Best match saving innings you have seen

[marc71178]

Hmm, interesting description of random numbers plucked out of the air to try and back up your point there.

 

[Flem274*]

Batsmen cannot bully bowlers, and it is not and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever will be the case that a batsman is too good for a bowler - in the case of Sami, he simply is mostly not good enough to get out Tendulkar (though he could be and at any given point the possibility remains that a bowler as hopeless as Sami could produce a delivery that Tendulkar cannot combat).

Contradiction. I win.

Mathew Hayden and Sehwag don't bully bowlers? Sure, you believe that.

Batting average is a consequence of batting skill and bowling skill, with bowling skill making a bigger impact; bowling averages are also a consequence of batting skill and bowling skill, with bowling skill making a bigger impact.

You were doing well until the end. Both skills equally impact on each other. Prove otherwise.

Decks can make it more and more difficult for a bowler to produce; every now and then the combination of poor-quality (ie, too flat) deck and poor-quality ball will make it near impossible for a bowler to produce. Such circumstances have become more common since 2001/02, as have things from the next rung down (ie, conditions which only the best bowlers can exploit) and with the near-absence of truly top-notch bowlers since 2001/02 this has resulted in batting being very easy.

Agree with all bar this. What is wrong with McGrath, Murali, Warne, Pollock, Kumble, Bond, Akthar, Asif, Caddick, Gough, Wasim, Waqar, Gillespie, Steyn, Johnson, Vaas, Srinath, Harbijan, Donald? Plus there are those on the "good" rung like Lee, Flintoff and Zaheer mk II. All played last decade, some moreso than others and some were better than others but that is quite a list. I haven't included the best ODI specialists either. In the 80s apart from the WI quartet each side had one spearhead most of the time. It is the same today albeit Australia had the biggest baddest bowling of McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and Lee, which is comparable with the WI quartets. Last decade was also probably the best spin bowling era in history. not only was there Murali and Warne, we had the Indian duo, McGill, Saqlain, NZs best in Vettori (who is world class in ODIs). Fingerspin is making a comeback with the likes of Swann.

I have never once said that the likes of Kallis and Ponting are not good batsmen; I have simply said that there is ample evidence to my mind that they would not have been the supermen they've been since 2001/02 had batting not gotten easier. Of course they would probably at some point have gotten better than they had been up to 2001, because they always had the talent to do so. But I do not believe they would have scored to anywhere near the extent they have done - and yes, I do believe that one or two who have had phenomenal success would have had precious little of it had things continued as they had been up to 2001. Namely Hayden and, if he was forced to open the batting, Sehwag.

Completely disagree with this entire paragraph. Why would Hayden and Sehwag not succeed? Bradman himself was not orthodox. Andrew Jones should never have had success either with his technique right? Yet he played in 87-95, right smack bang in the middle of your fave era and did very well. Vettori is currently averaging something ridiculous as well.

Ponting and Kallis would be supermen in any era. They are simply greats.

Of course bowlers disappeared - those of the calibre of Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and others retired within a couple of years of each other (some had a few terrible games just before retirement, as more players than not have done throughout history). Players are always disappearing, but sometimes the replacements will not be of comparable calibre. I don't see any way that anyone can possibly dispute that the replacements for those bowlers have been lesser; the combination of the flattening-out of pitches and the replacement of top-notch bowlers with a mixture of moderate ones and outright poor ones has made batting notably easier.

*yawn*

Didn't someone find some statsguru evidence that collective bowling average has only gone up like half a run or something? think it was some bloke that hardly ever posts.

I don't know why anyone keeps saying all of this as if I've disputed it, because I've never argued against it. I just don't often have reason to mention it the way I constantly have to about batsmen having it easy.

You disagreed with it in my previous post. If you agree with that paragraph then why the hell are you arguing with me? Because that was essentially the point.

The prejudice only exists in the minds of those who don't accept what I'm saying. I have used no prejudice to come to the conclusions I've come to - I've used simple logic.

Thats not them being prejudiced, thats a disagreement.

As for sentence two...I won't bite. All I'll say is I agree the logic is simple.

Some people have used different logic and come to different conclusions (some through bias and prejudice, some not) but there is no sense in the suggestion that my conclusions have been reached through pre-judged notions - I have watched cricket for a lengthy time and it was very obvious to me without even consulting figures that batting became easier starting in 2001/02 and has still not become as difficult as it was up to 2001, thought the balance begun to be shunted back in the year of 2006.

