Katich call up

[age_master]

I've seen Lee bat in at least 20 innings.
Rarely has he looked but clueless.

yes, i believe you:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


from what you are saying i would say it is you that is clueless about brett lees batting - 2 test 50's and one ODI 50 considering how often he gets to bat and what those situations usually require

 

[marc71178]

Yes, and both will be very disappointed with their economy-rates.

You really think that?

I wonder how many of the runs they've conceded have been because of the fact that they are attacking a lot and very quick, so edges etc have less chance of being taken?

 

[marc71178]

lower ERs often flow from taking wickets.

Apparently not Age - they only slow it for 2 or 3 overs (which is clearly a miniscule percentage of the 50 overs per innings!)

 

[marc71178]

I've seen Lee bat in at least 20 innings.

In International Cricket he's only played 70 innings.

Considering that's 70 out of a possible 155 innings in his International career to date, that means you've seen about 45 or so of his International career, yet you still persist in this claim he's not a good ODI bowler... :rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

Apparently not Age - they only slow it for 2 or 3 overs (which is clearly a miniscule percentage of the 50 overs per innings!)

So how long do you think the like of Symonds take to "get set" then?
Generally it's about 2 or 3 overs.

 

[Richard]

In International Cricket he's only played 70 innings.

Considering that's 70 out of a possible 155 innings in his International career to date, that means you've seen about 45 or so of his International career, yet you still persist in this claim he's not a good ODI bowler... :rolleyes:

OK, here's the games I've seen in which Lee has played:
All of the C&U Series 2000\01 (4 ODIs);all of the Ashes tour 2001 (5 Tests and 5 ODIs); all of the winter of 2001\02 (9 Tests and 9 ODIs); The Ashes 2002\03 (3 Tests); and all to date of the winter 2003\04 (4 Tests and 6 ODIs).
Work out for yourself how many innings with the bat that is. It is, however, more than enough to form a judgement on his bowling and my judgement is that he doesn't take very many wickets with good deliveries and is very wayward MOTT.
Hence I don't rate him. Excuse me once again for not basing everything on statistics.

 

[Richard]

You really think that?

I wonder how many of the runs they've conceded have been because of the fact that they are attacking a lot and very quick, so edges etc have less chance of being taken?

Accuracy won't be demeaned by pace.
Most of the runs Akhtar concedes are when he bowls poorly; most of the runs Waqar conceded in the 2001-2003 period were because he bowled poorly.
Both have easily bowled best when looking to attack and defend, just like Wasim, and it seems Shoaib has possibly lost once-and-for-all the "attack at all costs" mentality, as supposed to just dropping it away for a short period.

 

[Richard]

yes, i believe you:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


from what you are saying i would say it is you that is clueless about brett lees batting - 2 test 50's and one ODI 50 considering how often he gets to bat and what those situations usually require

Yet again you can only use that straw-clutch that is based entirely on an unfounded assumption.
Lee has a very poor technique and hence when the ball is moving around he doesn't very often score even double-figures.

 

[Richard]

yes, but good bowlers realise that there are 10 wickets to be taken in an innings and that is more improtant than keeping it tight. lower ERs often flow from taking wickets.

Total nonsense.
Bowl poor deliveries and a strokeplaying batsmen will whack you for runs no matter how many of his team-mates you've tucked back to the hut.
If every bowler takes 2 for 50 (ie averaging 25 - very good) off 10 overs (ie economying at 5-an-over - very poor) the resultant total is 250ao off 50 overs. If every bowler takes 1 for 40 off 10 the resultant total is 200 for 5 off 50 overs.
I know which I'd prefer.

 

[Mister Wright]

Total nonsense.
Bowl poor deliveries and a strokeplaying batsmen will whack you for runs no matter how many of his team-mates you've tucked back to the hut.
If every bowler takes 2 for 50 (ie averaging 25 - very good) off 10 overs (ie economying at 5-an-over - very poor) the resultant total is 250ao off 50 overs. If every bowler takes 1 for 40 off 10 the resultant total is 200 for 5 off 50 overs.
I know which I'd prefer.

Do you understand the One Day game at all? If a team is only five wickets down they still have a batsman in the top 6 who is in and the number 7 (unless someone is retired hurt). And by your theory the batting team would be 4/150 after 40 overs. Now unless a team only wants to set a mediocre total of 200 or are chasing 200 to win, I cannot see how a team would settle for 50 runs off the final 10 overs. The batsman will try and increase the run-rate and therefore score more than 200 or lose more wickets which would either reduce the score to under 200 or make it just over 200 with the loss of more than 5 wickets.

So therefore it is important to take wickets early to keep the batting side under pressure, because the batsman won't be there to score the runs at a quicker rate at the end of the innings, and it is then important to keep the runs down at the end of the innings. This is awfully hard to do against batsman, but alot easier to do against bowlers.

