Why Don’t I care more?

[Richard]

They didn't specify, but they did nothing but suggest that he doesn't turn the ball enough to be an effective test bowler.

Generally, said suggestions come with an unwritten "when there's no rough involved" attached, because as I say, just about any bowler can and will turn a ball out of the rough.

 

[Richard]

You've got an agenda so there's really no point in continuing this.

Well, I've got an agenda, ie, Hauritz isn't that good and I don't take too kindly to people telling me he is, yes. But that doesn't mean I can't judge a good-or-otherwise bit of bowling on its own merits.

 

[Langeveldt]

Back to the original point, I totally agree, and think we can extend this to the professional era that world cricket finds itself in.. I mean when you look at players we have from the past and compare them to the current crop, well the current guys might all get along and be likeable, but I imagine if I had a beer with them, I'd probably be more interesting than they are.. And thats definitely not how it should be if you play international sport.. I call it the Michael Clarke effect, and whilst not as damaging to the game as T20, definitely makes it less enjoyable..

Look at some of our past players from the world of cricket, but I think we remember them even more for their personas, likeable or otherwise, than their oft great performances

Ian Botham
Viv Richards
Derek Underwood
Merv Hughes
Phil Tuffnell
Shane Warne
Arjuna Ranatunga
David Boon
Mike Gatting
David Gower
Imran Khan
Mike Atherton
Pat Symcox
Rod Marsh
Allan Lamb
Curtley Ambrose
Kerry o'Keefe
Jack Russel

The list could go on and on and on.. I find the only slightly amusing/charismatic/interesting bloke on either side of the Ashes teams to be Graeme Swann.. Obviously I haven't met any of them either, so I'm basing my opinions on everyone elses, but a certain something is missing from the game and I think professionalism is responsible..

 

[Uppercut]

I thought you of all people would consider Peter Siddle a pretty interesting character

 

[tooextracool]

It would be if the fast bowler was aiming for the crack in order to exploit it, and landing ball after ball there in the knowledge that there was a good chance one would keep low.

Hauritz deliberately bowled into the rough because he knew there was a fair chance that if he kept hitting his line and length consistently, one would misbehave and get him a wicket. And it did. Quality bowling, regardless of how Flintoff played it.

aiming the ball into the rough and footholes is something that any spin bowler does, its not especially noteworthy to land a ball in the rough and get it to turn sharply. Furthermore, a pace bowler managing to hit a crack in the pitch on a consistent basis is a far greater achievement, given that hes probably bowling at 30mph greater and aiming for a crack as opposed to a rough patch.

As far as Hauritz is concerned, a ball hitting the rough and spitting out shows me nothing about the quality of the bowler or the ball itself. And the fact that despite all of that it wasn't even a ball that should have taken a wicket had it been negotiated with a degree of competence, suggests to me that it would be doing Hauritz himself a disservice by branding it as one of his best balls of the series.

 

[Uppercut]

Sorry, but I've got no other way of putting this. I think you're talking out of your arse. I'm done on the topic.

 

[tooextracool]

The fact he's even bowled at, or close to the standard which Swann has produced this series demonstrates the folly of England's suggested reliance on spin at The Oval tough, doesn't it?

Bloke does better than expected and still gets ****-canned on here. Not surprising really. Obviously all of Swann's wickets were unplayables though. Given how few of them there have been, we should be able to recall them quite clearly.

GMAFB.

Whats GMAFB?

Swann has been a bit disappointing this series whilst Hauritz has improved and bowled competently. However, Swann's performance at Lords was head and shoulders above anything Hauritz has ever managed in his entire career to date.

Whether England should attempt to use their supposed prowess with the twirlers is a different story. The problem there is not really about whether Swann is a better bowler than Hauritz but the fact that Clark, Katich, Haddin et al are considerably superior players of spin bowling than their English counterparts that any advantage that the English bowler holds will more or less be negotiated.

 

[zaremba]

Back to the original point, I totally agree, and think we can extend this to the professional era that world cricket finds itself in.. I mean when you look at players we have from the past and compare them to the current crop, well the current guys might all get along and be likeable, but I imagine if I had a beer with them, I'd probably be more interesting than they are.. And thats definitely not how it should be if you play international sport.. I call it the Michael Clarke effect, and whilst not as damaging to the game as T20, definitely makes it less enjoyable..

Look at some of our past players from the world of cricket, but I think we remember them even more for their personas, likeable or otherwise, than their oft great performances

Ian Botham
Viv Richards
Derek Underwood
Merv Hughes
Phil Tuffnell
Shane Warne
Arjuna Ranatunga
David Boon
Mike Gatting
David Gower
Imran Khan
Mike Atherton
Pat Symcox
Rod Marsh
Allan Lamb
Curtley Ambrose
Kerry o'Keefe
Jack Russel

The list could go on and on and on.. I find the only slightly amusing/charismatic/interesting bloke on either side of the Ashes teams to be Graeme Swann.. Obviously I haven't met any of them either, so I'm basing my opinions on everyone elses, but a certain something is missing from the game and I think professionalism is responsible..

