Simon Katich

[Richard]

Being way too appreciative of Gough's delivery. I still find it hard to have any respect at all for Katich because of that delivery. Getting a stump cartwheeled, on debut, by raising your bat above your head. IMO was lucky to ever get another game after that.

Apart from the patent absurdity of writing a player off - completely - because of a single bad stroke, to underplay the excellence of that delivery is simply gross ignorance and points to "well it hit the stumps so a shot should have been played" ism.

Rarely if ever does a bowler get full credit for hoodwinking a batsman if he leaves the ball and is bowled\lbw. That ball swung back a mile - same true of the Simon Jones ball to Michael Clarke in 2005 - and was quite beautifully bowled. Any batsman looking to play that would simply have been bowled anyway - no-one had the slightest right to expect it to swing back that much.

 

[andruid]

Will score 20 of his first 39 deliveries faced in the first test with 2 fours (both cover drives) before getting dropped by Monty Panesar off James Anderson in the first "defining moment of the series".

Everything he does from that point on will be overshadowed by something more epic somebody else does.

 

[Top_Cat]

Apart from the patent absurdity of writing a player off - completely - because of a single bad stroke, to underplay the excellence of that delivery is simply gross ignorance and points to "well it hit the stumps so a shot should have been played" ism.

Rarely if ever does a bowler get full credit for hoodwinking a batsman if he leaves the ball and is bowled\lbw. That ball swung back a mile - same true of the Simon Jones ball to Michael Clarke in 2005 - and was quite beautifully bowled. Any batsman looking to play that would simply have been bowled anyway - no-one had the slightest right to expect it to swing back that much.

Geez, over-rating it slightly. Thought it was a decent ball but a poor leave by Kat too. Didn't think it was quite as good as Jones' vs Clarke. Been a while since I've seen it, though.

 

[Richard]

Well unfortunately I don't think it's anywhere on YouTube (footage from that series is remarkably difficult to find in fact, given how recent it is - good job for me I have loads of my own, though sadly none from that Test as we were on holiday in a caravan with no VCR throughout) so I can't say "let's judge\rejudge for ourselves".

So here by way of some small compensation is the CricInfo report:

Gough replaced Tudor and immediately started causing trouble. He produced an excellent delivery that swung back in to Katich and clipped the top of his off stump, then before too long, he had dangerman Adam Gilchrist back in the hutch having been well caught in the covers by Trescothick.

And while re-reading it I was reminded of this rather hilarious scene which I'd forgotten about

Hussain's arrival at the crease was accompanied by confusion all around the ground when a third batsman in full England kit also started walking out.

It turned out to be the same fellow who mysteriously appeared in the Manchester United team photo some weeks ago but he got to within 30 yards of the crease before turning round, pulling a mobile phone out of his pocket and wandering off, the phone attached firmly to his ear, to everyone's amusement.

 

[andruid]

With this post I hereby dig this thread.

methinks he might actually outshine Phil Hughes, what with his experience and extra grit he's got since 2005

 

[social]

Katich averages 53 as a test opener - not just good but outstanding

If the guy managed to convert all the starts he makes into 100s then it would've been phenomenal

In short, he'll be fine

 

[Jamee999]

Am I right in thinking that on Katto's test debut he came out for the last ~4 balls of the day, but didn't face any of them, so had to sleep on 0*(0)

(Memories of Jamee circa age 8)

 

[Mister Wright]

I don't think Katich has ever had his spot as secure as it is on this tour. He'd have to have a very bad tour to face the axe. I'd say if he gets out cheaply in the first two tests the demons of previous tours may start to haunt him.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Katto's great, but I think if we bowl well at him he can be contained at least even when at the absolute peak of his game. With the way the young bloke who opens with him bats tho I wouldn't be so sure.

If Hughes is good enough to play the way he does in tests then kudos to him; when he's on song you'll just have to take it on the chin from time to time.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Sounds like Katich is going to have one hell of a series to me.

Great call.

