Vaughan to score an ODI ton before his 100th ODI?

[marc71178]

What else contributes to the game?

Just about everything that he experiences.

His mental and physical state, what he's been told by his coaches and captain.

What he's actually trying to do.

None of those do you know a thing about.

 

[Richard]

And they contribute to what he bowls...
And what he bowls - nothing else - contributes to the game.
And I need to know none of the above to know what he's bowled.

 

[marc71178]

But you said initially you know more about his bowling.

You decided that he doesn't know when he changed his action and when he was injured, but you do.

Please tell us all how you did this without actually being him.

 

[Richard]

But you said initially you know more about his bowling.

No, I've only ever said I know as much.

You decided that he doesn't know when he changed his action and when he was injured, but you do.

Please tell us all how you did this without actually being him.

No, when did I say I knew either?
All I said was it doesn't matter - you've just continually tried to assert that it does.

 

[marc71178]

No, I've only ever said I know as much.

Either way it is impossible.

No, when did I say I knew either?
All I said was it doesn't matter - you've just continually tried to assert that it does.

How does it not matter?

The ball is a product of a number of things, things nobody but Flintoff and his coaches know about.

You've disputed things that Flintoff himself has said about his own bowling - based on what?

 

[Richard]

Either way it is impossible.

No, it's not - we've watched equal amounts, so therefore we know equal amounts.

How does it not matter?

The ball is a product of a number of things, things nobody but Flintoff and his coaches know about.

You've disputed things that Flintoff himself has said about his own bowling - based on what?

No, I've said that he's not bowling any better deliveries than he was 14 months ago, or 26 months ago.
If anyone thinks there's a difference, they're wrong.
Knowing what they know, though, they might be more likely to think a non-existant difference exists.

 

[marc71178]

No, it's not - we've watched equal amounts, so therefore we know equal amounts.

So you've watched every ball he's ever bowled then?

I don't believe you.

Knowing what they know, though, they might be more likely to think a non-existant difference exists.

Or they might know when they've got an injury that is affecting them but that you don't know about.

 

[tooextracool]

No, I mustn't, because even in 2001, 2002 sort of time Vettori's record wasn't really that good..

clearly, i mean how could he live with his disgraceful ER of 4.29 in 2000 or his even more disgraceful ER of 4.11 in 2001. ok so his ER went up to 4.43 in 2002 but given what came before and after that its more than acceptable, despite the fact that its still below your optimum 4.5 limit.

If you'll conclude that Vettori is past his prime at 26 (unless his back is obviously deteriorating) meanwhile, you'll do something rather foolish - hardly any spinner reaches his peak in his mid-20s.

and that means no one can? some people get worse with age, some get better.

Have you actually heard me suggesting that he should be dropped immediately?
No..

no you've suggested not picking a finger spinner at all, which is another one of your stupid ideas.

8, like 5, was simply a random number..

every number is random, whats your point. there have been at least 8 finger spinners since 92, that have done exceptionally well. there have been others who have been decent. hence it would suggest that if a finger spinner proves more than capable of bowling in ODIs he would certainly provide more variety than an ordinary pace bowler would to an attack and would therefore be very useful. you're idea of dropping any finger spinner simply because hes a finger spinner is the most ludicrous thing ive ever heard. let alone your refusal to accept that giles could possibly make a decent ODI bowler

 

[tooextracool]

No, neither I nor you have watched enough of Bell's batting to know more about it than him or anyone else who's watched a lot of him batting.
Whereas in the case of Flintoff's bowling I've watched him about as much as anyone, so I have the authority to say I know as well as anyone.

you dont need to watch more to know about about someones batting, you need to have watched enough of him. i couldnt bother about getting into the flintoff argument, because really i rather enjoy you making yourself out to be a fool. but really i couldnt care less whether bell didnt bat in a certain position for his county, because that could be explained with several plausible reasons.

 

[tooextracool]

Or rather if I deduce something to be an anomaly it won't prove anything to me, so therefore I'll form an opinion on that..

which really means the same thing.

Yes, they can - but unless they do it, it's no use, is it?

and who says that they wont? maybe they feel that in certain conditions certain types of bowling is better? maybe they'll learn to do so in time. simply dismissing them as not good enough based on not bowling at a speed that they quite clearly can bowl is ridiculous.

Really? So despite all these people acknowledging him as a good fielder (he's not lightening, no, but he's certainly not too slow) you still don't think he is?

who are the geniuses that have acknowledged him as a good fielder? at his age hes a liability on the field, hed be losing more runs than he could possible save.

