players Who You Thought WOULDN'T Make It.............

[tooextracool]

And of course playing helped so much, didn't it?
There are good coaches who don't travel round with international teams, too, you know..

yes it has any fool can see that. the only way you get better is by playing, coaches can only tell you what to do. and given that time and time again we've seen vast improvements after players have played for a while at the intl level, yet not shown anywhere near as significant an improvement in longer period in domestic cricket it proves something

It started before his international career started to improve...

vaughan or harmison?

Err, yes - everyone with some decent cricket knowledge - eg you and me - know how to bowl to a good batsman.
Being able to do it is another matter.

so you didnt phrase it correcly then?

And of course they can't possibly observe that this short stuff isn't doing much good, no...
The fact that they cannot but do so, and yet continue with it, suggests to me that they need to learn to pitch the ball up - practice doing it - rather than know they need to do so.

no they cant, because often in domestic cricket it doesnt take much to take wickets, you could bowl considerably short and still get wickets. we've seen many many bowlers come into the intl arena with successful domestic figures and yet start of bowling short at the intl arena

Not to mention plenty else about World cricket - eg Pakistan, India and Australia..

yes but if you had noticed you would see that i dont respond to several of the threads off players in those countries.

Except that he wouldn't have been - he'd have been the accurate Harmison, and if he'd been getting consistent sets of good figures, he'd have been pressing for a recall...

no he wouldnt, given that in 5 years of domestic cricket he hadnt gotten anywhere near as accurate, yet in a year of intl cricket he ended up changing that story.

No, if I'd meant "again" I'd have said "again".

yes but considering you already have, you'd have to say 'again'

I've never commented on that - simply said that having 8 or 9 bowlers bowling the same stuff session after session, day after day, is rather harder to resist than the routine short rubbish.

but you said that good batsman dont get out to the short stuff, and if its getting as predictable then surely they shouldnt have had any problems against them?
so i would assume from that comment that the secret to picking up wickets at the intl level is to bowl session after session of short stuff then?

 

[tooextracool]

No, he had poor strokes played against him with more regularity than he did in that period..

yet you said that his luck dried up in that period?

No, if I wanted to do that I'd take out every ball that ever had a wicket against it's name, and just look at the rest.
It's become quite customary for you to have to resort to this "you're taking out the good performances and looking at the poor ones" rubbish...

and yet your doing just that.....you ar filtering out filtered performances.

We can - it happens about half the time. Of course, some would prefer put it down to the ludicrous idea of him being unable to bowl seam and swing....

yet when mcgrath bowled well in 4 out of 8 matches in the worst period of his career it clearly suggests that he is lucky
so in the period in which vaas got figures of 2/49 ,1/107 ,0/52 ,0/20,0/82 , 0/16 ,0/18, 1/11 ,1/17,4/85 , 0/22,0/84, 0/25, 1/109 i should assume that vaas' luck dried up and that he is also an seamer pitch bully then?
or even looking at the period from lords 2002 to WI 2003 we get 1/51 0/113 1/141 2/121 0/8 3/79 2/81 1/28 1/73 0/27 2/48 1/116 1/33 2/54. so as we can all see, from now on i shall refer to vaas as a lucky bowler who gets his wickets from poor shots.

Oh, yes I do - just not the context you want.

then why not look at goughs performances in context too then? if 1/26 is poor if lee and warne did better than so is 0/40 when harmison and co did better in ODIs.

Well done on one of the easiest pieces of maths ever.
1 wicket isn't that much of a brilliant achievement (especially coming from the stroke it did), given that a single edge for four would turn it from a good performance into a bad one.

1/26 = average of 26, so now averaging 26 is poor then? therefore vaas should be considered useless.

No, no magic at all - it's just not the case..

it is the case, except that you dont have the white matter in your brain to figure that out.

And hence I've not suggested it. I've simply said that Hoggard's wickets were nothing to do with the fact that it was a seamer's paradise, just poor strokes.
He might have got 2 wickets at Basin Reserve - they were still at a poor average - but nonetheless it could so easily have been 0-60 instead of 2-60...

err yes and your point being?any bowler on a bad day could have in fact ended up getting 3/90 instead of the 1/90 on a better day!have i ever denied that bowlers dont get lucky wickets? i've simply said that you dont take 400 wickets at 21 a piece for 10 years of your career because of luck and amusingly your hoggard example proves that.

