Bowlers that srtike terror in batsmen's heart!

[Smudge]

Voltman gets the prize!

I was a member here a couple of years ago...

Two prizes in a week? I feel like I'm a star of Brokeback Mountain or something. Now could someone hand me a pair of leather chaps?

 

[Sanz]

So Santh is nonesense???

No, Santh is a bowler.

 

[Richard]

Perhaps you were not the one who originally made the allegations, but in this thread it was you who singled out Michael Papps as some sort of nancy-boy for the purpose of supporting your argument. That you relied on the opinions of someone else when slagging off a player is staggering.

I certainly did not single-out Papps, as you can quite clearly see it was Sean who first mentioned him.
I'd not be especially surprised if Papps was not intimidated by Lee in some game or other; but someone claimed he was. If you want to take it out, don't take it out with me, take it out with the person who made the suggestion.

Naturally it's up to you to decide what's correct and what's not. Intelligent debate be damned.

It's up to me to choose what parades to rain on, and what I find intelligent.
To suggest that pace alone is much of a weapon is not very intelligent.

Absolutely, I don't dispute that. It does seem odd though, that you would choose to name two of the world's better bowlers (and highly unlikely to be scared of anyone) to illustrate your point.

Harmison one of The World's better bowlers?
Now I've heard it all.
The bowlers I picked were examples of bowlers who, in past ages, might have intimidated batsmen purely with pace, but do not these days.

 

[Richard]

So Santh is nonesense??? what you are saying is more of a nonesense!

To suggest that Sreesanth would have struck fear into batsmen's hearts even in the days when bowlers did strike fear into batsmen's hearts is nonsense.

 

[Dick Rockett]

It's up to me to choose what parades to rain on, and what I find intelligent.
To suggest that pace alone is much of a weapon is not very intelligent.

Well, if you're trying to suggest that people who disagree with you are not intelligent, then I just don't know what to say. One wonders why you bother posting on here.

 

[luckyeddie]

Two prizes in a week? I feel like I'm a star of Brokeback Mountain or something. Now could someone hand me a pair of leather chaps?

I heard that the chaps didn't have to be leather...

/minces

 

[Richard]

Well, if you're trying to suggest that people who disagree with you are not intelligent, then I just don't know what to say. One wonders why you bother posting on here.

No, I'm not.
If you read carefully, you'll see that I said people who think that pace in itself is much of a wicket-taking threat, they're not very intelligent - in cricket.
Nought else.

 

[Dick Rockett]

No, I'm not.
If you read carefully, you'll see that I said people who think that pace in itself is much of a wicket-taking threat, they're not very intelligent - in cricket.
Nought else.

Oh, obviously. Silly me.

 

[Richard]

Yes, it is, pretty obvious.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Last word.

 

[Richard]

Err, what?

 

[cricketboy29]

I'd agree though, pace on its own, hardly works in International cricket, unless you can add a second string to your bow.

 

[Richard]

I'd say, more accurately, pace is the third string to add to the bow.
Nothing works on pitches of even bounce unless you can move the ball sideways. Equally, the more accurate you are, the better your ability to move the ball can be utilised. Equally, the faster everything happens, the better your movement and accuracy is utilised.

 

[cricketboy29]

I wouldnt say so, as a matter of fact, sideways movement is defintely important, but I'd say Pace would be up there as well. A case in point would be, The last India-Pakistan series, if you dont have pace, and theres no swing,(which isnt that uncommon), your pretty much stuck, unless you have Glenn Mcgrath-like accuracy.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Err, what?

Sarcastic allusion to your absolute need to get the last word in. I was denying you. Or at least attempting to.

 

[Richard]

I wouldnt say so, as a matter of fact, sideways movement is defintely important, but I'd say Pace would be up there as well. A case in point would be, The last India-Pakistan series, if you dont have pace, and theres no swing,(which isnt that uncommon), your pretty much stuck, unless you have Glenn Mcgrath-like accuracy.

If you don't have swing, but you have 90mph pace, you're royally stuffed.
If you have swing, but bowl at just 75mph, you're not in with an especially high chance.
If you have both, you're in with a decent chance on absolutely any wicket.
The thing, too, to remember about the Pak-Ind series is that the conditions and balls used were not conducive to either conventional-swing or reverse-swing - nor were the bowlers on either side especially capable.

 

[Richard]

Sarcastic allusion to your absolute need to get the last word in. I was denying you. Or at least attempting to.

No "absolute need" - but if I'm arguing something, I'll continue to argue it.

 

[Goughy]

Richard,
I am still new here so please humour me for a second.

You are a senior poster with over 19,000 posts.

If you could induldge me on a subject that has no relevance to anything could you please answer
a) How old are you
and
b) What is the highest level of cricket you have played.

This is in no way a criticism, it is for educational purposes and I am intrigued as to the background of such a dedicated board member.

 

[Hit4Six]

Munaf IS feared by most intl. batsmen....they just dont know it yet. I'd add murali in their his big scary eyes and kaneria because when youve got akmal screeching behind you really suddenly that might make u jump...

 

[wrangler203]

Are you f****** kidding me man, most international havent even faced the damn guy, and your saying is feared by them more than say Akthar, Lee, Harmison. What the hell is the matter with you.