bring back alex tudor!!!

[Richard]

and where is the evidence to suggest this?
i seem to remember him playing quite a brilliant knock on a turner at sydney against india and then averaging 50(albeit he only played 1 game because the selectors thought symonds would be better) in SL.
so basically it all comes down to the fact that you dont like him and despite the fact that katich has never shown any visible weaknesses against spin bowling(and has in fact shown all the skills required to succeed) he must still be totally useless against spin

And where now did you get the idea I don't like him? Let me guess - yet again because I've pointed-out a weakness.
I personally think Katich an excellent player, much better than Martyn and Langer. Ie the 4th best player in Australia.
But he does have a weakness against spin.

martyn has never been particularly uncomfortable against spin either....

Uncomfortable enough, and not capable of scoring quickly anywhere near as often.

 

[tooextracool]

And where now did you get the idea I don't like him? Let me guess - yet again because I've pointed-out a weakness.
I personally think Katich an excellent player, much better than Martyn and Langer. Ie the 4th best player in Australia.
But he does have a weakness against spin.

well back it up then!why has he performed so well against the 2 best spin bowling attacks on spinner friendly wickets?
it seems to me like you really are doing exactly what you've done in the past....make up stuff that you want to have happened but havent. katich read both murali and kumble brillaintly and used his feet against them perfectly. but of course he must have some weakness against them....one that you wont even specify.

Uncomfortable enough, and not capable of scoring quickly anywhere near as often.

no he hasnt because if he hasnt failed against spinners he cant be poor against them.....

 

[Richard]

well back it up then!why has he performed so well against the 2 best spin bowling attacks on spinner friendly wickets?
it seems to me like you really are doing exactly what you've done in the past....make up stuff that you want to have happened but havent. katich read both murali and kumble brillaintly and used his feet against them perfectly. but of course he must have some weakness against them....one that you wont even specify.

I have seen Katich bat in English domestic cricket (not just 4 years ago, last year too) and on the two occasions he's batted on spin-friendly wickets against good spinners he's looked all-at-sea, frankly.
Of course, two recent innings cancel all that out, just because they were in Test-matches.

no he hasnt because if he hasnt failed against spinners he cant be poor against them.....

He didn't actually do too well in Sri Lanka, once you remove that 161-inclusive-of-about-4-let-offs.
And just because you haven't seen any other occasions doesn't mean they haven't happened.

 

[tooextracool]

I have seen Katich bat in English domestic cricket (not just 4 years ago, last year too) and on the two occasions he's batted on spin-friendly wickets against good spinners he's looked all-at-sea, frankly.
Of course, two recent innings cancel all that out, just because they were in Test-matches.

2 things
1) can you prove this to me? quite frankly i could make up crap like that and say that i watched katich 4 years ago in australia smashing warne out of the park.
2) it was 4 friggin years ago and in domestic cricket....gee that says a lot doesnt it!and im sure someone who had no problems against 2 of the top 3 spinners in the world would have been struggling against bowlers like robert croft and the like.
for you to call someone who has scored prolifically only recently against murali and kumble as not a good player of spin bowling is just outright stupid and years ago too! just as stupid as if i said flintoff was totally useless because he couldnt bat against SA 5 years ago

He didn't actually do too well in Sri Lanka, once you remove that 161-inclusive-of-about-4-let-offs.

and should we just ignore the 110 and 42 then?

And just because you haven't seen any other occasions doesn't mean they haven't happened.

i judge players not on dropped catches and numbers, but on how well i think they play spin. martyn has always shown to me that he has the necessary ability to play spin, he uses his feet well and plays with soft hands. i will not go on to call him a brilliant player of spin bowling but he definetly isnt by any means a poor player of spin.

 

[Richard]

2 things
1) can you prove this to me? quite frankly i could make up crap like that and say that i watched katich 4 years ago in australia smashing warne out of the park.
2) it was 4 friggin years ago and in domestic cricket....gee that says a lot doesnt it!and im sure someone who had no problems against 2 of the top 3 spinners in the world would have been struggling against bowlers like robert croft and the like.
for you to call someone who has scored prolifically only recently against murali and kumble as not a good player of spin bowling is just outright stupid and years ago too! just as stupid as if i said flintoff was totally useless because he couldnt bat against SA 5 years ago

No, no-one can prove anything - but I know what I know, and that's good enough for me.

and should we just ignore the 110 and 42 then?

