Yes, you are right that most batsmen are more at fault than the bowler is at credit for more of their dismssals than not (though I wouldn’t go as far as almost every time they bat – 65 to 70% is my estimate)Marc71178[/I] [B]I find it hard to believe that you persist in this line. Of 37 wickets said:Sorry, Richard.
Your argument, although well constructed and thorough, is clearly nonsense for one reason - most batsmen 'get themselves out' every time they bat.
I'm presuming that you never watched any of today's play. After Michael Vaughan scored his first single, he could easily have been dismissed no less than EIGHT occasions before he made another run - and that against Bangladesh. None of them were 'unplayable' balls, all were down to errors brought about by circumstances (on 1 for half an hour, out of nick, not getting forward positively etc etc etc).
One of the most salient points made in this fast-becoming-farcical discussion is the fact that if Harmison is bad, so are the rest of the England bowlers, if not worse.
Harmison is in the side, for better or for worse. He is clearly a popular player amongst the rest of the side, everyone speaks up for him and he tries his guts out every time he plays. Sure, he's a bit like Nantie on occasion, but he looks to me as though he would gladly die for the team unlike others I could mention.
That's good enough for me.
What you mean, Mr. M, is that he is currently getting good figures (statistics!), and as long as he continues to do so his place is guranteed!Mr Mxyzptlk said:Whether you (not you in partincular Richard... it's general) like it or not, Harmison is currently playing for England and is actually doing well. Whether he's a Test class bowler or not, or even if he never will be, the fact is that he's getting it done now and there's no reason to drop him as a result.
What I mean is that he is getting batsmen out, not statistics. You should seriously consider legally changing your name to something stat related.Richard said:What you mean, Mr. M, is that he is currently getting good figures (statistics!), and as long as he continues to do so his place is guranteed!
That is, as I have recently said, something which goes without saying.
That thought struck me when the team were having a drink. The rest were on water, SW-H was on Tennents Super or Carlsberg Special, I reckon.JohnnyA said:Can someone find Steve a shirt that fits, and perhaps a razor? He looks like a hobo out there!
what does <quack> meanluckyeddie said:That thought struck me when the team were having a drink. The rest were on water, SW-H was on Tennents Super or Carlsberg Special, I reckon.
<quack> you git. That was my idea for next week's column
Yes, and the fact that he has wickets to his name is reflected in statistics - nothing more! "Wickets in Test-cricket" is a statistic. Averages and strike-rates are made out of this statistic.Mr Mxyzptlk said:What I mean is that he is getting batsmen out, not statistics. You should seriously consider legally changing your name to something stat related.
Yet you just judge that they are bad batting?Richard said:Oh, yes, they can. The description of the dismissals is nothing to judge on
If he's outperforming the rest, why do people call for his head?Richard said:The argument that the rest of England’s attack is poor is indeed a farcical one – yes, most of England’s attack in the last 2 years has been rubbish. Fact.
Yes, by looking at the dismissals.marc71178 said:Yet you just judge that they are bad batting?
No - it's farcical to suggest dropping someone who's performing to Test standard. If someone isn't performing, it's farcical to suggest they warrant keeping their place in the side.If he's outperforming the rest, why do people call for his head?
It is farcical to suggest dropping the one who's performing ahead of others who aren't.
I'm not seeing the argument.Richard said:If your suggestion was true, someone averaging 70 when the rest were averaging 100 would merit their continued selection.
The argument is that someone should be judged by the standards of those around them.Neil Pickup said:I'm not seeing the argument.
If you aim for and accept mediocrity, you'll never get a good side.marc71178 said:And Harmison is averaging about 30, which is not bad in terms of Bowlers at Test level.
Yes, and that suggested that they were all very poor and Habibul was a bit better than the rest.marc71178 said:And Harmison is averaging about 30, which is not bad in terms of Bowlers at Test level.