So you have no tangible evidence to back up your claim? Don't become a lawyer.

 

[Richard]

Contradiction. I win.

Not really - it's something that can be manufactured into a contradiction if you try to be clever with words, but in reality in terms of what I mean it isn't.

Mathew Hayden and Sehwag don't bully bowlers? Sure, you believe that.

Yes, I do. The idea of "bullying bowlers" just isn't acceptable to me. Bowlers can always, if they're good enough, produce something which a batsman is powerless to resist. Batsmen merely respond to what is bowled at them; Hayden and Sehwag are very good at looking dismissive when they smash a crap delivery for four, and this creates the illusion of them "bullying" bowlers. But their games both retain flaws that a top-class bowler can exploit.

You were doing well until the end. Both skills equally impact on each other. Prove otherwise.

It's unbelievably easy to prove otherwise. The bowler bowls the ball. All the batsman can do is react to what the bowler bowls at him. The bowler thus has control of the exchange, and only when the bowler errs can the batsman make some sort of gain.

Thus, good bowling means successful batting is very difficult. The better the batting, the more likely the bowler is to have to produce something special, but there is no circumstance where the batsman can be in control.

Agree with all bar this. What is wrong with McGrath, Murali, Warne, Pollock, Kumble, Bond, Akthar, Asif, Caddick, Gough, Wasim, Waqar, Gillespie, Steyn, Johnson, Vaas, Srinath, Harbijan, Donald? Plus there are those on the "good" rung like Lee, Flintoff and Zaheer mk II. All played last decade, some moreso than others and some were better than others but that is quite a list. I haven't included the best ODI specialists either. In the 80s apart from the WI quartet each side had one spearhead most of the time. It is the same today albeit Australia had the biggest baddest bowling of McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and Lee, which is comparable with the WI quartets. Last decade was also probably the best spin bowling era in history. not only was there Murali and Warne, we had the Indian duo, McGill, Saqlain, NZs best in Vettori (who is world class in ODIs). Fingerspin is making a comeback with the likes of Swann.

Murali and Warne were outstanding bowlers and played for most of 2001/02-2006/07. Lee was crap for all bar a handful of Tests in 2007/08; Saqlain and Harbhajan, Swann and Vettori are all fingerspinners who can only bowl well when presented with a turner which as I mentioned has not happened often of late, and the same mostly applied to Kumble. Donald, Srinath, Wasim Akram, Gough and Caddick all played a mere handful of Tests after 2001/02 and all were by then crap, as (as I mention) a great many players are at the end of their careers. Gillespie, Bond, Akhtar and Asif barely played for a variety of reasons and were certainly not 100% reliable when they did; Steyn has only been around for the last 3 years; Flintoff was only good for a relatively short time; Vaas could either be brilliant or terrible with no indication of what was coming next; Pollock was clearly not the bowler post-2001/02 that he was up to 2001; Johnson has barely been around 5 minutes and has not made that much of an impact yet. So essentially you're left with Murali, Warne and McGrath - they are the only really, really good bowlers who have played consistently after 2001/02. And those from the next rung down (eg Harbhajan and Hoggard) are mostly not capable of performing when they do not have helpful conditions.

Completely disagree with this entire paragraph. Why would Hayden and Sehwag not succeed? Bradman himself was not orthodox. Andrew Jones should never have had success either with his technique right? Yet he played in 87-95, right smack bang in the middle of your fave era and did very well. Vettori is currently averaging something ridiculous as well.

It's not about orthodoxy (Gary Kirsten is a far better example than Andrew Jones as he was far more consistently successful, and he was wholly unorthodox), it's about having obvious flaws in the game which top-class bowlers can exploit. In my view there's enough evidence in the relatively few occasions Hayden and opener-Sehwag actually faced said bowling post-2001/02 to show that they had said obvious flaws and that with more consistently good bowling they'd have been exposed. Of course there can be no certainty and I've never, ever said there can be; I simply say that to me it's logical deduction.

Ponting and Kallis would be supermen in any era. They are simply greats.