I give the recent ODI Australia v India at the 'Gabba as an example. Australia were unable to take wickets and restrict the Indians. Infact they were able to score 23 runs off the final 2.1 overs which is much easier to do with your number 3 & number 6 in then it is your 10 & 11.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Cheers for posting that, Kyle.. I thought it but was overcome with lethargy before my fingers reached the keys 8D

 

[age_master]

forget it he doesn't understand ODI cricket and different roles for different bowlers and how the vast majority of batsmen score much faster when they have settled in at the crease and how they can slog mroe at the end if they have more wickets in hand and therefore make more runs.

 

[Mister Wright]

Cheers for posting that, Kyle.. I thought it but was overcome with lethargy before my fingers reached the keys 8D

Your welcome. I'm sure I speak for most people?...

 

[Richard]

Do you understand the One Day game at all? If a team is only five wickets down they still have a batsman in the top 6 who is in and the number 7 (unless someone is retired hurt). And by your theory the batting team would be 4/150 after 40 overs. Now unless a team only wants to set a mediocre total of 200 or are chasing 200 to win, I cannot see how a team would settle for 50 runs off the final 10 overs. The batsman will try and increase the run-rate and therefore score more than 200 or lose more wickets which would either reduce the score to under 200 or make it just over 200 with the loss of more than 5 wickets.

So therefore it is important to take wickets early to keep the batting side under pressure, because the batsman won't be there to score the runs at a quicker rate at the end of the innings, and it is then important to keep the runs down at the end of the innings. This is awfully hard to do against batsman, but alot easier to do against bowlers.

I give the recent ODI Australia v India at the 'Gabba as an example. Australia were unable to take wickets and restrict the Indians. Infact they were able to score 23 runs off the final 2.1 overs which is much easier to do with your number 3 & number 6 in then it is your 10 & 11.

First of all, no, by something resembling my theory they'd be 160\4 after 40 overs. However, I never actually said "each 10 overs of the innings have 40 runs scored and 1 wicket lost.
There are different places at which to aim if you want to bowl economically at various stages of the innings. For most of the first 40 overs, that's the top of off stump. In the last 10, it's the Yorker length, varying in line depending on if you see the batsman giving himself room.
Even if batsmen don't give their wickets away, there are lines and lengths, especially with the wicketkeeper standing-up, that it's simply not possible to score that quickly from, with a decent field.
If you can't contain batsmen in the last 10 overs, it's not just because they're "set", it's also because your bowling is not good enough.
OK, it's not the easiest task aiming in the blockhole ball after ball, but it's certainly possible. West Indies have been doing it surprisingly well in the present series.

 

[Gaijin-san]

You sure do speak for everyone, Mister Wright.

Richard, if a team only loses 5 wickets in their chase as opposed to all their 10, the chances are more often than not that it is a great batting wicket as opposed to the one of a team losing all 10 wickets. Either way, losing 10 wickets in your 50 overs is really of no consequence as that has no bearing whatsoever on the game, having batted first. Therefore the team batting first should rue a lost chance, having been too circumspect when they could have attacked (5/200 is a joke off 50 overs with batsmen to come).
That makes for a big difference between 200 and 250, if the second pitch is easier to bat on than the other (which it often will be).

50 runs more in an innings is a big difference, wickets lost is not.

 

[age_master]

which team will score more runs in a match 9 times out of 10

team A who is 8/250 after 40 overs with 2 tail enders in

or team B who is 1/210 after 40 overs with 2 batsmen set - one has passed a hundred, the other passed 70

there may be a 40 run diffference in the scores, but team B could score upwards of 100 with a good last 10 overs, while team A will struggle along and mauybe make another 15-20

 

[Gaijin-san]

Excuse me once again for not basing everything on statistics.

You confuse me. Why is it that when it is convenient for your argument you "don't base everything on statistics", whereas when it is, statistics tell the full story? You would be the last person on this forum to play down the importance of statistics.

 

[Rik]

In International Cricket he's only played 70 innings.

Considering that's 70 out of a possible 155 innings in his International career to date, that means you've seen about 45 or so of his International career, yet you still persist in this claim he's not a good ODI bowler... :rolleyes:

Add in all the ODIs he's played against England, and all the Tests and I don't think it's that unbelievable. Certainly in England he didn't show much prowess with the bat.

 

[anzac]

In the last 10, it's the Yorker length, varying in line depending on if you see the batsman giving himself room.
Even if batsmen don't give their wickets away, there are lines and lengths, especially with the wicketkeeper standing-up, that it's simply not possible to score that quickly from, with a decent field.
If you can't contain batsmen in the last 10 overs, it's not just because they're "set", it's also because your bowling is not good enough.
OK, it's not the easiest task aiming in the blockhole ball after ball, but it's certainly possible. West Indies have been doing it surprisingly well in the present series.

that is unless you are currently bowling to Razzaq!!!!!:O :wow:

 

[marc71178]

There are different places at which to aim if you want to bowl economically at various stages of the innings. For most of the first 40 overs, that's the top of off stump. In the last 10, it's the Yorker length, varying in line depending on if you see the batsman giving himself room.

40 overs of the ball in exactly the same spot would not be economical.

In the last 10, batsmen would use their feet.

Cricket is nowhere near as simple a game as you make out.