Hoggard's luck lasted a long time - but eventually it ran-out. Therefore it is nowhere near as inconceivable as people are attempting to suggest that Harmison's will do the same. Indeed, no-one could conceive that Hoggard's average would go up like it did....

hoggard never had much luck, he still ended up averaging over 30 in those lucky series, indeed he didnt even come as close to averaging 20 odd in an 8 month period.

Of course the West Indies fast bowlers of the 70s and 80s were anomalies - do you see any other period in the game's history where there have been so many bowlers of a similar type playing for the same team in such a short period of time?

and what led you to the conclusion that harmison and flintoff arent in the same category of anomalies?

Err, are there 7 or 8 other bowlers similar to them around, playing for England?

no there arent any players capable of bowling the short balls half as effectively...

So the fact that this is the only time in the game's history that it has worked successfully means...

that it might just work again when youve got similar bowlers?

Of course they do! Doesn't mean the bowler's earnt them, but you see batsmen hitting balls in the air (or edging them in the air) all the time, because they can't reach them properly.

no wide balls rarely get wickets, it takes a very poor batsman to get out to a wide ball.

I've done nothing of the sort - if something happens 30% of the time, it is not an anomaly.
However, if it happens 5% of the time (or less) it can be called such - and I'd say short, straight balls getting wickets happen about that often.

hahah good one, short balls take wickets 5% of the time......look at how all wickets fall these days, and then count how many were off short balls.

He will - if something swings just before reaching you, it's not possible to adjust.
Of course, "just before" changes as the speed of the bowler changes..

and when its slow it can be adjusted.

It has got wickets nothing like as often.
If it had, I would consider them good balls.

it has, but just like with mcgrath you have dimissed them as luck because you have no logical explanation to account for it.

 

[tooextracool]

Err, for Test-matches, try: both at Lord's 2002; The Oval 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004; Old Trafford 2002; Edgbaston 2003.
And also, look for a reason why pitches in England should move off the seam at a certain time when those elsewhere don't.

rubbish all those wickets offered seam movement with the new ball, are you out of your mind? do you not watch any cricket at all? there might not have been a dangerous amount of seam movement but there was enough to encourage any quality seamer.

Except that they've not always done so - both have failed.
Because good bowlers will swing the ball dangerously anywhere, with the ball in the right condition - however, if you're not getting it right, it won't swing, even in England..

no it will swing only marginally elsewhere(usually), it swings considerably in england. both bicknell and hoggard need a considerable amount of swing to pick up wickets.

I did indeed - Rudolph would have known the inswinger was probably coming, but could never have predicted when it would come...

so he knew when it was coming, but couldnt predict it? go on contradicting yourself richard.

Eh? When the hell have I ever mentioned the dismissal at Old Trafford in the first-innings?
Before which, IIRR, incidentally, there were 4 balls, 2 of them short (and one completely harmless as it went for what should have been 5 wides).
All I've ever referred to are the deliveries which Lara lost sight of - one of which cost his wicket and one of which clearly led to his losing his wicket....

which conveniently escapes the issue, if bicknell bowling 3 out swingers and 1 in swinger is good bowling then so is flintoff bowling 3 short ball and 1 ball pitched up.

No, it wasn't - no-one could possibly have expected the inswinger when it came. It was a fantastic piece of bowling.

much the same way that no one can predict that the yorker would come after 3 short balls you mean? and believe me any fool would know that after 3 balls the in swinger was coming soon, only an idiot would leave the ball at that point in time.

No, that is explained by the fact he wasn't expecting it to swing back.

Yes - because it went somewhere he couldn't have expected it to. Harmison's ball to Kallis was simply a ball that went exactly where everyone expected, and Kallis played the wrong line. Still did enough to avoid dismissal, though..

you mean like flintoffs yorker to lara?
and just because a ball did something that people expected to do it doesnt mean that it doesnt deserve a wicket. according to your calculations only out thinking the batsman requires wickets, not out bowling them.

Yes, he can - because there was clear doubt and the Laws state clearly that BOD to batsman...

no decisions like these go either way, an umpire can only be at the most 70% sure of most decisions thats just the way it is unless you use technology.

So it's just coincidence that Smith never missed a single ball that was hitting the stumps against any other seamer all series, and he missed two against Bicknell?
It could be, yes - but personally I don't think so..