In my view the evidence suggests otherwise. Ponting and Kallis have always shown some amount of vulnerability to top-class bowling. Of course, any batsman can do this, it's no shame, but to my mind there is enough evidence to suggest both are notably lesser than the likes of Tendulkar, Lara and Stephen Waugh.

*yawn*

Didn't someone find some statsguru evidence that collective bowling average has only gone up like half a run or something? think it was some bloke that hardly ever posts.

I found compelling StatsGuru evidence that there are very few bowlers with good averages over lengthy careers since 2001/02. Of course some will prefer to believe this is because the calibre of batsmanship has improved; with the way I see that the game works, I believe this to be illogical.

You disagreed with it in my previous post. If you agree with that paragraph then why the hell are you arguing with me? Because that was essentially the point.

I did? Where?

Thats not them being prejudiced, thats a disagreement.

They disagree, so they try to look for reasons I am wrong, and prejudice is a favourite. I, however, know myself better than them and am quite capable of identifying my own biases; others are not, as no-one on here knows me anywhere near so well as I know myself.

So you have no tangible evidence to back up your claim? Don't become a lawyer.

I have plenty, of both a numerical and non-numerical nature, but I am merely saying I don't need actual numerical data to know what I know; it might help to demonstrate it to others, however, if they're willing to open their minds.

 

[aussie]

Hmm, interesting description of random numbers plucked out of the air to try and back up your point there.

What?

The averages for Hoggard & Arnold are not random. Those are their respective career averages. Go check cricinfo.

On the 30 innings theory. Where i suggested... i'd say for ever FTB in the 2000s era, if he batted in 30 innings, he would have faced a quality pace attack in bowler friendly (or just a quality pace attack on a flat deck) conditions about 5 times. Which compared to 70s, 80s & 90s it (another educated guess) would be around 15+ times out of 30 innings

I certainly believe if one compares for example the hundreds Greg Chappell scored in the 70s & 80s to hundreds Ricky Ponting scored in the 2000s era (specifically after Headingley 2001). We would see Chappell scored more hundreds againts quality pace attacks in testing (or just quality pace attacks on flat decks) conditions than Ponting did.

 

[Goughy]

Yes, I do. The idea of "bullying bowlers" just isn't acceptable to me.

I am not too proud to say that I have been bullied in the past by batsman.

 

[aussie]

I am not too proud to say that I have been bullied in the past by batsman.

I'm with Richard on this one.

Bowlers indeed can be bullied, but not great bowlers that much. Hayden & Sehwag never where bully like againts quality fast-bowlers in helpul conditions (they have againts quality spinners in similar condtions though).

Hayden againts the quality pace, had to abandon that style in order & become more circumspect to save his career. Sehwag is even worse againts quality pace, but i dont wish to range back these arguments again...

 

[Burgey]

What?

The averages for Hoggard & Arnold are not random. Those are their respective career averages. Go check cricinfo.

On the 30 innings theory. Where i suggested... i'd say for ever FTB in the 2000s era, if he batted in 30 innings, he would have faced a quality pace attack in bowler friendly (or just a quality pace attack on a flat deck) conditions about 5 times. Which compared to 70s, 80s & 90s it (another educated guess) would be around 15+ times out of 30 innings

I certainly believe if one compares for example the hundreds Greg Chappell scored in the 70s & 80s to hundreds Ricky Ponting scored in the 2000s era (specifically after Headingley 2001). We would see Chappell scored more hundreds againts quality pace attacks in testing (or just quality pace attacks on flat decks) conditions than Ponting did.

You make it sound like batsmen were lucky to score a run back then, which is bull**** frankly.

You reckon batsmen in the 70s and 80s faced quality pace attacks, in helpful conditions or otherwise 50 per cent plus back then? Bollocks. Firstly, how many of the sides had quality pace attacks then for any meaningful length of time, let alone got to use them in pace-friendly conditions? WI did, Aus barely did in the 80s, NZ had Hadlee and some triers, India had Kapil and SFA and played a lot at home, Pakistan had Imran and Sarfraz, but everyone says their pitches were roads, England had an aging Willis in the 80s, Botham and Dilley.

Honestly, if you think decks then were seamers' paradises a lot if the time you're kidding mate. It just wasn't so.

And Chappell's hundreds were great knocks, don't get me wrong - I saw most of them. But they were great knocks because he was a great player, just as a Ponting ton will often be a great knock because he's a great player. This uber-revisionist **** has to stop. It's crap.

