brilliant idea

[marc71178]

Looking at year to year to year is only looking at selective stats and you doesn't get the overall picture. Looking at 15 games, or whatever, for a guy who played 148 FC games doesn't give you the over picture. Only way it seems that your theory can be provide is by looking at selective stats.

So when has he played in such a weak attack then apart from in County Cricket?

When he's not got the bowlers to back him, his numbers have fallen apart.

How else does one look at his continuing effectiveness if it isn't be looking at year on year figures?

 

[tooextracool]

Nevertheless, Edwards gets picked for West Indies whenever fit, and is rated by some to be a very good bowler.

very few people actually describe edwards as being a 'very good bowler'. his biggest problem along with the fact that with that action hes probably never going to be accurate, is the fact that he lacks any form of intelligence whatsoever. for example, his poor spell on the 4th morning of the old trafford test(commonly misthought by some to be a brilliant spell) where he squandered helpful conditions, and aimed for the helmet instead of the wickets is a classic example. fortunately for the WI, bravo managed to pull things back.

Anyway, Ive seen Edwards completely lose the plot with the ball - very slow days with no swing or accuracy - and you ca hardly say that about MacGill. Sure, he has the odd bad 3 or 4 over spell, but he often responds with a wicket, and never looks like hes completely lost it ala Fidel.

the thing is, whatever way you look at it, only mediocre bowlers bowl 1-2 bad ball every over, edwards is very poor, hence he bowls far too many. good batsmen dont have too many problems putting away the odd poor ball.

 

[mofo123]

yea, but its all relative...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

the thing is, whatever way you look at it, only mediocre bowlers bowl 1-2 bad ball every over, edwards is very poor, hence he bowls far too many. good batsmen dont have too many problems putting away the odd poor ball.

Ok, fair enough to say Fidel Edwards is not a very good bowler. I agree. However, to call the young man very poor is extremely harsh.

 

[tooextracool]

Ok, fair enough to say Fidel Edwards is not a very good bowler. I agree. However, to call the young man very poor is extremely harsh.

what else do you call someone who averages a touch under 50?

 

[chaminda_00]

When he's not got the bowlers to back him, his numbers have fallen apart.

How else does one look at his continuing effectiveness if it isn't be looking at year on year figures?

If you want to look at his continuing effectiveness you look at his overall stats in a competition, if you want to look at selective stats you look at each season and make your own conclusion, which you seem to be good at.

Again what numbers have fallen apart:
32 matches, 122 wkts @ 30.7 (plus 1.9), S/R 51.6 (minus 2.9)

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

what else do you call someone who averages a touch under 50?

You can look at more than stats and actually watch the man bowl. When Fidel Edwards has been fit, he's done well aside from one series - in South Africa. In that series he was leading the West Indies attack with a handful of FC games under his belt, of which half were Test matches.
Fidel Edwards is not a very poor bowler. He's mediocre no doubt, but with the clear talent he has and work he has put in of late, he will improve. Whether or not he should playing at Test level whilst doing so is debateable.

Out of curiousity, have you watched the current Test match at all?

 

[tooextracool]

You can look at more than stats and actually watch the man bowl. When Fidel Edwards has been fit, he's done well aside from one series - in South Africa. In that series he was leading the West Indies attack with a handful of FC games under his belt, of which half were Test matches.
Fidel Edwards is not a very poor bowler. He's mediocre no doubt, but with the clear talent he has and work he has put in of late, he will improve. Whether or not he should playing at Test level whilst doing so is debateable.

he has talent yes, but talent does not change the fact that you've been poor thus far. edwards was extremely poor in england, and im fairly certain that he was fit at least in old trafford, where he was really cranking up the pace, he was still bowling way too short. and his action, just like malinga's his action will always mean that hes compromising on accuracy, and if he wants to be test class, let alone good, hes going to have to make changes to that.

Out of curiousity, have you watched the current Test match at all?

nope i havent, but i certainly wasnt impressed with him on the tour to england.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

he has talent yes, but talent does not change the fact that you've been poor thus far. edwards was extremely poor in england, and im fairly certain that he was fit at least in old trafford, where he was really cranking up the pace, he was still bowling way too short. and his action, just like malinga's his action will always mean that hes compromising on accuracy, and if he wants to be test class, let alone good, hes going to have to make changes to that.

