tooextracool said:
much like every other of our posts it seems?
lets just leave it at that.
Fine by me.
no you said that the inclusion of murali in the wc side had barely any effect on their bowling,yet when i show you that it did you say that it was obvious.
No, it's obvious that Murali is a better bowler than Chandana.
It's not obvious that Murali's presence made the attack in the WC2003 game a hell of a lot better than that of NWS2002.
You're wrong, nope it or not. There was no seam-movement after about the 20th over of the game, nothing to do with the ball, to do with the pitch easing and losing it's moisture.
Vaas didn't need seam-movement to get good figures in that game.
if it was so abysmal then it wouldnt have taken as many wickets as it did and help the side reach the semi finals like it did.
If you look at the stats of Nissanka, Gunaratne and the part-timers when excluding the Canada\Kenya games you'll see that none of them were especially impressive.
Sri Lanka got to the semis thanks to South Africa's underperformance and beating all the sides slightly inferior to them (the minnows, New Zealand and West Indies).
no you didnt but you were suggesting that vaas bowled well while akram did not.
So what gave you that idea?
I certainly think that Chaminda bowled better in the respective game than Wasim did in his, but where did I say as such here?
oh you dont need to smahs them regularly, once you hit 3-4 good balls its quite likely that the bowler will automatically change his line and length or even lose his confidence. which is what happened in that match.
So basically they bowled crap and kept bowling crap.
Or if the bowled well then bowled crap that does say something about them. Doesn't say much about the batsman, though.
no i watched it clearly myself, flintoff bowled it wide.
And I watch it clearly with regularity myself.
Most of the boundaries Ganguly hammered off Flintoff were perfectly decent balls that Ganugly made into bad ones by using his feet.
it would have because once a bowler takes a wicket they tend to bowl a lot better.its the confidence booster that you need. waqar and shoaib bowled ok, but with tendulkar playing the way he did forced them to bowl badly.
No-one can force you to bowl badly. If you're good enough, you'll bowl well. Waqar and Shoaib were not good enough on that day, they were both woeful and that Tendulkar scored off them was no particularly astonishing achievement.
how stupid is this?if a great player can make a good ball look like a bad one does that mean it should be considered a bad ball?fact is tendulkar at his best does that quite often, and the bowler cant be blamed for bowling it in the right spot.
He doesn't make a good ball look like a bad one - to him, balls which would to others be OK are not.
and the chances of him failing were far higher than the chances of him succeeding. hence the 'better off opening part'
And as we all know, probabilities are only probables. It's only what might or might not happen.
