By nature, it does. Any wicket-by-wicket analysis will ignore the nonwicket-taking balls, along with the setting up of a batsman to get a wicket (although RP has often struck me as too erratic to bowl consistently to a plan).Very harsh. Ignores all the good bowling he did between the wickets which more than likely caused a lot of the poor shots.
I was countering his claim that most of his wickets were caused by good deliveries, not poor shots. On that level alone, I disagree.
On the other hand, a wicket-by-wicket analysis will also ignore all of the poor bowling that he did. Except for early on in Sydney and maybe Perth, he did do a lot of that. His economy rate is a reflection of his oft-erratic line and length, along with the admittedly over-the-top contempt that many of the Australian batsmen appear to have held him in. I do feel rather the same way about Brett Lee's performances during the 2005 Ashes. Sometimes, he was good; often, he was pretty poor.
Comparing RP Singh to Glenn McGrath is simply not valid. In the early 2000's, McGrath was an established world-class bowler, in every format of the game. Glenn McGrath also had oft-exemplary control of line, length and seam (if not swing, at that time). He also had a far better bouncer and yorker than RP Singh could muster. RP probably generates more swing than the early 2000's version of McGrath, but that's about it.The above reminds me very strongly of when Richard was claiming Glenn McGrath got a succession of poor shots in the early 00's so doesn't deserve credit for the wickets he took.
True, but I've never rated Shaun Tait, anyway (although he is very dangerous on 'his day').Wickets are rarely down to the wicket-taking ball alone. As Shaun Tait and others have found, bowlers who rely purely on bowling jaffas to take wickets won't take many.
I recall him getting wickets with quite a few wide half-volleys. Sure he was swinging the ball, but so was Scott Muller when he got wickets in the exact same manner. We're not gonna say that he bowled well, now, are we?Not to mention that the balls he got Hussey, Haydos, etc. with her pretty good anyway, full and swinging away.
No doubt that he did bowl 6-7 good deliveries to get wickets, though.
You're right. But how many of his wickets should be due to impromptu poor shots?Yeah they weren't great shots but at that level, you're not going to get batsmen nicking on the defensive all the time.
Well, it's not if you set-up the batsman before hand, ala Brett Lee. RP Singh lacks the control to do this on a frequent basis.A large part of good swing bowling is drawing the poor shot too. Doesn't mean it's poor bowling at all.
Like I said, he bowled well early on in Sydney and even Perth. I feel that RP Singh's performances were grossly overrated, but that's not to say that he didn't bowl well sometimes.Certainly there were times Singh was ordinary in the series but credit where credit is due his spells with the new cherry in Sydney were outstanding and he deserved every wicket in my view.
I don't know. He was too damn expensive, for my liking, with too much dross (did you see the rest of the Sydney Test match?).He bowled relatively well at other times too.
Maybe.Was moving the ball around more than any swing bowler has done in Australia for years.
You double posted, BTW.
![Tongue :p :p](/forum/images/smilies/original/tongue.gif)
Last edited: