with a good grasp of english can write a one-page article on cricket. to write a book spanning several hundred pages is another ballgame. As per having the ability-i'll believe it when i see it.

And of course you have to be able to write a book on cricket to be an expert, don't you? No, any of the top guys on this website and God-knows-how-many tabloid reporters and TV\radio commentators have the understanding of cricket to do so.
Having the literary skills is an entirely different matter, however - but lack of literary skills doesn't constitute cricketing understanding or lack of it.
As for writing a four or five page article on cricket, I'm more than capable of doing that.

I struggle to name even six names in this website that support your views. If you'd be so kind to name them, then we shall see about who is wrong on this and who isn't.

Let's try... Neil (doesn't accept the chance-theorem, but that's about it), Liam, Pratyush, Sudeep, Rich, Sean, sledger, Dave, Hakon, Rich2001, Karthik, Tom Halsey, Tom Cowans, Sangrah, and even, believe it or not, tooextracool of times.

It often has.

Really? Can you give me some examples, otherwise you'll forgive me for seeing it as an utter waste of time.

Unless you specify a period of talk, talking about how a shot is played encompasses the entire cricketing history.

Well given that I've said many times that I've only been watching cricket with real attention from 1998 you should be able to guess I'm talking about that time.

 

[marc71178]

If you can explain to me how a delivery can be too good for a batsman by refusing to allow him to pick it up then it's possible.

So the pace and bounce being too much for him isn't enough then?

 

[tooextracool]

Not really. If on 4 days it was evenly fought and on the 5th it wasnt with one team dominating the proceedings, it would still be a closely fought match. Which is why day by day analysis is good.

nope, no matter how much you dominate on day 5, its quite impossible for the scorecard to make it look like you absolutely decimated the opposition. you could quite clearly see that 2 teams were for example par on the first 2 innings, and therefore were even for about half the game at least. and you could tell by the fall of wickets how close the game actually was on the last day.
if however you counted who had more good days, then as i said earlier, you could be decimated on days 1 and 2 and somewhat dominate on days 3 and 4 and still be far far behind the opposition.

 

[tooextracool]

Commentators said his seam-position had improved because they are looking for something to say has improved - aside from his attitude to bowling, which they might have been getting bored of going-on about.
Interesting that you looked at '02\03, when his play there was extremely limited compared to '01\02 and '02. And in those periods there were plenty of occasions where he bowled with immaculate seam-position, and on the rare occasion he hit the right length caused large problems (eg Bangalore 2001\02, Lord's vs India first-innings 2002)..

and because he caused problems it means that his seam position was perfect is it?
no i watched some extended replays of him pre 04, and his seam position was all over the place.

It's not inconceivable at all, over half his games in 2001\02 and 2002 were against India, and Ganguly especially proved very adept at using his feet. Since the 10-15-2 against India in WC2003 you've rarely seen batsmen using crease-manipulation against him, and as such his accuracy has been very effective.
You can take a careful look at his games in 2001\02-2002\03 and see how accurate he actually was, too:
Kolkata - bowled reasonably, though not particularly well, to get 10-51-2, Ganguly managing to take to him a couple of times.
Cuttack - bowled very well for 10-35-1.
Chennai - even better, on a very bouncy pitch - 10-27-0.
Kanpur - very short game (38 overs), 3-25-0, totally meaningless.
Delhi - 7-41-1, bowled extremely poorly.
Mumbai - 9.5-38-3, bowled very, very well, especially at the end.
Christchurch - didn't bowl too badly, 8-30-1, used a seaming pitch better than the rest of the attack.
WPT Park, Wellington - 10-46-1, exceedingly poor on what could fairly be described as the slowest pitch ever, no New Zealand bowler went for even 3-an-over.
Napier, 7-34-0 - didn't actually bowl too badly but got the treatment from Fleming in particular, who used Ganguly-esque tactics.
Eden Park, 7-17-4 - quite outstanding, one of his best ODI spells ever.
Carisbrook, 9.5-56-1 - bowled terribly.
Trent Bridge, 10-49-3 - actually bowled extremely well, was very, very unlucky to go for as many as he did.
Lord's, 8-56-0 - didn't particularly bowl well but certainly nowhere near as poorly as those figures suggested, Ganguly again getting after him very effectively.
Headingley, 7-18-2 - quite brilliant on a pitch offering only minimal assistance and in another stupidly short game (32 overs).
The Riverside, 10-36-0 - bowled very well again.
Old Trafford, 5.4-29-1 - pretty poor, really, on a slow pitch.
The Oval, 4-33-1 - another idiotically short game, figures irrelevant (except for Ronnie Irani).
Lord's, 7.3-55-2 - actually bowled pretty well, this game the epitomy of Ganguly going for him, first 3 overs did little wrong but went for 26; later Yuvraj and Kaif managing, mostly through edges, to score off him.
MCG, 10-56-1 - only just coming back from a long, long lay-off, not really that surprising he bowled poorly.
So all in all you can see that there were 9 games where he bowled well, 3 where he was reasonable, 4 where he bowled poorly and 3 which are very misleading and best left unheeded, either because they were stupidly short games or because he was ring-rusty.
Overall when you get rid of those 3 games his record reads 4.51-an-over, average 28.09, not especially brilliant and certainly not as good as WC2003-onwards, but certainly not shockingly poor when you take into account he mostly bowls at the death.