You've raised a really interesting point - but one which I basically disagree with.

First off, I'd rather have players that excel at cricket than players that are great drinkers. Yes the Ian Botham of c1988 would have a lot of stories and drink a lot of beers but should not be mourned as a player.

The complaint "where have all the characters gone" is a constant refrain in every sport in every era. And because of that, we can be pretty sure that it's likely to be false. The myth is reinforced, for understandable reasons, by a great number of ex-players-turned-pundits. I'm sure that there are plenty of characters now, we just don't have the perspective to see it (and perhaps they play the media game a bit more cannily than they used to). Freddie, Ponting, Lee, Collingwood, Swann, Sidebottom, Broad, Hauritz, Clark all seem like reasonably interesting characters to me. Given time we'll forget the boring bits and remember the more interesting bits - that's human nature.

There's a real risk of rose-tinted vision here. To take 3 of your English examples: Botham, Gower, Gatting, they were all wonderful players in their different ways, but none of them was someone I'd particularly want to spend any time with. Botham talked a good beer, repeatedly, but there's a risk of mistaking that for being a good bloke rather than a bully and a pillock; Gower has proved himself since his retirement to be the antithesis of charismatic; and the fact that Gatting ate a lot and shagged a barmaid doesn't add up to being a character. There were plenty of fools and unpleasant characters in those days; and plenty of utter non-entities too, whom we of course forget.

 

[JBH001]

AWTA Zaremba.

There are quite a few modern players I would really enjoy having a drink and a chat with. Off the top of my head: Sanga, Ponting, Vettori, Murali, Dhoni, Tendulkar etc

 

[Richard]

Gatting ate a lot and shagged a barmaid

Didn't even do that TBF, though he did do the thing that probably earns even greater fame - be falsely accused of it, lose his job over it then have his employers state that the sacking came not because they believed the incident in question had happened, but because a rumour had become rife that it had happened.

Did eat a lot mind, and carries far less weight than plenty of people who eat a lot.

 

[Burgey]

You've raised a really interesting point - but one which I basically disagree with.

First off, I'd rather have players that excel at cricket than players that are great drinkers. Yes the Ian Botham of c1988 would have a lot of stories and drink a lot of beers but should not be mourned as a player.

The complaint "where have all the characters gone" is a constant refrain in every sport in every era. And because of that, we can be pretty sure that it's likely to be false. The myth is reinforced, for understandable reasons, by a great number of ex-players-turned-pundits. I'm sure that there are plenty of characters now, we just don't have the perspective to see it (and perhaps they play the media game a bit more cannily than they used to). Freddie, Ponting, Lee, Collingwood, Swann, Sidebottom, Broad, Hauritz, Clark all seem like reasonably interesting characters to me. Given time we'll forget the boring bits and remember the more interesting bits - that's human nature.

There's a real risk of rose-tinted vision here. To take 3 of your English examples: Botham, Gower, Gatting, they were all wonderful players in their different ways, but none of them was someone I'd particularly want to spend any time with. Botham talked a good beer, repeatedly, but there's a risk of mistaking that for being a good bloke rather than a bully and a pillock; Gower has proved himself since his retirement to be the antithesis of charismatic; and the fact that Gatting ate a lot and shagged a barmaid doesn't add up to being a character. There were plenty of fools and unpleasant characters in those days; and plenty of utter non-entities too, whom we of course forget.

Interesting to hear Bumble on the radio over here last week. he was asked if they call Botham "Sir Ian". he said "What? No way! We call him Sir Ohsis, as in Cirrohsis [sp?] of the Liver".

He's probably said it a thousand times in England, but was the first I'd heard it. Not bad.

 

[Pothas]

You've raised a really interesting point - but one which I basically disagree with.

First off, I'd rather have players that excel at cricket than players that are great drinkers. Yes the Ian Botham of c1988 would have a lot of stories and drink a lot of beers but should not be mourned as a player.

The complaint "where have all the characters gone" is a constant refrain in every sport in every era. And because of that, we can be pretty sure that it's likely to be false. The myth is reinforced, for understandable reasons, by a great number of ex-players-turned-pundits. I'm sure that there are plenty of characters now, we just don't have the perspective to see it (and perhaps they play the media game a bit more cannily than they used to). Freddie, Ponting, Lee, Collingwood, Swann, Sidebottom, Broad, Hauritz, Clark all seem like reasonably interesting characters to me. Given time we'll forget the boring bits and remember the more interesting bits - that's human nature.