2 times is not a big deal at all, you seem to make it out as though bicknell had him everytime in that series! its quite conceivable that a batsman can make the same mistake twice in the innings.

No, it was a good ball - but I don't think he could possibly have bowled it deliberately...

how can he have not bowled it deliberately? you are a complete fool. obviously he was trying to bowl a good ball, what do you think he was trying to do, bowl a bad ball?

It could indeed - but as I've never referred to it it doesn't matter.

so which one were you referring to then?

 

[Craig]

Was going to create a new thread, but out of respect for Corey (Top Cat for the newbies etc.), I'll dig it up. And no it isn't a pointless dig as I have some new additions:

Ashwell Prince, up until the Sydney Test in 2006 I had him down as a token selection despite looking woefully short of Test standard, and since that century in Sydney and what he has done since and in the two Tests of this series, I say fairplay to him, he has earned his selection in the team and I'll admit I was wrong.

Andrew Flintoff - after my earlier posts on Mr Flintoff and what he has done since, quite frankly what was I thinking?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Andrew Flintoff - after my earlier posts on Mr Flintoff and what he has done since, quite frankly what was I thinking?

Given how woeful and raw Flintoff was when he was first picked, you'd have been hard-pressed to find anyone honestly expecting him to become a Botham-incarnate. He still isn't, and though he's a very good international cricketer, I think your initial concerns are valid.

 

[pasag]

I didn't think Flintoff would play another Test or Jones for that matter. The former has just happened and we're not too far off the latter, may even happen this series.

 

[_Ed_]

Jamie How is one I was wrong about. I guess he hasn't really made it yet, but I didn't think he'd ever be international standard and I think he has proven me wrong there. His place is secure for the forseeable future, and he's got an ODI ton under his belt.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Matthew Hayden: Well we'd all seen his amazing run of sores at FC level and as much as he pounded by beloved South Australian Redbacks (among other teams), I just couldn't see myself rating him THAT highly. .

Herpes?

 

[iamdavid]

Ashwell Prince, up until the Sydney Test in 2006 I had him down as a token selection despite looking woefully short of Test standard, and since that century in Sydney and what he has done since and in the two Tests of this series, I say fairplay to him, he has earned his selection in the team and I'll admit I was wrong.

I always had a bit of faith in Prince, even though he clearly wasnt the most talented batsman going around, and at times early in his career there were probably better players who he was keeping out of the test side.

But he always had something about him, attitude-wise. You could see it right from the start when he debuted against Australia at the peak of their powers in that test where Gilchrist absolutely mauled them, and all his more respected colleagues were falling around him yet he fought hard and made a plucky 40 odd. Didnt look overawed even though they lost by like an innings and 200+.

Someone who I didnt think would make it would be Brett Lee, atleast as a top-class test bowler.
He was always top-drawer in ODI's since about 2002, but in test cricket he was so frustrating for such a long period of time, despite the fact he really had all the attributes, he was quick enough, accurate enough and he moved the ball well. I think the missing ingredient was patience and maturity.

 

[_Ed_]

Herpes?

Beauty of a typo that one.

 

[Flem274*]

Agree with Ed about How, hopefully I'll be able to add Elliott to this list too.

Didn't think we'd be seeing Strauss bat like he has recently ever again either.

 

[Craig]

Herpes?

Well Matt Hayden is a Catholic

 

[Zinzan]

To Richard and TEC.......you guys had far too much time back in 2004 judging by some of the pages in this thread Would have to say TEC was the overall winner of those many debates

 

[_Ed_]

You actually read them?

 

[Zinzan]

You actually read them?

Maybe one or two

 

[Zinzan]

I think Bond has struggled since getting injured - he certainly looked like he could be a world-beater after his last series in Australia, but unfortunately injury seems to have put a bit of a dampener on things.

Who's Bond ?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'll hold my hand up for Symonds in tests here. Done an awful lot better than I expected.

 

[Zinzan]

I'll hold my hand up for Symonds in tests here. Done an awful lot better than I expected.

You and me both

 

[_Ed_]

I'll hold my hand up for Symonds in tests here. Done an awful lot better than I expected.

You're definitely not the only one there!

 

[Richard]

People who have as much luck as he has of late tend to, really.

I generally say someone has little chance of success on the basis that they're not going to get the outrageous amount of good fortune that he has.

BTW - oh dear at the posts between myself and tec earler. Sooooooooooo tempting to reply to them all now.