You really do know how to exaggerate, don't you.

sometimes yes. in ealhams case no. even the english selectors will be scratching their head as to why they picked him.

We'll see.

we dont need to, its already failry obvious that he is more capable

He was picked more as a bowler, he was a bowler-who-bats-a-bit.

so his first class average of 43, not to mention his test average of 48, would suggest that he could "bat a bit". when are you going to admit that you are clearly wrong? he was picked for his all round abilities, not more as a bowler, just because it suits you.

And the record of various other bowlers could make it look as though they're part-timers too - unless their batting was (incorrectly) perceived to be good like in Arnold's case.

all of which is irrelevant. if they're record was poor then they shouldnt have picked and they are not valid for this argument. if they were picked and they had a poor batting record, then they were clearly picked on bowling ability. but the fact is that arnold was picked for his batting and his batting alone. hence give up your pathetic attempt to save face and admit that you were wrong to add arnold to a list of specialist finger spinners.

Arnold is a very accurate bowler, whether he's a good batsman or not, and yet he's extremely ineffectual in ODIs - because he bowls too slowly and batsmen can use their feet to attack him.

please, this argument really makes you look even more desperate. now that you cant find enough specialist finger spinners who were poor, you have to use part timers and claim that they were accurate to support your claim.

Yet if they'd bowled it quicker I'm fairly confident both would have been successful. Even if it's not difficult to do, they haven't done it, and hence they've both been rubbish.

no because being quicker doesnt make you a successful finger spinner, as several other finger spinners have shown. being intelligent and having variety is what does it. something which both of them clearly lacked.

 

[tooextracool]

Despite the fact there are bowlers who played with and without them and their ERs have not changed?

yes the odd 1, as if that proves so very much. ANOMALY!

 

[tooextracool]

Yet we can't bowl it with the requistite accuracy or with a bit of sidespin.
Utseya and Dharmasena can - Kumble used to be able to.
It's not good being able to do it unless you do do it.

and your point is?

 

[tooextracool]

Don't know when your mid-point is there, I can't find anything which produces an ER of 4.39-an-over.
What I look at is this:
season 1992/93 4.00
season 1993/94 3.66
season 1994 3.89
season 1994/95 4.05
season 1995/96 3.90
season 1996/97 4.59
season 1997 4.44
season 1997/98 4.45
season 1998/99 4.47
season 1999 4.28
season 1999/00 4.12
season 2000 3.36
season 2000/01 4.87
season 2001 5.15
season 2001/02 4.78
season 2002 3.88
season 2002/03 3.90
season 2004/05 3.85
Which gives the impression that while his performances have fluctuated (as most players' do) it's not as though the figures have gone from relatively good to poor.

does it occur to you that i dont care?
fact is his fluctuations or whatever you want to call it were a lot worse after 2001 than they were before that. so screw your balderdash theory that warnes figures remained the same pre and post 2001.

 

[tooextracool]

They're different bowlers to fingerspinners who don't have it..

and murali is different to every other wrist spinner, hence he isnt a wrist spinner. simple as that.

Murali is a different bowler to anyone, yes, so? He's different because he turns it more than a fingerspinner yet can bowl with accuracy that few wristspinners can.

yet hes different from every other bowler, hence he cant be grouped in the same category as someone clearly diferent from him. and how many times do i have to say it, murali would not have had the success that hes had if it werent for his disjointed elbow, accuracy or not.

Who's said that, then? You, and basically no-one else.
Almost everyone will tell you that wristspinners spin (and therefore turn) the ball considerably more than fingerspinners.

and since when do you care about everyone else? since everyone else told you that vettori did well on a flat wicket at perth. no wait......

"Nope, hardly any - because as I've said wristspin is an incredibly difficult thing to bowl, hardly anyone will ever be any good at it."
"everything is incredibly difficult to bowl, you only pick the bowlers who are good. what kind of rubbish statement is this? as though ive said we should pick finger spinners who arent good."
"Wristspin is much the hardest of the styles to bowl to the requistite accuracy, any fool knows that."
What point were you making? What I was saying is that wristspin isn't often something that can be bowled successfully, but when someone pops-up who can, you grab them because they're like gold-dust. I'll confess I haven't a clue what you're saying.

im making precisely the same point your making. when a good finger spinner pops up whos intelligent and capable of of using drift flight etc, you pick him in the side. else you dont. not once did i say that wrist spin is less harder to bowl than finger spin or anything of the sort.