No, we should take them in the context of the three failures that surrounded them, and that 42 is not an exceptional score at all.

i judge players not on dropped catches and numbers, but on how well i think they play spin. martyn has always shown to me that he has the necessary ability to play spin, he uses his feet well and plays with soft hands. i will not go on to call him a brilliant player of spin bowling but he definetly isnt by any means a poor player of spin.

And I judge someone on whether or not they score runs. Not how good they look.

 

[tooextracool]

No, no-one can prove anything - but I know what I know, and that's good enough for me.

its an inane claim to make when neither of them have shown any visible weaknesses against spin at the international level....so obviously what you know is just plain b/s because you yourself cant prove it. if katich couldnt play spin then how did he manage the 125 and 77* on a spinner friendly sydney wicket and then again scoring 86 in spinner friendly conditions up against murali in SL

No, we should take them in the context of the three failures that surrounded them, and that 42 is not an exceptional score at all..

and its not failure either......id take a 110 and 42 in 5 innings from someone who apparently cant play spin in those conditions.

And I judge someone on whether or not they score runs. Not how good they look.

and the fact that katich and martyn actually scored runs makes you look like a fool

 

[Richard]

its an inane claim to make when neither of them have shown any visible weaknesses against spin at the international level....so obviously what you know is just plain b/s because you yourself cant prove it. if katich couldnt play spin then how did he manage the 125 and 77* on a spinner friendly sydney wicket and then again scoring 86 in spinner friendly conditions up against murali in SL

Because he played well on each of these occasions.
However, it does not mean he has played well on all the other occasions he's faced spin.

and its not failure either......id take a 110 and 42 in 5 innings from someone who apparently cant play spin in those conditions.

Would you? Personally I'd say it's nothing convincing me that he's improved against spin from the last time I saw him. One century proves not a lot.

and the fact that katich and martyn actually scored runs makes you look like a fool

Or rather, as per usual, you trying to put words onto my keyboard makes you look like a fool.
Because I did not say "I judge someone on whether they happen to have scored runs in their most recent innings in stereotypical-spin-friendly conditions".

 

[tooextracool]

Because he played well on each of these occasions.
However, it does not mean he has played well on all the other occasions he's faced spin.

and the only occasions you can bring up come from county cricket over 4 years ago, which doesnt prove anything about how good a player katich is against spin at the international level atm. if he hasnt failed against spin in his short career to dat, he cant be classified as a failure its as simple as that.

Would you? Personally I'd say it's nothing convincing me that he's improved against spin from the last time I saw him. One century proves not a lot.

yes i would, and when was the last time you saw him struggling against spin bowling...back in county cricket against robert croft,peter such and the like?

Or rather, as per usual. you trying to put words onto my keyboard makes you look like a fool.
Because I did not say "I judge someone on whether they happen to have scored runs in their most recent innings in stereotypical-spin-friendly conditions".

yes i forget....you judge your players on how well they do in domestic cricket when they play appalling bowlers in non spinner friendly conditions.

 

[Richard]

and the only occasions you can bring up come from county cricket over 4 years ago, which doesnt prove anything about how good a player katich is against spin at the international level atm. if he hasnt failed against spin in his short career to dat, he cant be classified as a failure its as simple as that.

And I've never actually classified him as such - that's just you trying to put words onto my keyboard to suit you - again.
I have, however, said that he had clear weaknesses against spin last I saw. Which was against Brown and Swann on a Wantage Road turner last year. And in 2000, too.

yes i would, and when was the last time you saw him struggling against spin bowling...back in county cricket against robert croft,peter such and the like?

No, he didn't face either in 2000, Essex and Glamorgan were both second-division sides in 2000, while Durham were somehow in the first-division.
It was Saqlain and Salisbury in the respective match.

yes i forget....you judge your players on how well they do in domestic cricket when they play appalling bowlers in non spinner friendly conditions.

No, you didn't forget at all, you just had to resort to your normal sarcastic rubbish.

 

[tooextracool]

And I've never actually classified him as such - that's just you trying to put words onto my keyboard to suit you - again.
I have, however, said that he had clear weaknesses against spin last I saw. Which was against Brown and Swann on a Wantage Road turner last year. And in 2000, too.

oh yes im sure katich, the same player who played murali and kumble with absolute ease on total turners had problems playing swann and brown
so you missed both the series against india and the series against SL and yet you say that he isnt a good enough player of spin? no you cannot score prolifically against 2 of the top 3 spinners in the world in spinner friendly conditions unless you happen to be at least a 'good' player of spin.

