Australians watching a different game

[greg]

It was the only shot any batsman would have played, you can't go doing anything other than trying to score off balls on that line. Even if he'd tried to play it though mid-on he'd still have edged it anyway.

Well that's a bit of guesswork. Perhaps all those technical purists who talk about playing in the V with the full face of the bat early on in your innings with the ball seaming about are just talking nonsense.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How many dissmissals or inings in your opinion are actualy valid you seem too discredit most of them?

As I said in the other thread - such is arguing with Richard. That's the difference between him and most other people on this forum, he utterly refuses to admit he is wrong. TEC for example, has never been a fan of Lee, and as I like Lee and believe he has been bowling excellently (and differently) since the start of last summer, we have had disagreements about him in the past. On this tour though, when Lee has bowled well, TEC has been perfectly happy to say so. Richard would never say so, even if Lee took 100 wickets @ 10 next year, he would just be lucky or the batsmen would be poor or the pitch would be helpful or the moon would be in the wrong part of its cycle or the weather would be too hot or the stock market would be too low or something or the sort.

 

[marc71178]

Harmison has largely been poor except the Ponting ball

Current match figures: 29.4-4-78-7 - how poor that is (!)

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well that's a bit of guesswork. Perhaps all those technical purists who talk about playing in the V with the full face of the bat early on in your innings with the ball seaming about are just talking nonsense.

Indeed, on that pitch with a new ball it was as dangerous as playing across the line to a straight ball that's lbw-able.

 

[marc71178]

How many dissmissals or inings in your opinion are actualy valid you seem too discredit most of them?

Well, of the 27 so far, 12 have gone to McGrath and Harmison, so they're automatically not deserved.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well, of the 27 so far, 12 have gone to McGrath and Harmison, so they're automatically not deserved.

Well, Richard said McGrath bowled well, and one of Lee's wickets was deserved, as well as one of Harmison's... so that's something! Still leaves 20 unaccounted for though.

 

[King_Ponting]

Well, Richard said McGrath bowled well, and one of Lee's wickets was deserved, as well as one of Harmison's... so that's something! Still leaves 20 unaccounted for though.

Will cricket ever produce a consistently "decent" bowler

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Will cricket ever produce a consistently "decent" bowler

Craig White, dontcha know? I hear he was better than McGrath.

 

[King_Ponting]

Craig White, dontcha know? I hear he was better than McGrath.

Oh but of course. How could i forget

 

[Shane Warne]

I've never read a bigger load of bullocks than in the last two weeks about Australia's attack - that Gillespie is woefully out of form ; that Kaspa is out of sorts ; and that it is somehow a 'must' that Brett Lee be selected in the Tests . All inaccuracies, and none of them will mean a jot, come Thursday in the longer form of the game.

Ooops.

Could you have been any more wrong?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Ooops.

Could you have been any more wrong?

Yes; he could be Matthew Hoggard...

 

[Shane Warne]

Yes; he could be Matthew Hoggard...

He was so completely dead *** wrong that I'm thinking maybe he is Matthew Hoggard.

 

[Richard]

It didn't bounce any more than would have been reasonably expected from a short ball bowled at 150kph on a wicket with decent bounce in it, it was just unplayable.

It did, as you'll see when comparing other deliveries of similar length.
There's no other reason, even if you didn't, why Jones would have been so discomfited. If it had bounced as he'd expected he'd have played it easily.

 

[Richard]

How many dissmissals or inings in your opinion are actualy valid you seem too discredit most of them?

If you take a careful look I only ever discredit spells where bowlers take 4 or 5 wickets without bowling any wicket-taking balls, especially when they've sprayed it around; and fairly obviously only an innings which is scored without doing something that should result in dismissal is valid as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Richard]

Well that's a bit of guesswork. Perhaps all those technical purists who talk about playing in the V with the full face of the bat early on in your innings with the ball seaming about are just talking nonsense.

They are indeed - and every single one of them would have played the exact same stroke if it had been them.
The only reason the England batsmen are being criticised for the first-innings is because most people just can't see a 155ao and say "the batsmen didn't do much wrong".

 

[Richard]

Current match figures: 29.4-4-78-7 - how poor that is (!)

Which just goes to show what you say maybe a million times a week - figures aren't everything.

 

[Richard]

As I said in the other thread - such is arguing with Richard. That's the difference between him and most other people on this forum, he utterly refuses to admit he is wrong. TEC for example, has never been a fan of Lee, and as I like Lee and believe he has been bowling excellently (and differently) since the start of last summer, we have had disagreements about him in the past. On this tour though, when Lee has bowled well, TEC has been perfectly happy to say so. Richard would never say so, even if Lee took 100 wickets @ 10 next year, he would just be lucky or the batsmen would be poor or the pitch would be helpful or the moon would be in the wrong part of its cycle or the weather would be too hot or the stock market would be too low or something or the sort.

I'd say that if it was the case - if Lee had changed and bowled well, though, I'd say so.
In the case of this Test, Lee hasn't bowled well, at all, and I wait in the near-certainty of seeing him smashed all over everywhere when we get a better batting pitch and an improvement in our batting.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It did, as you'll see when comparing other deliveries of similar length.
There's no other reason, even if you didn't, why Jones would have been so discomfited. If it had bounced as he'd expected he'd have played it easily.

No, he wouldn't, because it was an excellent bouncer that followed him down the slope. It was unplayable, simple as that. He got caught between wanting to hook and wanting to duck, tried to get out of the way and the ball followed him and got him out.

 

[Richard]

Craig White, dontcha know? I hear he was better than McGrath.

No, you didn't, you just manufactured a crazy, utterly illogical way to make it look like I'd said that, and I've never, once, said anything of the sort.

 

[Richard]

No, he wouldn't, because it was an excellent bouncer that followed him down the slope. It was unplayable, simple as that. He got caught between wanting to hook and wanting to duck, tried to get out of the way and the ball followed him and got him out.

Or rather it bounced more than expected (and came down the slope a little - which wouldn't have been a problem but for the extra bounce) and he changed his mind.
Maybe he'd have done better to stick with his original choice of stroke.