players Who You Thought WOULDN'T Make It.............

[Richard]

Is Gladstone Small an argument for or against?

Against - it was a rather strange claim.

 

[Richard]

good batsmen dont do that though......except gary kirsten,fleming and steve waugh, they did it only 25% of the time so they can be dismissed as anomalies.

Let me assure you, it occurred nothing like 25% of the time. About 5% would probably be more accurate, though it was possibly lower than that.

 

[Richard]

u mean short fast into the rib cage of the batsman, forcing him to defend awkwardly and popping up a catch

No, no delivery can ever realistically force a batsman to do such because ducking or evading is always an option.

 

[Richard]

You're forgetting that Pollock and McGrath don't deserve all their wickets either.

What the devil has that got to do with Vaughan not making it?

 

[Richard]

no it doesnt get good batsmen out very often, but the fact is that it does get them out if it is bowled at a good enough pace right into the body. its happened before and will continue to happen. the point is that 1-2 short deliveries an over makes sense(depending on the kind of bowler you are, obviously for someone like pollock it would be stupid to do that) and if bowled well enough can get you a wicket

It happens so irregularly that it can be dismissed as a waste of deliveries.

which all comes back down to the same argument.....the fact is that it worked on lara and the WI bowlers from the 80s used it just as well

It didn't work on Lara - he lost sight of one Yorker, just managed to hit it, then played a poor shot to the next ball, clearly unnerved.
It wasn't short-pitched bowling that caused him to be unnerved.
And yes, of course it worked 20 years ago - wow, that sure means a lot. There were 4 of them and more in that case, doing the same thing day after day, match after match. That has never happened in any other team, at any time in the game's history (well, possibly except Bodyline). So it can be dismissed as - yes - an anomaly.
Oh, and it should also be added that protective equipment in those days was inadequete.

 

[Richard]

much in the same way that you were 'confident' that harmison would never average under 30 or take 7-12 or even be marginally successful in a series against any test class team in the world....because the ability to get bounce off a pitch cannot be used as a weapon to get wickets and that quality batsmen dont get out to bounce?
the thing is that even if he does manage to get 400 wickets, which seems quite likely if he continues the way he is at the moment, 102 wickets from 23 tests, you would still be saying that you never denied that harmison would get 400 wickets and that he got them from poor deliveries. of course its just amazing that if all it took was ordinary deliveries to take 400 wickets then why are there only such a small group of people who have done so and why has there never been an england bowler who has gotten 400 wickets?

Because there's never been one who's good enough who's played for long enough.
And I never have denied that he'll get 400 wickets - it's possible. I have, however, said I'm fairly sure he won't. Yes, I was fairly sure he wouldn't take 3 Test six-fors, each one was a surprise, and I'd be equally surprised were he to manage one in South Africa or against Australia in the next 2 series.
However, I've not once said I know it won't happen.

 

[Richard]

oh believe me, the percentage of times that one of those deliveries have actually taken wickets is very small indeed. far more often we've seen batsmen play and miss instead.

Oh, yes, we have - wickets fall to good balls (ie ones which involved some good bowling and some element of batting error) far more often. They also fall to nothing balls and poor balls, but I don't mind quite so much if it's during a spell where wickets have been taken with wicket-taking balls.
What I object to bowlers being given credit for is a spell of 4 for 62 where the wickets have been taken with 2 Long-Hops, a leg-stump length-ball and an attempted defensive shot to a ball missing off by two stumps that doesn't move at all.

no the only reason why you believe that they deserve wickets is because you believe that the bowler deserves credit for his ability to move the ball in the air. but what you dont realise is that bowling a short ball at the right pace and place requires just about as much ability.....neither are wicket taking but you seam to prefer swing to pace and bounce. its your opinion but IMO its just foolish.

Swing, spin, cut etc. are all arts you can learn. Bounce is something you can either do or you can't. If you're not lucky enough to be a tall person, there's sod-all you can do about it. Likewise having a fast arm. That's why I much prefer a modestly lucky bowler of 6ft who can propel a ball at 77-81mph or so and has learned to swing a ball, who has maximised his accuracy and doesn't have to resort to banging the ball into the pitch.
Whereas someone like Flintoff has been lucky enough to have an arm that enables him to propel the ball at 91mph and a bowling height of 9ft-whatever, and only has to run in and aim somewhere near the middle of the pitch to bowl the respective ball.
IMO that takes far less skill, and added to the fact that short length deliveries get wickets very infrequently than fuller length ones I'd much prefer see a bowler pitching it up and moving it, through the air or off the pitch. This is the only explanation I can provide of my preferance.