/rant.

 

[aussie]

You make it sound like batsmen were lucky to score a run back then, which is bull**** frankly.


You reckon batsmen in the 70s and 80s faced quality pace attacks, in helpful conditions or otherwise 50 per cent plus back then? Bollocks. Firstly, how many of the sides had quality pace attacks then for any meaningful length of time, let alone got to use them in pace-friendly conditions? WI did, Aus barely did in the 80s, NZ had Hadlee and some triers, India had Kapil and SFA and played a lot at home, Pakistan had Imran and Sarfraz, but everyone says their pitches were roads, England had an aging Willis in the 80s, Botham and Dilley.

Honestly, if you think decks then were seamers' paradises a lot if the time you're kidding mate. It just wasn't so.

And Chappell's hundreds were great knocks, don't get me wrong - I saw most of them. But they were great knocks because he was a great player, just as a Ponting ton will often be a great knock because he's a great player. This uber-revisionist **** has to stop. It's crap.

/rant.

Firstly i wasn't trying to suggest batsmen where lucky to score runs back then at all. Its unfortunate you interprited it that way. I was suggesting back in the 70s & 80s & 90s the battle & balance between bat & ball was clearly much more even that it is now. The batsmen who rose to top (averaging 50+ or even 45+) where truly greats who earnt that average, unlike what we have had in recent years with a large portion of batsmen averaging close to 50 everytime they hit a purple patch.


Secondly i wasn't suggesting totally in the bolded stated that...You reckon batsmen in the 70s and 80s faced quality pace attacks, in helpful conditions or otherwise 50 per cent plus back then? Bollocks

I said batsmen most likely had to face quality pace attacks in either helpul conditions or on flat decks more than 15+ out of a probable 30 innings. Compared to the the recent 2000s era (making an educated guess based on watching cricket) it would have been like 5 times out of 30 innings.

I'm not questioning Ponting ability as a great batsman at allllllllll, dont get me wrong. I certainly believe he would have been a great in any era without a doubt. I'm just tryign to make a fair distinction between two great batsman & the amount the quality pace bowling they would have had to face in their careers.

I dont want to do this but lets look a Chappell vs Ponting hundreds to really see how much of their respective hundreds where scored againts a quality pace attacks/overall attacks in either bowler friendly conditions or on flat decks: (although this could be subjective in some area's)

CHAPPELL:

- Perth 71. Pretty good ENG attack on his debut on a Perth pitch on debut that wasn't super fast fast according to wisden. But had something for bowlers & batsmen got fair value for shots.

- Both his hundreds vs ENG int he famous 1972 series where againts very good attacks with John Snow at his peak. What made this series famous is that in more than 90% of the time you had fairly helpul bowler friendly conditions. No team scored 400 in the series after all.

- SCG & MCG 74/75 : Very good all-round ENG attack.

- Both his hundreds vs WI 75/76 where fairly solid WI attacks IMO. But this is where i'm being subjective when we look at his hundred in Brisbane. Some may argue Holding wasn't at his peak yet & Gibbs was past his peak. But reading the wisden almanack of that first test, it states the Brisbane pitch had life & Roberts/Holding tested the AUS batsmen.

- PAK 77. It just passes as a good attack (if Sarfraz had played it would have been very good) thanks to Imran/Qasim i'd say. But this is subjective****

- Ashes 77: Very good ENG attack.

- Brisbane 79: Great WI attack.

- MCG 1980: Very good ENG attack.

- MCG 1981: Wasn't going to include this, but checking the profiles of Doshi & Gharvi they dont seem to be that bad. Which i'd say justtttt qualfies this as a good IND attack. But yea this is subjetive too, so may not see it this way***

- Brisbane 1981: Imran/Sarfraz makes it a good attack.

- Christchurch 1982:

One would have to consider this a good NZ attack in home conditions at least even if overall it was probably average even with Hadlee playing. According to wisden the pitch was bowler friendly

At Christchurch, March 19, 20, 21, 22. Australia won by eight wickets. Howarth again sent Australia in, and although Wood scored swiftly, New Zealand made good progress on a grassy pitch

- Perth 82: Willis/Botham - good attack although that Perth deck seemed flat. Willis was still good in this series as well if you check, he took a 5 wicket haul in the test just after this. Plus his hundred @ Adelaide in the same series.

