• 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.

Told ya

Buddhmaster

International Captain
Right now, i don't think anyone can really say Flintoff and Harmison aren't any good. Flintoff is one of the best batters going around right now, and his bowlings not going that bad, and Harmison is the number 1 ranked bowler in the world.
 

twctopcat

International Regular
Richard said:
Or rather you will see that most of their wickets come from poor strokes.
Well to be fair good strokes rarely get a batsmen out, merely the "wrong" stroke.
 

Craig

World Traveller
Richard said:
Or rather you will see that most of their wickets come from poor strokes.
I think if we sat back and analisyed every single wicket Shane Warne has taken, and whether they were bad strokes or not, and discredited them, he would probably have less then 50.

I mean how on earth do you define a good or bad stroke to a ball when you have less then one second to play a shot when facing a quick bowler?
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
There are only two types of strokes....Good and Bad. If it fetches you runs, it is a good stroke and if it gets you out, it is a bad stroke. So if you take away all the wickets that were taken with bad strokes, no one would have any wickets.
 

Buddhmaster

International Captain
If a batsmen plays a wrong or bad shot, it's usually because the bowler has forced indecision. Harmison is a very good bowler and I don't see why you wouldn't think that.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
honestbharani said:
There are only two types of strokes....Good and Bad. If it fetches you runs, it is a good stroke and if it gets you out, it is a bad stroke. So if you take away all the wickets that were taken with bad strokes, no one would have any wickets.
Not all wickets come exclusively from bad strokes, y'know!
And certainly not all run-getting strokes are good ones! There's nothing good about an arial edge to the third-man boundary!
Anyway, it's beside the point - nothing wrong with a spell of 6 wickets where 2 were good balls and 4 poor strokes - but there is wrong with a 7-12 with not a single good ball. Or any other good set of figures where not a single good ball has taken a wicket.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
twctopcat said:
Well to be fair good strokes rarely get a batsmen out, merely the "wrong" stroke.
No, they rarely do - they do occasionally, though. Sometimes wickets occur where the batsman has done all he could realistically be expected to to avoid dismissal.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Craig said:
I think if we sat back and analisyed every single wicket Shane Warne has taken, and whether they were bad strokes or not, and discredited them, he would probably have less then 50.

I mean how on earth do you define a good or bad stroke to a ball when you have less then one second to play a shot when facing a quick bowler?
Well people manage it often enough, you know! It's not as if every ball where you have a split-second's reaction takes a wicket.
I'm not sure about Warne, anyway, but I'm sure he's had plenty of 4-fors where it's 2 good balls and 2 totally avoidable wickets. That doesn't bother me at all; what I dislike is when you get 4-70 without bowling a single wicket-taking ball.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Buddhmaster said:
If a batsmen plays a wrong or bad shot, it's usually because the bowler has forced indecision. Harmison is a very good bowler and I don't see why you wouldn't think that.
No-one can force anything.
 

twctopcat

International Regular
Richard said:
No, they rarely do - they do occasionally, though. Sometimes wickets occur where the batsman has done all he could realistically be expected to to avoid dismissal.
Sometimes. :dry:
 

nzidol

School Boy/Girl Captain
Richard said:
He's been capable of 90mph since 2000.
when did he crank that out. didn't see him bowling anywhere near that when he came to nz a few years ago, he wasnt even hitting 140.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
nzidol said:
when did he crank that out. didn't see him bowling anywhere near that when he came to nz a few years ago, he wasnt even hitting 140.
He was clocking 87 without apparent effort in the Zimbabwe Tests in 2000, and in India in 2001\02 he hit 91.
He certainly clocked in the 90s a few times in that series - don't know whether you managed to pick-up on those balls.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
twctopcat said:
Relevant only some of the time.
Well if you're holding-out for universal relevance you're going to reduce the number of posts on the forum to zero.
 

Top