 

[Burgey]

Rarely if ever does a bowler get full credit for hoodwinking a batsman if he leaves the ball and is bowled\lbw. That ball swung back a mile - same true of the Simon Jones ball to Michael Clarke in 2005 - and was quite beautifully bowled. Any batsman looking to play that would simply have been bowled anyway - no-one had the slightest right to expect it to swing back that much.

And you never give a batsman credit for owning a bowler......

 

[Richard]

A batsman cannot own a bowler - that's not how cricket works. The ball is bowled, then it is faced. Without a ball being bowled, it cannot be received.

Ergo, a bowler is either too good for the batsman or he's not too good for the batsman. Obviously, the better a batsman is at batting, the harder a bowler has to work to be too good for him, and the worse a bowler, the less chance he has of achieving the requisites to be too good for the batsman, but the batsman's part in cricket comes second - always. So he cannot do what he does so well that the bowler has no chance, because the bowler does his bit first.

 

[Richard]

Am I right in thinking that on Katto's test debut he came out for the last ~4 balls of the day, but didn't face any of them, so had to sleep on 0*(0)

(Memories of Jamee circa age 8)

Afraid not - but pretty close. The wicket that brought Katich to the crease fell in the day's final over, but under such circumstances (ie, a wicket in the last over) the day's play is brought to a close. So Katich first came out the following day.

He did come out to face 6 balls in the second-innings and did not score from any of them, however, before yet more rain saw Australia's declaration which meant that rather than being out-of-sight they had merely a total that would've won 99 out of 100 similar matches. Thanks to Mark Butcher's brilliance, it didn't win this one.

 

[andruid]

A batsman cannot own a bowler - that's not how cricket works. The ball is bowled, then it is faced. Without a ball being bowled, it cannot be received.

Ergo, a bowler is either too good for the batsman or he's not too good for the batsman. Obviously, the better a batsman is at batting, the harder a bowler has to work to be too good for him, and the worse a bowler, the less chance he has of achieving the requisites to be too good for the batsman, but the batsman's part in cricket comes second - always. So he cannot do what he does so well that the bowler has no chance, because the bowler does his bit first.

Yes he can. When a batsman is in good enough nick to pi9ck and play everything a bowler throws at him then he has owned that bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

Nah, he was in shocking form when he was dropped. He literally couldn't score a run in Australia.

The irony though was that he was still being picked in the ODI side around that time quite regularly. Now Katich is a decent ODI player,but not sure what he was doing representing the best side in the world as an opening bat in ODIs.

 

[Top_Cat]

A batsman cannot own a bowler - that's not how cricket works. The ball is bowled, then it is faced. Without a ball being bowled, it cannot be received.

Ergo, a bowler is either too good for the batsman or he's not too good for the batsman. Obviously, the better a batsman is at batting, the harder a bowler has to work to be too good for him, and the worse a bowler, the less chance he has of achieving the requisites to be too good for the batsman, but the batsman's part in cricket comes second - always. So he cannot do what he does so well that the bowler has no chance, because the bowler does his bit first.

 

[social]

 

[Richard]

Yes he can. When a batsman is in good enough nick to pi9ck and play everything a bowler throws at him then he has owned that bowler.

That cannot happen - there is always an avenue for a bowler to produce something no batsman is capable of playing. If a bowler is not good enough to produce this, that is a bowler not being good enough to oust a batsman, not a batsman owning a bowler.

 

[Richard]

 

[andruid]

That cannot happen - there is always an avenue for a bowler to produce something no batsman is capable of playing. If a bowler is not good enough to produce this, that is a bowler not being good enough to oust a batsman, not a batsman owning a bowler.

Oh Yes it can (happen) [/Pantomine Voice]


Seriuosly I could coversely argue that there is always an avenue for a batsman to safely negotiate, even punish every single conceivable delivery any batsman could possibly throw at him, thus when the batsman fails to do so he is the one not being good enough and then conlude that under no circumstances can a bowler be too good for a batsman, rather it is the batsman being inadequate to weild his righteous dominance on the bowler. However doing so would be accepting the logic that defines your argument realting to batsmen v. bowling which is absurd (if not outright po mo)