Thats 14 or 16 out of 24 hundreds againts good/very good attacks on either a bowler-friendly deck/conditions or on a flat deck. Thats more than half..

Plus unfortunately we have his hundreds in WSC vs the apocalyptic WI pace attack in the caribbean 1979. Which is the stuff of legend..


PONTING:

- MCG 97: Very good SA attack

- Barbados 99: Ambrose/Walsh - very good WI attack.

- My house 2005: No explanation needed

I can talk out the rest. All his hundreds vs SA in 05/06 (home & away excpet SCG 06 second innings) & MCG 08/09 passes the criteria which are 6 hundreds.

I want to include Adelaide 06 & SCG 09 vs PAK, but these are subjective. So for Ponting out its 9/11 out of 39 hundreds.

Clearly Chappell had more tough runs to score. But as i said above Ponting cashing in on roads doesn't dent his criteria as great batsman i firmly believ he would be a great & average close to 50 in any era.

But as i always say personally when judging FTBs or batsmen who cash in on flat decks in this 2000s era. The batsmen good or great obviously faced quality pace attacks ever so often - but not as regularly as batsmen in the 90s, 80s & 70s. So for all the batsmen that average has reached 50 in the last 10 years, we can only put them on the same level as past batting greats based on the runs they scored in difficult conditions whenever they encountered them.

If they consistently struggle, look less dominant in tough conditions, compared to when they are smoking joke attacks on flat decks - but still maintain a 50+ average. Along with most importantly IMO dont adjust their techniques when exposed & continue to smoke joke attacks on flat decks again (which is the story of many FTBs of the last 10 years). It becomes fairly obvious that are true FTBs whose 50+ averages are/where inflated by the poor/average bowling standards & pitches of the 2000s era.

But i potentially do see a revival in bowling stocks though...

 

[Burgey]

As long as I've watched cricket I've never heard of anyone who averaged 45 being considered as a "great". Very good maybe, but never "great".

And I think your stats on 15 out of 30 aren't right. Who were these quality pace attacks? WI got theirs at the end of the 70s; there was Lillee and Thomson of course for about 3 years max together. Who else in the 70s? England had Willis, Snow very early on. Pakistan had Imran but he lost two years to WSC, and in the 70s Hadlee was a tearaway who was nowhere near what he became later, and with respect, not that many teams played NZ in the 70s anyway. I watched India here in 77 mate, and they had four ****ing spinners! It's piffle to say 50% of matches were played vs quality pace attacks in those days.

Come the 80s, the Windies were awesome of course. India were still crap in the pace department save Kapil; after Lillee retired we had 4 years where we couldn't find a quick who could hit the pitch ffs, apart from Bruce Reid, and he kept snapping in two. Pakistan toured here with Imran, but iirc he was either batting or bowling due to injury, rarely both at once by then. In 83-84 their other new ball bowler was Hafeez iirc. The rise of Hadlee to greatness saw NZ become formidable, but I think even most Kiwi posters here would say the support cast wasn't top shelf for the most part. Then, as I said in my previous post, England had Willis and Botham, but Willis was past it by 82-83. I don't accept he was in tip top shape on that tour by any stretch, but that's subjective.

Trying to think who I've missed. That's right - Sri Lanka. How could I have forgotten LeBrooy and Ratnayake?

The gap between WI and the rest in the 80s was massive imo. I didn't mean to offend you with the stridency of my earlier post, so I'm sorry if I did. I just don't accept the premise that there was this stockpile of quality quicks everywhere back then, I suppose we have to agree to disagree on that point,

 

[Top_Cat]

Stunning.

 

[bagapath]

As long as I've watched cricket I've never heard of anyone who averaged 45 being considered as a "great". Very good maybe, but never "great".

gordon greenidge?

very interesting post, mate.

 

[GIMH]

Equally people need to stop grossly exaggerating what people say about changes over time. I know it's easier to respond to what you'd like people to have written than what they have, but it's a nonsensical approach.