Edwards was not fully fit in England, as evidenced by his total breakdown immediately after. Edwards has refined his action slightly, but as Michael Holding said, even slight adjustments are huge where fast-bowling is concerned.

Simply because a bowler is not "good" does not make him/her "very poor". You're vision is too black and white.

Nope i havent, but i certainly wasnt impressed with him on the tour to england.

Well there you go. You're passing harsh judgement based on one series during which he was not even fully fit. That's the way to go.
He bowled very well against England earlier that very year and has bowled very impressively in the current Test match on a pitch which, with any life at all, could have seen him with a fair few wickets. As things stand, he has bowled deservingly of a few.

 

[tooextracool]

Edwards was not fully fit in England, as evidenced by his total breakdown immediately after. Edwards has refined his action slightly, but as Michael Holding said, even slight adjustments are huge where fast-bowling is concerned.

Simply because a bowler is not "good" does not make him/her "very poor". You're vision is too black and white.

is that why he was bowling at over 95 mph in old trafford then?
he was definetly fit in england, at least during the third test match, where he produced a complete lack of sense bowling spell on the 4th morning. and if i remember correctly, he was fit throughout the test match at the oval.
whatever happened thereafter doesnt change that, nor does it change the fact that hes been poor for pretty much all his career thus far.

Well there you go. You're passing harsh judgement based on one series during which he was not even fully fit. That's the way to go.
He bowled very well against England earlier that very year and has bowled very impressively in the current Test match on a pitch which, with any life at all, could have seen him with a fair few wickets. As things stand, he has bowled deservingly of a few.

nope im passing judgement based on a large part of his career, which includes the series(4 tests) against SA, where again not surprisingly he continued to bowl his short rubbish at the batsmen. then surprisingly he somehow produced 2 good spells against england before he reverted back to his normal inaccurate short bowling self for the rest of the series in the WI and england.
and surely you cant be that impressive if you've gone for over 3 runs, and not taken a single wicket. flat pitch or not, unless hes had plenty of dropped catches of him.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

is that why he was bowling at over 95 mph in old trafford then?
he was definetly fit in england, at least during the third test match, where he produced a complete lack of sense bowling spell on the 4th morning. and if i remember correctly, he was fit throughout the test match at the oval.
whatever happened thereafter doesnt change that, nor does it change the fact that hes been poor for pretty much all his career thus far.

No, it showed he bowled quickly at times in that match. Nothing more. If he was fit, his pace would not have tailed off as much as it did. Lack of fitness does not necessarily prevent a pace bowler from bowling quickly, but it does prevent a pace bowler from bowling quickly over the course of a match.

nope im passing judgement based on a large part of his career, which includes the series(4 tests) against SA, where again not surprisingly he continued to bowl his short rubbish at the batsmen.

Your amazing disregard for circumstance is well... amazing.

then surprisingly he somehow produced 2 good spells against england before he reverted back to his normal inaccurate short bowling self for the rest of the series in the WI and england.

Before he got injured (!) and returned. Once again, you never cease to amaze.

and surely you cant be that impressive if you've gone for over 3 runs, and not taken a single wicket. flat pitch or not, unless hes had plenty of dropped catches of him.

I've seen bowlers go for more runs on better wickets and bowl well. Surely you can't be that naive to watch statistics from a match and make such a judgement.
The fact that you haven't SEEN the man bowl is what tells me that I can safely disregard any comment you have made on this match. Had Edwards bowled poorly he would have gone for more than 3 runs per over on this pitch. I'm sure if you asked any of the South Africans to name a West Indian bowler who troubled them they'd sooner say Fidel Edwards than none at all.

 

[aliG]

is that poetry of some sort..kind of reads like it....unfortunately most poetry is utter rubbish

PWN3D!!!!!!!!

