Worst International "Batter" currently????

[Richard]

Given that Martians don't exist, never mind play cricket, I'd imagine they'd be pretty hopeless at it, indeed.

 

[Flem274*]

I will say this for Martin though, he doesn't shy away from his duty. He stil goes out there. I remember in Hamilton when we were trying to set England 300 odd Vettori told him as he came out to hang around until we were there and he did.

 

[Richard]

For someone with so little ability, the gameness to try (even though failure is almost always the result) is highly admirable.

Most utterly hopeless players - and plenty of just-slightly-better-than-hopeless types like for example Harmison and Ntini - will simply know they're almost certain to be out there no time at all and see if they can slog a boundary or two.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Given that Martians don't exist, never mind play cricket, I'd imagine they'd be pretty hopeless at it, indeed.

Ba-doom-doom-tish (have to admit, I thought of posting something similar)

For someone with so little ability, the gameness to try (even though failure is almost always the result) is highly admirable.

Most utterly hopeless players - and plenty of just-slightly-better-than-hopeless types like for example Harmison and Ntini - will simply know they're almost certain to be out there no time at all and see if they can slog a boundary or two.

Very rarely is there a batsman these days who is petrified of the ball. Martin certainly isn't scared of the hard ball in the same way that, say, Peter Such or Phil Tufnell was.

 

[Richard]

It's not just about being scared of the ball though - it's down to the desire to be seen to be being proactive rather than reactive. Instead of prodding, maybe lasting 10 balls and scoring 1 or 0, a 5 off 4 balls seems rather less like you've been dictated to.

The value depends on the batsman at the other end. If it's someone like Adam Gilchrist on 33* (unless you've already accumulated a vast first-innings lead or total), you'd be spitting in rage at a tailender swinging at the ball wildly. However, if it's someone who's been batting a while, scoring relatively slowly (say, 86* off 160) and clearly deserves the not-out and won't be throwing it away quickly without damn good reason, you'd obviously prefer the tailender have a swing and get the innings over quickly so as you can get bowling (or possibly get the proper batsmen batting again in the follow-on).

Oh, and the most obvious gaaaaaags just have to be made, you know this. It's just a case of first-come-first-served. Like if someone says "orrrhhh, it's bent" you know it's only a matter of time. Unless the assembled company are completely devoid of desire to make the piss-obvious ones.

 

[Uppercut]

As I say - there's simply no point bowling short deliveries at batsmen as clueless as Martin. The chances of a wicket are slim compared to the chances with a full ball, and this should be the bowler's only consideration. No bowler should ever be looking to inflict damage - if your attitude is this you might as well bowl deliberate Beamers.

As for the "batsman" having a helmet - a helmet doesn't protect the entire upper body.

And as for passing 10 - Chris Martin has never done this in a genuine Test. I'd be surprised if he's done it many times in cricket matches of any capacity.

Yeah, i said in a subsequent post that apart from anything else it was a shocking tactic from Anderson. Why bowl a ball that won't hit the stumps and that Martin has no chance of getting a bat anywhere near? Either the entire England team are tactically inept, or the purpose was to hurt him, which doesn't reflect well on Jimmy. I agree very much that it was an unsettling sight.

But in the wider context, the tail shouldn't get any special treatment. The bowlers should bowl to get them out, as they do to everyone else- nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Precambrian]

Given that Martians don't exist, never mind play cricket, I'd imagine they'd be pretty hopeless at it, indeed.

Controversial.

 

[JimmyGS]

Yeah, i said in a subsequent post that apart from anything else it was a shocking tactic from Anderson. Why bowl a ball that won't hit the stumps and that Martin has no chance of getting a bat anywhere near?

I'm amazed how many people don't grasp the fact that sometimes fast bowlers are just angry! If you don't have any aggression then you can't really be a decent fast bowler.

For instance in a club match today one of the batsmen came out without a helmet, with me and the other opening bowler bowling. I bounced him relentlessly until he called for one, not because I was trying to get him out. I was bouncing him because I wanted to hit him, to serve him right for being such an arrogant ****.

