age_master
Hall of Fame Member
Gilly in the top 5, lest see who is better, Hayden, Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar, thats 4 i would say gilly is 5... maybe the south african skipper, thats all i caan think that are close
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Zimbabwe in Australia Thread
- Thread starter Langeveldt
- Start date
Deja vu?
I agree, Hoggy didn't bowl that badly, but he needs to be more consistent. Most of his wickets came from the wrong-un and he needs to use that more as a weapon. Also he should slow down a tad to let the ball do the work.
But well done to Katich on his effort too.
There was a left-arm chinamen bowler who took a bag of wickets in a Test match as the No. 2 spinner not so long ago who everyone anoited the new chosen one...and what's he doing now? Isn't he confined to the ranks of the pyjama clad?Andre said:Hogg wasn't too bad. He bowled quite tidly, putting pressure on the batsmen.
He just needs a few wickets to gain confidence at the top level. Everyone wrote him off when he returned to ODI's and he ended up coming good
Let's wait and see before giving the mantle to the guy who's bowled for just 2 seasons. Regardless of state.
I agree, Hoggy didn't bowl that badly, but he needs to be more consistent. Most of his wickets came from the wrong-un and he needs to use that more as a weapon. Also he should slow down a tad to let the ball do the work.
But well done to Katich on his effort too.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No - what is total and utter rubbish is saying that being dropped is the same as edging just short of slip (or indeed hitting the ball in the air within inches of a fielder on any side).Blewy said:
On one occasion (when a chance is given) normal circumstances would see the batsman dismissed. If a chance is not given there is no possibility of the batsmen being dismissed by that delivery (he can be run out, but he can't be got out by the ball).
That is a stupid argument if I've ever heard one.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well, it seems I have been fooled. I haven't the slightest clue how as, as I say, I unquestionably saw the Badani drop (and IMO, though it wasn't easy, it should have been caught), and I did, for some reason, write 64 when it was on 44, and another overhead to slip. The catch at cover on 100 was clearly Sanghvi and it's a bit tricky to mistake cover for slip.
I don't know where this drop by Dravid comes from, and Wisden 2002 does mention that "having been dropped by Badani, running back at mid-wicket, he immidiately survived an overhead chance to slip".
The CricInfo ball-by-ball is immensely unlikely to be wrong so S_V, you appear to have corrected me in a misguided idea.
If I had no idea what I was talking about the chances are I wouldn't even remember the Badani drop but never mind - apology accepted.
But yes, it seems I got it wrong. How, though, I don't know.
I don't know where this drop by Dravid comes from, and Wisden 2002 does mention that "having been dropped by Badani, running back at mid-wicket, he immidiately survived an overhead chance to slip".
The CricInfo ball-by-ball is immensely unlikely to be wrong so S_V, you appear to have corrected me in a misguided idea.
If I had no idea what I was talking about the chances are I wouldn't even remember the Badani drop but never mind - apology accepted.
But yes, it seems I got it wrong. How, though, I don't know.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Meanwhile, T_C\Corey:
Yes, you are quite right - the idea that Gilchrist gets dropped more than anyone else is at present just a perception. It does strike me that there has been a large increase in the number of dropped catches in the last couple of years, but again, maybe that's just my perception (and maybe misguided perception).
It would be tricky to provide a Worldwide average of dropped catches per batsman over, say, a year in Test-cricket. I will attempt to find a few examples, but forgive me if it takes a little time.
Yes, you are quite right - the idea that Gilchrist gets dropped more than anyone else is at present just a perception. It does strike me that there has been a large increase in the number of dropped catches in the last couple of years, but again, maybe that's just my perception (and maybe misguided perception).
It would be tricky to provide a Worldwide average of dropped catches per batsman over, say, a year in Test-cricket. I will attempt to find a few examples, but forgive me if it takes a little time.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
The Cricinfo bal-by-ball is frequently wrong - speaking from first-hand experience.Richard said:
During WC 2003, the Cricket Web staff covered the semi-finals and final ball-by-ball. Not only were we quicker on the ball, we got things right a damned sight more often than they did. A couple of days after the final, I compared our coverage with theirs and found that there were frequent occasions when their coverage consisted of
13.1 bowler A to batsman B - no run
13.2 bowler A to batsman B - no run
etc for 5 or 6 overs in succession (where they had lost the thread, refreshed the script, had technical trouble and so forth).
There were instances where we said a catch was dropped and they had no mention - I was intrigued and checked my tv recording of the games and discovered that we were correct.
This is not really a 'we are better than them' thing - there were times when we got in a hopeless pickle too. It's just that ball-by-ball is done 'on the fly' and it is a horrendously difficult thing to do.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
You haven't got a bbb on the First Test of 2000\01 by any chance, ed?luckyeddie said:
I still think I'm likely to have got it wrong - no-one else seems to remember the sequence exactly the way I do (some remember one drop, some the other), but I feel a little vindicated.
Wisden get it wrong just as much as anyone, but I'm absolutely positive I saw the thing the way I did.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Closed, nope, un-topped (no, that isn't a word) yes 
We just leave them to die quietly.
We just leave them to die quietly.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That said, the means of slaughter certainly wasn't quite...marc71178 said:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
A series that would have seemed almost pointless will be remembered for Matthew Hayden for all time, though hopefully the record-books will remember it for a short time only.
Really, with The ICC Test Championship drifting into obscurity, these series might as well happen once every 10 years, until Zimbabwe get back on their feet.
Really, with The ICC Test Championship drifting into obscurity, these series might as well happen once every 10 years, until Zimbabwe get back on their feet.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Purely and simply, because I don't like Hayden and I don't like seeing such a poignant World record to his name. I don't try to take anything away from him (unless he should have been caught in the 340s at long-on), but I still don't like it.Mr. Ponting said:
I'd prefer see it to Graeme Smith. I simply can't think of anyone else who's scored with such weight who'd be capable of scoring 381 around today.
Just the same way I don't think I've ever enjoyed anything more in cricket than seeing Astle obliterate Gilchrist's ill-deserved record for fastest Test double-century. Within two weeks.