 

[tooextracool]

No, it showed he bowled quickly at times in that match. Nothing more. If he was fit, his pace would not have tailed off as much as it did. Lack of fitness does not necessarily prevent a pace bowler from bowling quickly, but it does prevent a pace bowler from bowling quickly over the course of a match.

he bowled fairly briskly(over 90 mph for the entire game). and really if what you claim were true, it still doesnt explain why he couldnt buy a wicket during that spell. fit or unfit, theres no excuse for bowling short, or bowling inaccurately, and surprise surprise, hes been doing that for how long now?

Your amazing disregard for circumstance is well... amazing.

what circumstances? so if you're made to lead a bowling attack you bowl rubbish is it? or do you bowl short?
seriously the last time edwards bowled 6 consecutive balls without a short ball, was when cows were flying.

Before he got injured (!) and returned. Once again, you never cease to amaze.

uh huh, so apparently, every time he comes back from injury he starts bowling short and fast?

I've seen bowlers go for more runs on better wickets and bowl well. Surely you can't be that naive to watch statistics from a match and make such a judgement.
The fact that you haven't SEEN the man bowl is what tells me that I can safely disregard any comment you have made on this match. Had Edwards bowled poorly he would have gone for more than 3 runs per over on this pitch. I'm sure if you asked any of the South Africans to name a West Indian bowler who troubled them they'd sooner say Fidel Edwards than none at all.

and the fact that i havent watched the game yet, means that im less likely to believe that he bowled well unless i actually watched the game. because there have been times in the past when people have claimed that he was bowling well, when he was in fact bowling extremely poorly.
also you might want to note that theres a difference between 'troubling a batsman' and actually getting them out, or at least looking like getting them out. again i go back to old trafford 4th morning, he might easily have troubled thorpe and hoggard by aiming at their helmet, but not once, and i say not once, did he ever look like getting them out.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

he bowled fairly briskly(over 90 mph for the entire game). and really if what you claim were true, it still doesnt explain why he couldnt buy a wicket during that spell. fit or unfit, theres no excuse for bowling short, or bowling inaccurately, and surprise surprise, hes been doing that for how long now?

Myopic...

Two points:
1. Perhaps he was instructed to bowl short.
2. He has had two series where he has been carted about. One of those series he was extremely overworked and extremely inexperienced and the other he was not 100%.

what circumstances? so if you're made to lead a bowling attack you bowl rubbish is it? or do you bowl short?
seriously the last time edwards bowled 6 consecutive balls without a short ball, was when cows were flying.

Do you have a concept of the game of cricket? He was very inexperienced (at FC level, let alone Test level), not at all accustomed to such a massive workload and tossed into international cricket against the likes of Kallis, Gibbs and Smith.

You'd know so much about cows flying too, seeing as you've seen his attrocious bowling in the current match.

uh huh, so apparently, every time he comes back from injury he starts bowling short and fast?

Ok, now I start to question your knowledge of the human body and basic mechanics too. Form and rhythm do tend to suffer when there is a layoff of sorts. If you can't understand such a basic concept, well nothing more can be said.

and the fact that i havent watched the game yet, means that im less likely to believe that he bowled well unless i actually watched the game. because there have been times in the past when people have claimed that he was bowling well, when he was in fact bowling extremely poorly.

The fact that you pass judgements on a performance that you have not seen is as ignorant as a person calling a substandard bowling performance good. Spot the key word.

also you might want to note that theres a difference between 'troubling a batsman' and actually getting them out, or at least looking like getting them out. again i go back to old trafford 4th morning, he might easily have troubled thorpe and hoggard by aiming at their helmet, but not once, and i say not once, did he ever look like getting them out.

As I said before, I shall ignore your comments on the current match. When you have enough information to form an educated opinion, we'll chatter.

That is all for my part. You are very much impossible to have a productive argument with and I shall not stoop to the levels of others by attempting. You may, however, continue to converse with yourself and whoever sticks around to stand it.

 

[tooextracool]

Myopic...