 

[marc71178]

Exactly, it's a ridiculous claim that genuinely was bandied-about by plenty of otherwise knowledgable cricket followers, just because he had the odd catch dropped off a Long-Hop and got a few play-and-misses because he bowled too short.

You defy belief.

Only 2 people have contradicted the consensus of the cricketing public - 1 didn't watch the games, but has never hidden his lack of rating Flintoff. You just think you know more than the rest of us.

 

[marc71178]

That's why I much prefer a modestly lucky bowler of 6ft who can propel a ball at 77-81mph or so and has learned to swing a ball, who has maximised his accuracy and doesn't have to resort to banging the ball into the pitch.

Or, a County bowler as he's more commonly known.

Someone like Saggers or Mike Smith, who will always get wickets in county cricket, but put him into the International arena and you wonder why.

 

[tooextracool]

Let me assure you, it occurred nothing like 25% of the time. About 5% would probably be more accurate, though it was possibly lower than that.

rubbish, they were out quite often fending off short deliveries to short leg,gully and the other close in fielders.

 

[tooextracool]

No, no delivery can ever realistically force a batsman to do such because ducking or evading is always an option.

except that if you actually bowl it quick enough into the body no batsman can duck or evade it in any way.

 

[tooextracool]

It happens so irregularly that it can be dismissed as a waste of deliveries.

yet the fact that it has happened so very often only reasonly off harmison and flintoff suggests to me that it isnt happening very irregularly.

It didn't work on Lara - he lost sight of one Yorker, just managed to hit it, then played a poor shot to the next ball, clearly unnerved.
It wasn't short-pitched bowling that caused him to be unnerved.

dont you ever stop with the rubbish? any fool could see that lara didnt look anywhere as comfortable against flintoff as he looked against every other bowler in the past.

And yes, of course it worked 20 years ago - wow, that sure means a lot. There were 4 of them and more in that case, doing the same thing day after day, match after match. That has never happened in any other team, at any time in the game's history (well, possibly except Bodyline). So it can be dismissed as - yes - an anomaly.
Oh, and it should also be added that protective equipment in those days was inadequete.

oh yes so basically anything that you cant explain must be dismissed as anomalies....indeed the fact that very few batsmen happen to get out to balls that swing and seam away from the batsman(and face it, the fact is that more wickets come from poor shots these days) suggests that they should also be dismissed as anomalies.
therefore we now know that pitching the ball up and getting it to swing and seam off the wicket doesnt get wickets, except on odd occasions when they should be dismissed as anomalies.

 

[tooextracool]

Because there's never been one who's good enough who's played for long enough.

but apparently all it takes is poor shots to get 400 wickets, as mcgrath and pollock have shown. so why cant bowlers like agarkar get 400 wickets too? why cant vaas be remotely as successful as mcgrath and pollock then?

And I never have denied that he'll get 400 wickets - it's possible. I have, however, said I'm fairly sure he won't. Yes, I was fairly sure he wouldn't take 3 Test six-fors, each one was a surprise, and I'd be equally surprised were he to manage one in South Africa or against Australia in the next 2 series.
However, I've not once said I know it won't happen.

yes but if you are 'fairly confident' that he wont do something, when he actually does it, it must be said that he has proved you wrong, because he has done something you didnt believe he could do.

 

[tooextracool]

Oh, yes, we have - wickets fall to good balls (ie ones which involved some good bowling and some element of batting error) far more often. They also fall to nothing balls and poor balls, but I don't mind quite so much if it's during a spell where wickets have been taken with wicket-taking balls.

and how many wickets are taken with wicket taking balls? if you look at any match outside of a seamers paradise or an absolute turner you will see that far more often wickets are taken off good but not wicket taking balls. wicket taking balls are far more often too good for the batsman and dont come too often, and therefore they dont take many wickets.

What I object to bowlers being given credit for is a spell of 4 for 62 where the wickets have been taken with 2 Long-Hops, a leg-stump length-ball and an attempted defensive shot to a ball missing off by two stumps that doesn't move at all.

oh i dont like wickets off long hops or leg stump balls either, and when that happens you are dead right that the bowler no matter how well he bowled previously doesnt deserve the wicket. which is why i dont rate macgill. but i personally dont mind it if a bowler bowls 3 balls that got the batsman playing and missing and then bowls a good delivery that the batsman plays a poor shot to and gets out. the bowler hasnt done anything wrong at all, if everything in the world were fair he should have got a wicket with his 3 previous deliveries, but the fact that he got it with the 4th delivery, suggests that he deserved the wicket.

