Shoaib Akhtar = awesome

[Richard]

Need to stop talking to yourself.

Need to stop making silly put-downs.
Yes, I know I did in the instance you quoted, but let's see how often I do it compared to the two of you.

 

[marc71178]

So, not content with telling us all what threads we shouldn't post in, you're now going on to tell individuals what to post.

 

[sledger]

yet again another treah has turned into a richard moan fest, suprise suprise....

 

[Richard]

So, not content with telling us all what threads we shouldn't post in, you're now going on to tell individuals what to post.

I'm telling you that making silly put-downs on me is totally pointless because it's not going to do you any good.
It could do you bad, of course, I can't even begin to guess.

 

[Richard]

yet again another treah has turned into a richard moan fest, suprise suprise....

Quite what a "treah" is I', not sure, but I can assure you I've never heard of one, let alone turned one into a moan-fest.

 

[twctopcat]

Quite what a "treah" is I', not sure, but I can assure you I've never heard of one, let alone turned one into a moan-fest.

Come on, its treat.

 

[Richard]

Ahh, I've ruined a treat - my 'art bleeyds.

 

[tooextracool]

And the way I look at it the turner was more "inevitable" than Martin being picked (let alone being picked and bowling well) so therefore New Zealand gained a more unexpected advantage.

except that martin has played every test since then. the fact is that martin bowling well is just as likely as getting a turner in NZ and boje bowling well on it.

Exactly, they were hammered when they were bowling rubbish - in The Second Test. In the other 2, though, they weren't.

no the problem is that they were always rubbish, except that cairns and oram both of whom can smash any bowler out of the park really took it to them, as has been shown before, they had far better figures before the 2 came together.

 

[tooextracool]

So it's not true to say either, now, is it?
You know and I know and everyone else who's studied the situation knows that most of the time both of the two happen. As is it that everyone loses to Australia.

that is not an excuse. just because 6 other teams lose to australia, it doesnt give you an excuse to lose 5-1 against them. nor does it give you an excuse to be completely uncompetitive in both india and SL. the fact is that they've been abysmal when they've good competition and you;ve put it down to the opposition always doing it, and when they've been poor against poor/average competition(such as pakistan,NZ and england) you've put it down to underperforming. but when have they ever performed then i ask you?

Maybe they're incapable of winning anywhere but at home against rubbish opposition - perhaps that's because all the opposition they've played at home in recent years, except Australia, have been rubbish away from home?

yes that is indeed the case, but just because they've beaten poor teams it doesnt make them a good side.

 

[tooextracool]

No, I'd never criticise someone for failing away from home unless there was an obvious reason for it. If it meant a poor overall average I'd say it meant a poor overall average.
Personally I'd say McKenzie's away average of 39.11 in the period where he played well at home as well means something - you, on the other hand, would simply say that scoring runs in Zimbabwe doesn't matter.
What you see as good-home-poor-away I see simply as an indication that most of his poor period has come in away Tests.

except that you cannot just hand pick the period that you like. and yes zimbabwe are rubbish opposition, scoring against them doesnt prove a thing. i think mckenzies overall average away from home says enough about how good a player he is, along with the fact that hes not even in the side.

Losing 1-0 in two-Test series hardly qualifies as "being hammered", more beaten relatively convincingly (except in Pakistan).
And given that they'll not visit the subcontinent for God-knows-how-long now I don't actually see that it's immidiately relevant..

except that losing by 313 runs(against a murali-less attack) and 8 wickets counts as being hammered, especially when the other pitch they played on in both series were dead flat.

Or rather it could simply show us that his failing in SL had more to do with being forced to bat totally out of position and that for most of the series in England and all of the ones in Pakistan and New Zealand he was in a phrase of his Test-career where he was very poor home or away.
I've not actually claimed him to be a brilliant player at all, incidentally, simply not one to be written-off the way you'd have it.

except that it cant be coincidence that hes somehow managed to lose form only when hes played abroad. especially considering that he had a good series before and after the ones in WI and SL
no you havent called him brilliant, just said that hes as good as cullinan, cronje etc.

I'd say they've played better this series than they played in India or Sri Lanka - not much of a surprise, really.

hardly surprising considering they are playing at home, and given that they are rubbish abroad.

 

[tooextracool]

And of course none of them can be given the time to improve that Donald and Rhodes, especially, were given? Not to mention Kallis.

no i mean clearly you need more than 41 and 30 tests( mckenzie and dippenaar respectively). incidentally, how long ago was it when you said that rhodes was an anomaly and players( chopra )dont deserve more than 10 games at the test match level to prove themselves. not to mention of course that rhodes wouldnt have made the test side if it wasnt for his fielding which is far better than both mckenzies and dippenaars.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it doesn't - it does, however, mean that to get bowled-out by mainly Chris Martin will come as a disappointment.

its a disappointment to anyone if you lose no matter what.

 

[tooextracool]

Honestly, what ridiculous lengths will you go to to score points (and lengthen posts totally unneccesarily) - I've used the term many, many times, with all sorts of people, and no-one (you included) has ever objected before.
By "spell" I was referring to the match - can't we just leave the bloody thing at that? .

no because you need to speak in english.
the fact is that i wasnt the only one who thought you were referring to a particular spell in martins figures.

Except that Basin Reserve has produced a few, especially in recent years.

go ahead then show me when the last time was that basin reserve produced a turner.

