Missed Milestones

[Richard]

you know best

Glad you recognise these things.

 

[Swervy]

Glad you recognise these things.

shame you don't recognise sarcasm

 

[Richard]

I do - but the best way to deal with sarcasm is generally to ignore it.

 

[pasag]

I don't think Hoggard knew about the record at the time, or Gilchrist for that matter.

 

[Swervy]

I do - but the best way to deal with sarcasm is generally to ignore it.

which always translates well on an internet forum of course

 

[GIMH]

How? I got caught up in the moment of my favourite ever player about to break the record for the fastest Test century and then Hoggard bowls a wide, denying him the opportunity. I'm not saying Hoggard should've bowled a full-toss or anything, but I still thought it was poor form to bowl that wide. But I was venting my frustration at Gilchrist missing out moreso than Hoggard's bowling.

And giving up extras so the other guy can't break a record is doing your job?

From memory I don't think it was called a wide. If it had been then Gilly would still have been on for the record as it would not have counted as a delivery. Also, to suggest it was poor form from Hoggard is a poor comment tbh, as Richard has said your job as a bowler is to take wickets or to stop the batsman from scoring. Hoggard did his job. What did you expect him to do?!

 

[Indipper]

Like Alok Kapali did with the Herschelle Gibbs wide in 2002/03?

Sorry, not exactly familiar with that incident.

Look I won't deny that that was a bit underhand, and naturally he's always denied doing it deliberately (dubious TSTL). But how on Earth is bowling a ball that's difficult to score off when a batsman is scoring exceptionally quickly anything other than doing your job?

If he was trying to bowl a difficult ball, there's no problem, that's his job. If Hoggs gave up a deliberate wide to deny Gilchrist his record, he was not doing his job. Not only was he giving up runs, but he was giving up another ball. A bowler's job is to keep the other team from scoring, not to keep the batsmen from scoring. Slight, but significant difference. And not everyone is rattled by being denied a record. Some people just want to win.

GIMH's right, the above of course only applies if it was a wide in the sense of outstretched arms.

 

[Richard]

Sorry, not exactly familiar with that incident.

In a "ODI" in 2002/03, Herschelle Gibbs was on 97* or something with SA needing 5 to win, and Alok Kapali speared one way down leg which went for five wides and denied Gibbs the chance to score what would've been a record 4th consecutive ODI century (that at least 2 of them would've come against Bangladesh somewhat devalues that anyway). If that was deliberate, it was very poor.

If he was trying to bowl a difficult ball, there's no problem, that's his job. If Hoggs gave up a deliberate wide to deny Gilchrist his record, he was not doing his job. Not only was he giving up runs, but he was giving up another ball. A bowler's job is to keep the other team from scoring, not to keep the batsmen from scoring.

One thing - the batsmen on the other team are those who do the scoring. The only way to stop the other team scoring is to stop the batsmen scoring.

He couldn't deny Gilchrist the record by bowling a wide - just a ball that was too wide to score easily off but within the wide-permitted length. A wide doesn't count to a batsman's balls-faced tally, nor does bowling wides help your team.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Nobody knows whether Hoggard purposely bowled it a wide ball, or whether he simply meant to bowl a wider ball that Gilchrist would have found harder to hit. It would certainly make sense for him to try and change something rather than just running in and bowling a ball that would have been easy to hit....

 

[pasag]

Unless he was following cricinfo on his mobile in between deliveries I doubt he would have known, tbh.

 

[Indipper]

One thing - the batsmen on the other team are those who do the scoring. The only way to stop the other team scoring is to stop the batsmen scoring.

Yes, I'm clear on the concept that the batsmen produce something like 95% of the runs in an innings. But if you state that the bowler's job is to cut off the runs, why would you exclude extras? If your objective is indeed to the game and not just to stifle your opponents' individual scores, why disregard the overall score?

 

[Top_Cat]

He couldn't deny Gilchrist the record by bowling a wide - just a ball that was too wide to score easily off but within the wide-permitted length. A wide doesn't count to a batsman's balls-faced tally, nor does bowling wides help your team.

Ball in question wasn't a 'wide'; a wider delivery, yes, but not a wide.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Ball in question wasn't a 'wide'; a wider delivery, yes, but not a wide.

So what's the problem? Hoggard bowled a delivery that was wider so Gilchrist couldn't hit it....

Or am I missing something?

 

[Richard]

Yes, I'm clear on the concept that the batsmen produce something like 95% of the runs in an innings. But if you state that the bowler's job is to cut off the runs, why would you exclude extras? If your objective is indeed to the game and not just to stifle your opponents' individual scores, why disregard the overall score?

You're not doing any good if you're cutting-off batsmen scoring by conceding extras. Extras are irrelevant to this question though.

 

[Richard]

Ball in question wasn't a 'wide'; a wider delivery, yes, but not a wide.

And that is ex-x-x-xactly the point I'm making. It was good bowling; it was legal, but difficult to get bat on. Precisely what a bowler should be aiming to do if a batsman is smacking it everywhere.

 

[GIMH]

Unless he was following cricinfo on his mobile in between deliveries I doubt he would have known, tbh.

Would be shocked if he wasn't, tbh

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Derek Underwood fell three wickets short of 300. Had it not been for the Packer Circus and rebel tour he could possibly have been - and still be - England's All-Time leading wicket taker. No sympathy implied as it was mainly his own doing.

 

[GIMH]

marc not getting 50,000 posts