Two points:
1. Perhaps he was instructed to bowl short..

how can he be instructed to bowl short when the conditions were conducive for both seam and swing? especially the number that fidel bowled in that spell, he hardly pitched a ball up during the entire spell! lara isnt the brightest of captains, but even he knows that you dont bowl 4-5 balls every over that are too short. especially when you havent managed to get a wicket all morning, with the nightwatchman still batting, you'd think they'd figure that much out

2. He has had two series where he has been carted about. One of those series he was extremely overworked and extremely inexperienced and the other he was not 100%..

and hes been bowling too short for almost every series, things havent changed. even bangladesh had no problems with his short stuff. the overworked, inexperienced thing is rather ludicrous, because either way if you've bowled poorly theres no excuse

Do you have a concept of the game of cricket? He was very inexperienced (at FC level, let alone Test level), not at all accustomed to such a massive workload and tossed into international cricket against the likes of Kallis, Gibbs and Smith.

what is your point? have i claimed that hes going to be a failure all his career and doesnt deserve to play cricket ever again? inexperience or not, it doesnt change the fact that hes bowled poorly all his career, and its reflected in his career average.

You'd know so much about cows flying too, seeing as you've seen his attrocious bowling in the current match. .

which changes the fact that hes bowled extremely poorly in his career thus far how? one game does not change anything, let alone one game where he didnt even manage a wicket. and judging by some of the reports ive read, it seems that fidel has been doing much the same that he did in england, bowling short and fast.

Ok, now I start to question your knowledge of the human body and basic mechanics too. Form and rhythm do tend to suffer when there is a layoff of sorts. If you can't understand such a basic concept, well nothing more can be said.

form and rhythm yes, fidel edwards was not out of rhythm or form, he was doing what hes being doing for large part of his career. its simply insane how you can claim that someone who apparently was looking the fittest he'd looked for a while in that game, was suffering from 'form and rhythm'.

The fact that you pass judgements on a performance that you have not seen is as ignorant as a person calling a substandard bowling performance good. Spot the key word..

ok then, so we should all dwell on fidel's brilliant bowling performance of 0/110 from 30 overs, which manages to make even his bowling average look worse.
you should also know that not once have i claimed that hes bowled poorly, im questioning the fact that hes bowled 'very impressively', because very impressively doesnt happen when you have figures off 0/110 and are the most expensive bowler in the side. at best he could have bowled well.

As I said before, I shall ignore your comments on the current match. When you have enough information to form an educated opinion, we'll chatter.

That is all for my part. You are very much impossible to have a productive argument with and I shall not stoop to the levels of others by attempting. You may, however, continue to converse with yourself and whoever sticks around to stand it.

yes because obviously i dont agree with your notion that fidel edwards is a good bowler. just so you know, before calling someone good, that bowler has to have actually have good performances, instead of simply claiming that all his poor performances were because of inexperience and return from injury. even this 0/110 is a return from injury, but of course i dont see you saying anything such as hes out of rhythm or anything of the sort, probably because hes not, but then again thats precisely what hes been on those other occasions too and had he bowled pathetically, you'd be going on about how it was a return from injury and what not.

 

[Craig]

No, because Warne is one of the all time greats.

MacGill when bowling behind 3 weaker bowlers is nowhere near as good (even if he's playing in a much lower level of Cricket)

And how did he become an all-time great? By having a good bowling attack, and in particular Glenn McGrath, their bowling partnership proves it, like you should know.

 

[Craig]

I would pick Giles ahead of MacGill if both were available for England.

*Thinks of the side Giles plays for and the side Marc supports*

 

[Craig]

The point is that Fidel Edwards does not play for the Australian cricket team. He does not have the likes of McGrath, Gillespie and co. alongside him.

And what is so wrong with having a good bowling attack to bowl to bowl around, certainly better then not having any, as people like Streak, Hadlee, Vettori etc. can testify to, and it makes Warne's life a lot easier having McGrath, Gillespie etc. for support then not having them. As it did for your great WI bowling line-up in the 80's.

Does it make Hadlee for example one of the great bowlers of all time because of the lack of actual world class back up he had with him?

 

[marc71178]

If you want to look at his continuing effectiveness you look at his overall stats in a competition

No, you don't because that becomes distorted.

If a bowler's average is climbing year on year, you don't refer back several years as an indication of continuing effectiveness.

 

[marc71178]

*Thinks of the side Giles plays for and the side Marc supports*

* looks at the role required for an English spinner in the current side *

* looks at which of the 2 can perform that role. *