Swing, spin, cut etc. are all arts you can learn. Bounce is something you can either do or you can't. If you're not lucky enough to be a tall person, there's sod-all you can do about it. Likewise having a fast arm. That's why I much prefer a modestly lucky bowler of 6ft who can propel a ball at 77-81mph or so and has learned to swing a ball, who has maximised his accuracy and doesn't have to resort to banging the ball into the pitch.
Whereas someone like Flintoff has been lucky enough to have an arm that enables him to propel the ball at 91mph and a bowling height of 9ft-whatever, and only has to run in and aim somewhere near the middle of the pitch to bowl the respective ball.
IMO that takes far less skill, and added to the fact that short length deliveries get wickets very infrequently than fuller length ones I'd much prefer see a bowler pitching it up and moving it, through the air or off the pitch. This is the only explanation I can provide of my preferance

and i too like bowlers(like craig white) who could do tricks with the ball rather than being naturally gifted. but that doesnt mean that people who can do that should be dismissed as useless. face it there have been several batsman who had barely any technique but who were naturally gifted with such brilliant hand-eye coordination that they didnt need it at all. and hand eye coordination and reflexes is also something that you are born with, something that you cant learn. people like vivian richards didnt have much technique, or concentration, yet he will go down as a great batsman. i dont see you saying anything about how lucky he was or that bowlers bowled poor balls only to him.
finally you make a post of sense, its all about your preference, you personally dont like bowlers who are 'naturally gifted' and therefore refuse to look at any of their achievements or even consider them as good players.

 

[Richard]

You defy belief.

Only 2 people have contradicted the consensus of the cricketing public - 1 didn't watch the games, but has never hidden his lack of rating Flintoff. You just think you know more than the rest of us.

I do indeed - if anyone thinks a Long-Hop that is slashed to a fielder deserves anything more than a dropped catch (as far as the bowler is concerned) then as far as I'm concerned I know better.

 

[Richard]

Or, a County bowler as he's more commonly known.

No, there are plenty of bowlers in domestic cricket elsewhere. And plenty who've been successful in international cricket.
Of course, some would prefer to see rubbish like Brett Lee playing Tests.

Someone like Saggers or Mike Smith, who will always get wickets in county cricket, but put him into the International arena and you wonder why.

Or like Martin Bicknell who will always get wickets in the domestic First-Class game and you put him into the Test-matches and wonder why he's not been there for the last 10 years.

 

[Richard]

rubbish, they were out quite often fending off short deliveries to short leg,gully and the other close in fielders.

No, you just remember the very few times they were and the many, many times they weren't.

 

[Richard]

except that if you actually bowl it quick enough into the body no batsman can duck or evade it in any way.

Yes, of course, we see it all the time, don't we - the ball that the batsman cannot react to.

 

[Richard]

yet the fact that it has happened so very often only reasonly off harmison and flintoff suggests to me that it isnt happening very irregularly.

Assuming that means recently not "reasonly", yes, it did. Let's see how long it happens for.

dont you ever stop with the rubbish? any fool could see that lara didnt look anywhere as comfortable against flintoff as he looked against every other bowler in the past.

And any fool could see that good batsmen (Stephen Waugh, Ganguly) look uncomfortable against the short-ball quite regularly and hardly ever get out to it.

oh yes so basically anything that you cant explain must be dismissed as anomalies....indeed the fact that very few batsmen happen to get out to balls that swing and seam away from the batsman(and face it, the fact is that more wickets come from poor shots these days) suggests that they should also be dismissed as anomalies.
therefore we now know that pitching the ball up and getting it to swing and seam off the wicket doesnt get wickets, except on odd occasions when they should be dismissed as anomalies.

If you actually look at a stratified sample of Test-wickets you'll see you're very wrong indeed.
Though it is true that more wickets than not come from poor shots in the "era" we're in at the moment.

 

[Mr. P]

I do indeed - if anyone thinks a Long-Hop that is slashed to a fielder deserves anything more than a dropped catch (as far as the bowler is concerned) then as far as I'm concerned I know better.

Hmm I know I have probably joined in a bit late but I think this comment is a bit of a generalisation - do you think this applies to every situation?