I said he wasn't proven to be a good player of it, having been a poor player of it in 2003.

no you said that bar hayden everyone else were poor players of spin. and dont even bother trying to modify that statement to suit yourself, with all the 'proven' rubbish

I called Geoff Allott an all-time great? Really? I said his ODI-performances (which were mostly made-up of a World Cup) were exceptional. I don't think I even mentioned his Test credentials, and I certainly never said he was an all-time ODI great, just that he was very good in the time he did play and if he'd have done that for a longer career he would have been an all-time great. As per usual, you seem to be exaggerating somewhat to suit yourself.

oh clearly, i mean based on one ODI series on seamer friendly wickets we should assume that allott would have been an all time great. wow! of course we cant assume that if katich goes on to score against murali in SL and kumble in sydney that hes good against spin, yet we can assume based on performances on seamer friendly wickets despite his being desperately mediocre in the past that allott would have become an all time great. keep it up sherlock.

I've admitted my mistake re Bharadwaj

no suprise that you were wrong yet again either.

Russel Arnold most certainly is not primarily a batsman, otherwise his record would be better. If it were not for his bowling he'd not have played anywhere near the amount he has.

are you an idiot?arnold averages over 35, at one point in his career he was averaging over 45 with the bat!!(and that was after a considerable number of games too). just so you know,arnold still has a reason to be picked based on past performances with the bat. arnold was picked for his bowling, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about do you?

And you really think I'd call Mahanama a great after looking at his record? No, I hadn't looked at his record, I was simply going on his reputation, and he was credited as a player who played a large part in Sri Lanka's success, especially in WC96. And that, as we all know, can be a rather bad idea.

also known as another one of your stupid statements, that you make without proof.
and who the hell credits mahanama for the wc success in 96? as far as i remember all he did was score a 50 in the semis against india, and even that one was at such a slow SR, that it could barely have been considered a favour to the side.

 

[tooextracool]

Let's look at a few games, shall we?
v Pak, Lord's: bowled 2 overs in the last 10, first-innings.
v Aus, Bristol: bowled 1.3 overs in the last 10, game still in balance.
v Pak, Karachi: bowled 3 overs in the last 10, first-innings.
v Zim (in 2000, with Goodwin and Johnson), Lord's: bowled 3 overs in the last 10, game still in balance.
v WI, Trent Bridge: bowled 1 over in the last 10, first-innings.
v Zim, The Oval: bowled 2 overs in the last 10, game still in balance.
v Zim, Queen's: bowled 2.3 overs in the last 10, first-innings.
v Zim, Queen's: bowled 1 over in the last 10, first-innings.
v SA, East London: bowled 1.4 overs, right at the end, game in balance.
v Zim, Newlands: bowled 2 overs in the last 10, first-innings.
v SA, Newlands: bowled 1 over in the last 10, first-innings.
v Ind, Edgbaston: bowled 2 overs in the last 10, first-innings.
v Zim, Trent Bridge: bowled 3 overs in the last 10, first-innings.
v SA, The Oval: bowled 3 overs in the last 10, first-innings, including the last 2 from one end.
These enough for you? For a bowler who supposedly never bowled in the last 10 that seems quite a few to me. Most of them, as well, were with Craig White in the side - just imagine how many more there are - there's still nearly half his career I haven't covered here, and White didn't play once in the remaining 30 games.

no surprise that about half of those games were against zimbabwe, most of which were dead rubber games anyways. and really bowling 1 or 2 overs in the last 10, wow give him a medal. fact is that when i say last 10 im generalising what the slog overs are, because slog overs vary depending on the situation of the game.

'll say it again - notice the "hardly ever"..

there are enough examples to suggest that picking finger spinners isnt a bad idea anywhere in the world.

Certainly explains how he went for less than 40 off 10 in nearly 1\3 of his career, then.

yes so, oh he gets more economical sometimes, and he gets hammered sometimes, it all evens out. he was still incapable of taking wickets.

And how he took 2 or more wickets in 30% of his games.

WOW 2 wickets in a game, he really was a killer strike bowler.

Most fingerspinners get hammered when the pitch doesn't suit spin..

yes they're called 'the bad ones'.....

If a fingerspinner can do something a bit different (ie can bowl a Doosra or regularly bowls at 60mph or near) you consider picking him, otherwise I wouldn't bother myself. Of course, once someone has been picked as long as he's doing OK he's got to be retained.

yes i mean no surprise that a bowler like vettori has bowled better in his last 5 years than saqlain did throughout his career. a doosra really doesnt make a bowler as effective as you make him out to be, intelligence does. vettori has his own variety and its no surprise that while every other NZ bowler has been hammered against australia in the recent series vettori has managed to better his record.

