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

[Richard]

except that you cant prove that they are capable unless they actually did. i can quite easily say that had they played now their ER would have increased.

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

 

[Richard]

how can any bowler be incapable of bowling at 60mph?
even you and i can bowl at 60 mph.

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.

 

[Richard]

pre 2001: 4.16
post 2001: 4.39


whats the excuse this time?

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.

 

[Richard]

its the same point that you have with fingerspinners who have the doosra. they have it so what? they are still successful fingerspinners.

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

and as has been seen neither of the 3 turn the ball considerably more than a normal finger spinner.

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.

which is not the point im arguing, read my post again.

"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.

no you just called him a poor player of spin.

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

not to mention of course the time you called roshan mahanama a great player or that russell arnold and bharadwaj were picked primarily as spinners or when you called geoff allott an all time great based in both forms of the game based on a single world cup.

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.
I've admitted my mistake re Bharadwaj
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.
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.

 

[Richard]

yes once in a blue moon

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.

and bowling in the death for 1 out of every 15 games doesnt change a record much.

As you can see above, it's rather more than once in every 15 games, and regularly bowling 2 or 3 overs in the last 10 does change a record quite a bit.

vettoris record in NZ, aus, SA and eng are 4.32,4.38, 3.98 and 3.54 respectively.

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

rubbish, ealham in his entire career took more than 2 wickets in all of 3 games. like it or not he was the most one dimensional bowler possible, he would always return figures of 1/41 odd irrespective of the wicket.

Certainly explains how he went for less than 40 off 10 in nearly 1\3 of his career, then. And how he took 2 or more wickets in 30% of his games.

most finger spinners pick up plenty of wickets when they come across a slowish wicket and they bowl extremely tight. in seamer friendly conditions, i dont think id want 1/40 odd.

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

and since you've already made up your mind about him, you'll never be conformed. and how many times do i have to tell you, the anomalies are the GOOD finger spinners, hence you have to always be looking for a good finger spinner in the side, not just have a pre conceived notion about not picking them at all.

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.

 

[Richard]

so gough bowled poorly in that game then? you really are a joker.
so since gough bowled poorly in 4 out of 6 games in that series(the 2 good ones coming on seamer friendly wickets anyways) shouldnt he be dropped from the side?

Nope, because when he did bowl well it more than made-up for the 4 not-so-good ones.
Gough didn't bowl anywhere near as well as some suggested that series - it's simply because the rest are so poor without Flintoff in the side that he got the exaggerated praise he did. He was being criticised for similar spells last summer.
Bowling at the death didn't help, of course - if he'd bowled straight through I'm fairly confident he'd have gone for closer to 4-an-over than the 5-an-over he all-but went for every time.

 

[marc71178]

No, neither I nor you have watched enough of Bell's batting to know more about it than him

Here we go, the old "knowing better than the man himself" theory - the biggest load of rubbish spouted on here.

 

[Richard]

Yes, clearly, because it doesn't make sense that I know as much about Flintoff's bowling in Test-matches as he does, having watched with equal attention, does it? Only if the integrity of your argument depends on Flintoff knowing better.
And I don't really see where this comes from, really - I've not said I know better than a certain player here.

 

[marc71178]

No, but you suggest that you would have the ability to know more about Bell than Bell does.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to know more about someone than they themselves do.

 

[Richard]

Yep - but it is possible to know as much about what someone's done on the field as they do.

 

[marc71178]

Now it's not, because they know what they're actually trying to do as well as what happens.

 

[Richard]

Yet what they're trying to do is merely a contributory factor to what happens.
So to know what's happened, you don't need to know that.

 

[marc71178]

Rubbish.

You cannot tell what a player is trying to do, only what happens, so there is no way you know more about the player than the player does.

It's a simple concept - why do you have to be so arrogant to claim you know so much?

 

[Richard]

Rubbish.

You cannot tell what a player is trying to do, only what happens, so there is no way you know more about the player than the player does.

No, you don't, but you know as much about what has happened, and what someone is trying to make happen doesn't matter, all that matters is what does happen.

It's a simple concept - why do you have to be so arrogant to claim you know so much?

There lies your mistake - you don't have to be arrogant to claim to know so much.
It's just your misplaced assumption that the latter automatically = the former.

 

[sledger]

No, you don't, but you know as much about what has happened, and what someone is trying to make happen doesn't matter, all that matters is what does happen.

There lies your mistake - you don't have to be arrogant to claim to know so much.
It's just your misplaced assumption that the latter automatically = the former.

richard get a job mate..

 

[Richard]

Got one, thanks.
Not the best, but I've got prospects all the same.

 

[marc71178]

No, you don't, but you know as much about what has happened

Like you know so much about Flintoff's medical history which affect how he bowls?

It is impossible to know more about someone than that person knows themself, and by claiming you do only exudes arrogance.

 

[Richard]

And by continually repeating that you're hoping you'll get less and less people to take notice of me because they think I'm an arrogant *wat.
Whether I know about what has caused Flintoff to bowl certain balls or not - I know what's happened.
Flintoff's medical history, same as his mindset and every other irrelevant thing you've tried to bring into it, don't change either the figures or the strokes the batsmen have played.

 

[marc71178]

So please tell me how you know more about Flintoff's bowling when you only see the output and nothing else.

 

[Richard]

Because what is there to what Flintoff has bowled other than the output?
What matters other than what happens with and to the delivery?
What else contributes to the game?