I totally disagree with Richard on this point. Bowlers can do whatever they want to whoever they want, within the rules. If you're not a good enough batsman to hit or avoid it, then that's just tough luck.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, i said in a subsequent post that apart from anything else it was a shocking tactic from Anderson. Why bowl a ball that won't hit the stumps and that Martin has no chance of getting a bat anywhere near? Either the entire England team are tactically inept, or the purpose was to hurt him, which doesn't reflect well on Jimmy. I agree very much that it was an unsettling sight.

But in the wider context, the tail shouldn't get any special treatment. The bowlers should bowl to get them out, as they do to everyone else- nothing more, nothing less.

Almost invariably the best way to bowl at a tailender is to pitch it up. Keep it full and straight, and especially if there's any swing, the chances of them lasting long is very slim.

 

[Richard]

I'm amazed how many people don't grasp the fact that sometimes fast bowlers are just angry! If you don't have any aggression then you can't really be a decent fast bowler.

Not really. Look at the case of, for example, Brian Statham. One of the best ever and was said to have gotten remotely angry on a cricket field just twice in his career.

For instance in a club match today one of the batsmen came out without a helmet, with me and the other opening bowler bowling. I bounced him relentlessly until he called for one, not because I was trying to get him out. I was bouncing him because I wanted to hit him, to serve him right for being such an arrogant ****.

I totally disagree with Richard on this point. Bowlers can do whatever they want to whoever they want, within the rules. If you're not a good enough batsman to hit or avoid it, then that's just tough luck.

You know, the rules do debar bowlers from trying to cause injury by intimidation. If the Umpire failed to tell you this it's because he was a poor Umpire, not because you were in the right. A bowler attempting to cause injury or to intimidate is deplorable. Just because he's using the pitch rather than bowling Beamers doesn't make it any more unacceptable.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm amazed how many people don't grasp the fact that sometimes fast bowlers are just angry! If you don't have any aggression then you can't really be a decent fast bowler.

For instance in a club match today one of the batsmen came out without a helmet, with me and the other opening bowler bowling. I bounced him relentlessly until he called for one, not because I was trying to get him out. I was bouncing him because I wanted to hit him, to serve him right for being such an arrogant ****.

I totally disagree with Richard on this point. Bowlers can do whatever they want to whoever they want, within the rules. If you're not a good enough batsman to hit or avoid it, then that's just tough luck.

Bollocks. Go to Belfast when you want to hit someone. Go out onto a cricket pitch when you want to play cricket.

 

[Flem274*]

Tbh I sympathize with JimmyGS. Depending on what my control freak of a skipper wanted, I would generally switch between wrist spin/finger spin/medium pace but the nature of many of our pitches (those concrete ones with the green matt stuff on top) and the absurdly short boundaries at some grounds made me wish I was a big scary fast bowler when every **** could go down on one knee and slog sweep me to the boundary, however poor the shot, and if I were Jimmy I'd be making use of that ability to get my own back.

 

[Uppercut]

Tbh I sympathize with JimmyGS. Depending on what my control freak of a skipper wanted, I would generally switch between wrist spin/finger spin/medium pace but the nature of many of our pitches (those concrete ones with the green matt stuff on top) and the absurdly short boundaries at some grounds made me wish I was a big scary fast bowler when every **** could go down on one knee and slog sweep me to the boundary, however poor the shot, and if I were Jimmy I'd be making use of that ability to get my own back.

That's a tactic to get them out though. It's not the same as bowling to hurt someone, that's more of an added bonus.


Always amuses me when someone bowls continued short stuff to a limpet-like tail-ender or night-watchman and when they finally hit him, the commentators fawn over the bowler's generosity at coming down the pitch to see if he's okay.

 

[morgieb]

Cribbage to explode at the spelling of 'batsman'.

(auto-corrected by form because I'm a n00b and don't know my cricket terminology properly)