So Pollock, Ntini, Nel and Boje all bowled accurately and Boje was penetrative, in other words.
And Styris scored runs because everyone will score runs every now and then..

do you ever read my posts? ive said styris scored because hes more than capable of scoring on flat wickets. and yes pollock,ntini, nel and boje was as accurate as they usually are.

Right, for posterity's sake - before Cairns came to the wicket the figures were:
Pollock 23 for 65
Ntini 24 for 71
Boje 9 for 36
Kallis 15 for 68
Terbrugge 16 for 65
So we can see that while all of them suffered from the Cairns\Oram onslaught, Pollock and Ntini actually had economical figures before it..

yes hence i was right about the fact that styris played well and the bowlers were accurate.

And what an absurd notion that bowlers only bowl accurately when the conditions suit them! Despite, I suppose, Ntini's combined ER in the three subcontinent tours of 2003-2004 being less than 3-an-over? Or his ER in New Zealand (with not a seaming pitch in sight) that was also under 3 (despite, as we've just found-out, it being seriously damaged by the Cairns\Oram partnership)?

depends what you call accurate, he bowls a lot shorter when he plays away from home, and i dont call that accurate.

Ntini and Boje both have some games where they bowl accurately, some where they spray it all over the place. They only offer penetration when there's seam or turn (or poor batting) but that's a totally different matter.

ntini is poor even when theres seam movement, because he bowls too short and is a bang it in bowler, hence seam movement doesnt exactly help him.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, of course.
"Deluded" seems to be becoming a watchword - noticed how monotonous you were becoming, have you?

hardly, compared to you just thinking that every cricket who has succeeded in domestic cricket must succeed in test cricket and you using select players fc averages and calling them not test class.

 

[tooextracool]

Anyone deserves to beat them provided they don't play totally woefully.
They don't, however, deserve to be credited with a Test-match win upon beating them - something as far as I'm aware you agree on, given that you like me always remove Bangladesh games where Test and ODI performance is being discussed.

yes which is the whole point i was trying to make here, i never said that they should be credited for it. thus the same applies for the NZ-SA situation, NZ beating a poor SA side in the 2nd test only suggests that they deserved to win

 

[tooextracool]

It is a simple matter of who is adjudged to be the more talented side. I've always believed that the potential of South Africa is greater than that of England, simple as. I also believed it about New Zealand.
Some people (you, for instance) believe otherwise - so as far as you're concerned if SA draw or win the other side has underperformed.

if you think SA has more potential than england then you really are crazy. the fact is that SA rarely win anyways so i dont usually need to say that and they draw only on the flattest wickets

 

[tooextracool]

And of course no-one else would do that, would they? So now everyone is dyslexic..

no just you, and you would be the only one to claim that i said something that i didnt.

So he's bowled OK (not as well as his figures suggest) in two home series - wow.

how anyone can say that someone who averaged 17 and 23 in 2 series bowled ok and not well is simply ludicrous. and of course he bowled extremely well in other home series against sides that you said were poor away from home. infact hes only had 2 poor home series since the series against NZ, one against an india side that is just as bad away from home and one against australia who not many bowlers do well against anyways.

In other words they exploited the flat wickets when they came along.
Even though they managed to lose some games (4 more than they won - including the "unofficial" one) due to their by-and-large terrible bowling, they still batted well for the most part on flat wickets (and once Sehwag and Tendulkar on a slightly seaming one).
Which, funnily enough, is precisely what I said they'd done.

can you read at all?the only time they batted well was on dead flat track.

And the fact is they were much the better side and under most circumstances would probably have won that series.

Quite possibly they would. If there'd been a bit more play possible, though, I'd back SA not Pak to have won that Second Test.

of course you would because you think that SA is a brilliant side,despite the fact that you yourself have said that their bowling is poor and therefore they couldnt be expected to have bowled out pakistan before they could get those 50 odd runs.

 

[social]

whenever i've heard ponting talk he sounds arrogant IMO

I just dont think he is a particularly good public speaker and, as such, comes off as being abrupt or arrogant.

 

[Richard]

except that martin has played every test since then. the fact is that martin bowling well is just as likely as getting a turner in NZ and boje bowling well on it.

Rubbish, Martin has bowled well in maybe 3 or 4 of his Test-matches (mostly against South Africa). Turners have occurred in NZ a few times in recent years - and Basin Reserve does tend to produce more than the drop-in-wicket stadiums (not surprisingly).

no the problem is that they were always rubbish, except that cairns and oram both of whom can smash any bowler out of the park really took it to them, as has been shown before, they had far better figures before the 2 came together.

And the fact that they were poor before suggests that they underperformed when bowling at the rest of the batting, not just Cairns and Oram.

 

[Richard]

that is not an excuse. just because 6 other teams lose to australia, it doesnt give you an excuse to lose 5-1 against them. nor does it give you an excuse to be completely uncompetitive in both india and SL. the fact is that they've been abysmal when they've good competition and you;ve put it down to the opposition always doing it, and when they've been poor against poor/average competition(such as pakistan,NZ and england) you've put it down to underperforming. but when have they ever performed then i ask you?

By beating comfortably the teams they should have beaten comfortably.
And by having players who've shown their pedigree in past times.

yes that is indeed the case, but just because they've beaten poor teams it doesnt make them a good side.

Nope, but it makes them a pretty competant one, and sometimes under-strength of course.