 

[marc71178]

clearly, i mean how could he live with his disgraceful ER of 4.29 in 2000 or his even more disgraceful ER of 4.11 in 2001. ok so his ER went up to 4.43 in 2002 but given what came before and after that its more than acceptable, despite the fact that its still below your optimum 4.5 limit.

Like GIles, it's clearly only low because by some miracle he's avoided being hit big-time...

 

[Richard]

So you've watched every ball he's ever bowled then?

I don't believe you.

Oh, no, I haven't.
So I'm not less qualified to comment because I've missed maybe 1 ball in every 200 or so.

Or they might know when they've got an injury that is affecting them but that you don't know about.

Yet I still know what the outcome of that injury is.

 

[Richard]

clearly, i mean how could he live with his disgraceful ER of 4.29 in 2000 or his even more disgraceful ER of 4.11 in 2001. ok so his ER went up to 4.43 in 2002 but given what came before and after that its more than acceptable, despite the fact that its still below your optimum 4.5 limit.

I'll use one of your analogies: "if 4.11 and 4.29 are the best he can do, I dread to think what he's like when he does poorly"

and that means no one can? some people get worse with age, some get better.

Yes, they do - but if someone starts to get worse at 26 unless there's an obvious injury it suggests they've been worked-out.

no you've suggested not picking a finger spinner at all, which is another one of your stupid ideas.

In spite of the fact I've explained it.

every number is random, whats your point. there have been at least 8 finger spinners since 92, that have done exceptionally well. there have been others who have been decent. hence it would suggest that if a finger spinner proves more than capable of bowling in ODIs he would certainly provide more variety than an ordinary pace bowler would to an attack and would therefore be very useful. you're idea of dropping any finger spinner simply because hes a finger spinner is the most ludicrous thing ive ever heard. let alone your refusal to accept that giles could possibly make a decent ODI bowler

Like I say, I'll wait and see how good Giles turns-out.
I'd like to see fingerspinners that have done exceptionally well (gone at less than 4-an-over). Even the best have usually been able to do no better than 4.2-4.4.

 

[Richard]

you dont need to watch more to know about about someones batting, you need to have watched enough of him. i couldnt bother about getting into the flintoff argument, because really i rather enjoy you making yourself out to be a fool. but really i couldnt care less whether bell didnt bat in a certain position for his county, because that could be explained with several plausible reasons.

Such as?
If he wanted to bat there, he could have done.

 

[Richard]

which really means the same thing.

No, it means I do something sensible when you suggest I do something stupid.

and who says that they wont? maybe they feel that in certain conditions certain types of bowling is better? maybe they'll learn to do so in time. simply dismissing them as not good enough based on not bowling at a speed that they quite clearly can bowl is ridiculous.

If they've not learnt by now I somehow doubt they'll learn at all.

who are the geniuses that have acknowledged him as a good fielder? at his age hes a liability on the field, hed be losing more runs than he could possible save.

Because age = fitness automatically, doesn't it?
Hussain was still an excellent fielder at 36.

sometimes yes. in ealhams case no. even the english selectors will be scratching their head as to why they picked him.

No, there have been plenty bigger disgraces to play for England.

we dont need to, its already failry obvious that he is more capable

Even if he averages single-figures in his next 6 innings?

so his first class average of 43, not to mention his test average of 48, would suggest that he could "bat a bit". when are you going to admit that you are clearly wrong? he was picked for his all round abilities, not more as a bowler, just because it suits you.

He is clearly a good batsman - he was selected for ODIs, however, more for his bowling.

all of which is irrelevant. if they're record was poor then they shouldnt have picked and they are not valid for this argument. if they were picked and they had a poor batting record, then they were clearly picked on bowling ability. but the fact is that arnold was picked for his batting and his batting alone. hence give up your pathetic attempt to save face and admit that you were wrong to add arnold to a list of specialist finger spinners.

Arnold may have been initially picked for his batting - before too long his bowling was playing a significant part in his retention, whatever "pathetic" and "save face" comments you repeat.

please, this argument really makes you look even more desperate. now that you cant find enough specialist finger spinners who were poor, you have to use part timers and claim that they were accurate to support your claim.

So Arnold's not an accurate bowler who bowled quite a lot now?

no because being quicker doesnt make you a successful finger spinner, as several other finger spinners have shown. being intelligent and having variety is what does it. something which both of them clearly lacked.

So Dharmasena, Utseya and Kumble (pre-1999) have an extraordinary amount of intelligent variety? No, they're just nice and quick through the air and extraordinarily accurate.