yes i know how accurate he was before. my point is that hes more accurate now, and he started to bowl the perfect length, and the perfect line to the batsmen.

 

[Pratters]

nope

Okay we agree to disagree on this.

 

[Richard]

So the pace and bounce being too much for him isn't enough then?

Nope, it's not - you need to explain how he failed to pick the ball up. Or, more accurately, how Flintoff deserves credit for him failing to pick it up.
Because the only reason it was too fast for him was that he didn't pick it up, exactly like he didn't pick-up another delivery earlier in the series (a slower-ball) which caused him to give his wicket away 2 balls later.

 

[Richard]

and because he caused problems it means that his seam position was perfect is it?
no i watched some extended replays of him pre 04, and his seam position was all over the place.

It was all over the place some of the time, yes - do you want me to give you some examples of occasions it's been all over the place since 2003\04? Because I can - plenty.
Just like now, however, his seam is good sometimes and poor others. He's not swinging the ball any more than he used to, and nor is he extracting movement from non-seaming pitches, same way he never has.
Only difference is he's getting more poor strokes now than he did between 2001\02 and 2003.

yes i know how accurate he was before. my point is that hes more accurate now, and he started to bowl the perfect length, and the perfect line to the batsmen.

Yes, he's generally been even more accurate now than he was 2001\02-WC2003. However, the improvement in ODI accuracy happened a whole 10 months before the improvement in Test-match figures.

 

[marc71178]

Nope, it's not - you need to explain how he failed to pick the ball up.

Because of the pace and bounce.

 

[Richard]

So because the ball bounced, he didn't pick it up out of the hand?
Isn't that a bit too much of a coincidence when a totally polar-opposite delivery from the same bowler caused the exact same problem just a Test earlier?

 

[marc71178]

That ball bounced more than he expected because of the extra pace - the batsman was fooled and edged it.

I know you refuse to accept it because you still can't accept Flintoff is getting better as a bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

It was all over the place some of the time, yes - do you want me to give you some examples of occasions it's been all over the place since 2003\04? Because I can - plenty.
Just like now, however, his seam is good sometimes and poor others. He's not swinging the ball any more than he used to, and nor is he extracting movement from non-seaming pitches, same way he never has.
Only difference is he's getting more poor strokes now than he did between 2001\02 and 2003..

no, hes started to get a lot more movement on non seaming wickets, and a lot more zip, as is insanely obvious to anyone whos watched him bowl off late. and whether his seam position has been all over the place some of the time recently is irrelevant, it was all over the place all the time pre 2004.

Yes, he's generally been even more accurate now than he was 2001\02-WC2003. However, the improvement in ODI accuracy happened a whole 10 months before the improvement in Test-match figures.

2 things:
1) his seam position has only gotten better since the summer of 2004.
2) in the SA series in 03, he had plenty of dropped chances and a lot of bad luck.

 

[Richard]

That ball bounced more than he expected because of the extra pace - the batsman was fooled and edged it.

No, he lost sight of it and played the wrong line.