There's a real risk of rose-tinted vision here. To take 3 of your English examples: Botham, Gower, Gatting, they were all wonderful players in their different ways, but none of them was someone I'd particularly want to spend any time with. Botham talked a good beer, repeatedly, but there's a risk of mistaking that for being a good bloke rather than a bully and a pillock; Gower has proved himself since his retirement to be the antithesis of charismatic; and the fact that Gatting ate a lot and shagged a barmaid doesn't add up to being a character. There were plenty of fools and unpleasant characters in those days; and plenty of utter non-entities too, whom we of course forget.

I think this is a good point and I partly agree with it, nostalgia always plays a role and I am sure people in twenty years time will be talking about the current players in a similar way we refer to the players that have refered to. However I do think it is more than nostalgia with this current England side. My problem is not that they do not all drink a lot or are eccentric characters, the England side of a few years ago did not have many of these players but I still felt more warmth towards them as a side and as individuals. I do think this current side is just a bit bland, both in the way they play cricket and in the way they talk about it.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, England of 2005 were certainly a much more exciting cricket side. There's no doubt about that.

There's a great deal of rose-tinted glasses about it too though. No one wants their national side to drop X number of straightforward chances in the field almost every game, but that's what the 2005 side did. This side is remarkably solid in the field- I can remember a solitary dropped chance off Ben Hilfenhaus in six tests this entire summer. You know the fielding's good when no one talks about it.

Inevitably, when a future England side pollutes the world with ongoing prank-fielding, fans will look back on this side and say, "wasn't it great when we had a side who held every one of their catches?" and forget that they had the world's most boring opening partnership and a comedy middle order. It's how things go.

 

[GIMH]

Strauss isn't boring

 

[Pothas]

I like Strauss well enough but the fact that when Pietersen is not in the side that he is my favourite England batsman reflects pretty poorly on the rest of the side.

On the catches thing, it is a good point but I don't really think we will ever be nostalgic for a side that does not drop catches, we remember great catches and we definetly remember dropped catches but not regulation ones which are taken.

 

[Uppercut]

Strauss isn't boring

He's not exactly exciting.

I like Strauss well enough but the fact that when Pietersen is not in the side that he is my favourite England batsman reflects pretty poorly on the rest of the side.

On the catches thing, it is a good point but I don't really think we will ever be nostalgic for a side that does not drop catches, we remember great catches and we definetly remember dropped catches but not regulation ones which are taken.

No, i think you would. When England put down a load of catches costing them a series (it will happen at some point) everyone will say, "it never happened under Flower" or the like.

 

[sledger]

He's not exactly exciting.



No, i think you would. When England put down a load of catches costing them a series (it will happen at some point) everyone will say, "it never happened under Flower" or the like.

To be honest I don't think this is something that would be exclusive to England or the current side though, I'm sure any follower of any team could say this sort of thing at some stage.

 

[Pothas]

He's not exactly exciting.



No, i think you would. When England put down a load of catches costing them a series (it will happen at some point) everyone will say, "it never happened under Flower" or the like.

hmmm maybe but if that is what we remember fondly about this side then I think that sums up how bland this team really is.

 

[zaremba]

hmmm maybe but if that is what we remember fondly about this side then I think that sums up how bland this team really is.

Fair point.

But the England team that has played in this series is not all bland.

- Flintoff will be remembered as an entertainer, a character, and charismatic.

- KP - ditto; and a bit of a pillock too, obviously

- Trott - from what I understand is a bit of a character (not universally liked, but at least not bland). He's only just coming into the team, and obviously is not as well known to the public as are players who are at the end of their careers, but this is part of the point about retrospect.

- Swann - a character, as most people will admit - but again he's not been in the team for very long as yet.

So that's 4 players at least. Which is not a bad proprtion when you think about it.

 

[sledger]

Fair point.

But the England team that has played in this series is not all bland.

- Flintoff will be remembered as an entertainer, a character, and charismatic.

- KP - ditto; and a bit of a pillock too, obviously

- Trott - from what I understand is a bit of a character (not universally liked, but at least not bland). He's only just coming into the team, and obviously is not as well known to the public as are players who are at the end of their careers, but this is part of the point about retrospect.

- Swann - a character, as most people will admit - but again he's not been in the team for very long as yet.

So that's 4 players at least. Which is not a bad proprtion when you think about it.

That is true, but I think his original point was more to do with the lack of character the side had when Flintoff and Pietersen were not in it. I also think that you may be right about Trott, he is a player through over a course of time I have largely not liked, though it is now hard to dispute his record. I think however, that him being in the side will indeed create a more emotive response, from my myself anyway.