I've seen you say this a few times Richard, on a few topics and I thought I should comment. Did it ever occur to you that if people are interpreting your posts differently to how you intend them, it is not some sort of vendetta? Because after all you've used this line against many people that I know you have no problem with (including myself). It's a cheesy phrase but my boss is always telling me 'perception is reality'. If it's coming across that you are saying one thing when you mean another, I would suggest that you need to think about how your posts are coming across, rather than attacking the way people are reading them.

 

[GIMH]

In other news, Burgey wins the thread

 

[Flem274*]

I've seen you say this a few times Richard, on a few topics and I thought I should comment. Did it ever occur to you that if people are interpreting your posts differently to how you intend them, it is not some sort of vendetta? Because after all you've used this line against many people that I know you have no problem with (including myself). It's a cheesy phrase but my boss is always telling me 'perception is reality'. If it's coming across that you are saying one thing when you mean another, I would suggest that you need to think about how your posts are coming across, rather than attacking the way people are reading them.

Personally I think he says it as a diversion tactic when he's being beaten tbh. Nice guy but he can't admit some of his theories might be wrong.

 

[Richard]

I am not too proud to say that I have been bullied in the past by batsman.

I'm certainly not too proud to say that I've been not remotely good enough to remotely trouble batsmen, but that's what it is to my mind - I'm not good enough to trouble them, not they're too good for me. I still bowl the ball and if I didn't bowl it they'd not even have a thing to do.

 

[Richard]

I've seen you say this a few times Richard, on a few topics and I thought I should comment. Did it ever occur to you that if people are interpreting your posts differently to how you intend them, it is not some sort of vendetta? Because after all you've used this line against many people that I know you have no problem with (including myself). It's a cheesy phrase but my boss is always telling me 'perception is reality'. If it's coming across that you are saying one thing when you mean another, I would suggest that you need to think about how your posts are coming across, rather than attacking the way people are reading them.

Hmm, I don't think it's always a result of personal vendetta (sometimes is, of course) but more a vendetta against several points I make regularly - one of the most notable being batting-has-gotten-quite-a-bit-easier-since-2001/02. There's lots of people who don't like that idea, and the easiest way to argue against it is to reply with what's commonly termed irrelevant logic - by saying something related to what's easy to argue against rather than what has actually been said.

It's annoying to have to point-out constantly to so many posters that they're doing this, so thus I might come accross as a bit more terse than I need be the more I have to do it.

 

[Richard]

Personally I think he says it as a diversion tactic when he's being beaten tbh. Nice guy but he can't admit some of his theories might be wrong.

If I thought theories were wrong I wouldn't have attached myself to the belief of them.

If I say people are replying to what they'd like to have been written rather than what has been it's because that's what's happened. It'd be so much easier for everyone if they just replied to what had been written, because it'd save needless bickering. There is no "being beaten" because mostly people on CW aren't that way inclined, but yes, there are some things that people have said on the subject-matter down the years that has influenced the way I think about the batting-has-gotten-easier-since-2001/02 matter - and many besides. I don't feel any sort of comedown thus, it's perfectly natural. But I won't admit anything is wrong when I've spent plenty of time considering it and there has been nothing presented by someone else to change my mind.

 

[Burgey]

I'm certainly not too proud to say that I've been not remotely good enough to remotely trouble batsmen, but that's what it is to my mind - I'm not good enough to trouble them, not they're too good for me. I still bowl the ball and if I didn't bowl it they'd not even have a thing to do.

But if you're not good enough to trouble them, then they must be too good for you. Be it on the day or in general.

Surely one must follow t'other. In fact, one IS t'other.

 

[GIMH]

If I thought theories were wrong I wouldn't have attached myself to the belief of them.

If I say people are replying to what they'd like to have been written rather than what has been it's because that's what's happened.

Again, you're making assumptions about what other people are thinking...surely it's logical that actually, they just summise from what you write that your opinion is whatever they state that they believe it is. if that makes any sense. It certainly does in my head.

I certainly don't 'want' you to have written anything or nothing - I just reply to what I think you've said/are suggesting

 

[Uppercut]

Again, you're making assumptions about what other people are thinking...surely it's logical that actually, they just summise from what you write that your opinion is whatever they state that they believe it is. if that makes any sense. It certainly does in my head.

I certainly don't 'want' you to have written anything or nothing - I just reply to what I think you've said/are suggesting

You're absolutely right but I suspect it's not going to be any easier to change his mind about this than it is to change it regarding the actual theories.