I know you refuse to accept it because you still can't accept Flintoff is getting better as a bowler.

I know I refuse to accept it because I know no bowler deserves credit for a batsman failing to pick-up a ball.

 

[Richard]

no, hes started to get a lot more movement on non seaming wickets, and a lot more zip, as is insanely obvious to anyone whos watched him bowl off late. and whether his seam position has been all over the place some of the time recently is irrelevant, it was all over the place all the time pre 2004.

No, it wasn't, there were plenty of occasions where he got a very good seam-position, he just mostly bowled the wrong length to get any swing.
It might appear obvious to people who've watched him bowl and not looked at the speed-gun that he's got quicker, but in fact he's actually got fractionally slower. And having bowled in West Indies and England for far more of that time than not (and having had 5 Tests in slightly-speed-up SA and 3 Tests in the subcontinent where it's impossible to bowl as fast because of the heat it's balanced-out when he's not played there) this speed is an accurate reflection of how quickly he's bowling.

2 things:
1) his seam position has only gotten better since the summer of 2004.
2) in the SA series in 03, he had plenty of dropped chances and a lot of bad luck.

If 1) is true then it's had nothing to do with his success, because his success started a whole 8 Tests before that.
And if 2) has been said once it's been said 100 times, by everyone you care to name, and it was exactly the same in 2002, as well. And dropped catches off non-wicket-taking deliveries is NOT unlucky, it's poetic-justice.

 

[marc71178]

No, he lost sight of it and played the wrong line.

And of course the pace and bounce had no effect on that did it?

I know I refuse to accept it because I know no bowler deserves credit for a batsman failing to pick-up a ball.

Even if it's because the ball is too good?

By your definition, an inswinging yoker at 100mph that the batsman fails to pick up doesn't deserve credit.

 

[Richard]

And of course the pace and bounce had no effect on that did it?

No, it didn't, because he failed to pick-up a delivery from the same bowler the very previous Test, a delivery that was both Yorker-length and a slower-ball.
Fact is, Lara on a couple of occasions had trouble picking-up Flintoff deliveries, and those deliveries had absolutely nothing in common except who they were bowled by.

Even if it's because the ball is too good?

By your definition, an inswinging yoker at 100mph that the batsman fails to pick up doesn't deserve credit.

Depends - some deliveries we've seen countless times be played with absolutely no difficulty at all - one of those is the 86.7mph shortish delivery from Andrew Flintoff.
An inswinging Yorker at 100mph is likely to result in a wicket regardless of whether the batsman doesn't pick it up. It's never happened, though, so we don't have any way to test the hypothesis.

 

[marc71178]

No, it didn't, because he failed to pick-up a delivery from the same bowler the very previous Test, a delivery that was both Yorker-length and a slower-ball.

So it's impossible that Flintoff bowled 2 different balls on 2 different days, both of which fooled Lara?

I wonder, had it been Gough (or the oh-so-great Craig White) bowling that ball, what would your reaction to it have been?

 

[tooextracool]

No, it wasn't, there were plenty of occasions where he got a very good seam-position, he just mostly bowled the wrong length to get any swing.
It might appear obvious to people who've watched him bowl and not looked at the speed-gun that he's got quicker, but in fact he's actually got fractionally slower. And having bowled in West Indies and England for far more of that time than not (and having had 5 Tests in slightly-speed-up SA and 3 Tests in the subcontinent where it's impossible to bowl as fast because of the heat it's balanced-out when he's not played there) this speed is an accurate reflection of how quickly he's bowling..

this clearly isnt going to get anywhere unless we had video evidence of it. so as of now argument over.

If 1) is true then it's had nothing to do with his success, because his success started a whole 8 Tests before that..

and that had to do with his imrpovement in accuracy post wc 03.
while he got good figures in both SL and the WI it was still glaringly obvious that he was a nothing special bowler, its only since the summer of 04 that hes really become a major part of the england bowling attack.

And if 2) has been said once it's been said 100 times, by everyone you care to name, and it was exactly the same in 2002, as well. And dropped catches off non-wicket-taking deliveries is NOT unlucky, it's poetic-justice.

nope he was far more lucky in the series against SA than he was at any point of his career before that. not to mention of course SA is a far better team than SL and india are away from home.