No, he didn't face either in 2000, Essex and Glamorgan were both second-division sides in 2000, while Durham were somehow in the first-division.
It was Saqlain and Salisbury in the respective match.

No, you didn't forget at all, you just had to resort to your normal sarcastic rubbish.

so why look at domestic performances then, when any fool can see that he has been successful at the international level against spinners? the rubbish is what is the words that you type out using your keyboard because as far as im concerned one-off failures in domestic matches dont matter at all, its quite possible that they actually bowled well enough to trouble him or that he wasnt in the best of form. but only a fool would suggest that someone who played kumble and murali with absolute ease is susceptible to spin because of the fact that he struggled in 1 inning some 4 years ago against brown and swann.

 

[Richard]

oh yes im sure katich, the same player who played murali and kumble with absolute ease on total turners had problems playing swann and brown
so you missed both the series against india and the series against SL and yet you say that he isnt a good enough player of spin? no you cannot score prolifically against 2 of the top 3 spinners in the world in spinner friendly conditions unless you happen to be at least a 'good' player of spin.

so why look at domestic performances then, when any fool can see that he has been successful at the international level against spinners? the rubbish is what is the words that you type out using your keyboard because as far as im concerned one-off failures in domestic matches dont matter at all, its quite possible that they actually bowled well enough to trouble him or that he wasnt in the best of form. but only a fool would suggest that someone who played kumble and murali with absolute ease is susceptible to spin because of the fact that he struggled in 1 inning some 4 years ago against brown and swann.

For one thing I did see the SCG match, while not the SSC one.
And if you could in fact read any better than you seemingly watch cricket, you'd notice that the Brown-Swann match was last year, not 4 years ago.
And personally I'd not say, either, that 2 good matches prove conclusively that someone has conquered their problems with spin.
Which, whether you'd like to think so or not, existed.
And to say he played Kumble "with ease" at The SCG would be exaggerating it. He played him competantly, but he certainly didn't play him with ease.

 

[tooextracool]

For one thing I did see the SCG match, while not the SSC one.
And if you could in fact read any better than you seemingly watch cricket, you'd notice that the Brown-Swann match was last year, not 4 years ago.
And personally I'd not say, either, that 2 good matches prove conclusively that someone has conquered their problems with spin.

indeed you would rather look at 2 games against brown and swann to come to a conclusion that someone isnt good against spin bowling. 2 games against

Which, whether you'd like to think so or not, existed.
And to say he played Kumble "with ease" at The SCG would be exaggerating it. He played him competantly, but he certainly didn't play him with ease.

oh what rubbish.....obviously you didnt watch that game either. the man was dismissed only once in that test match with scores of 125 and 77*, both chanceless innings as far as i can remember, he played him with total assurance. of course there were the odd occasions when he played and missed which would happen whenever any quality bowler bowls to any batsman on a turner, but he played kumble better than any other batsmen in the aussie side did. in fact he went about playing kumble aggresively.

 

[Richard]

indeed you would rather look at 2 games against brown and swann to come to a conclusion that someone isnt good against spin bowling. 2 games against

Seem to have an unfinished post here...

oh what rubbish.....obviously you didnt watch that game either. the man was dismissed only once in that test match with scores of 125 and 77*, both chanceless innings as far as i can remember, he played him with total assurance. of course there were the odd occasions when he played and missed which would happen whenever any quality bowler bowls to any batsman on a turner, but he played kumble better than any other batsmen in the aussie side did. in fact he went about playing kumble aggresively.

He looked all at sea against not just Kumble but Kartik at the start of his first-innings, clearly once again you didn't watch properly if at all.
Of course he grew in confidence as the match progressed, but he most certianly didn't play him with "total assurance".

 

[tooextracool]

Seem to have an unfinished post here...

nope thats all i have to say, except the 2 games against part.

He looked all at sea against not just Kumble but Kartik at the start of his first-innings, clearly once again you didn't watch properly if at all.
Of course he grew in confidence as the match progressed, but he most certianly didn't play him with "total assurance".

what rubbish, katich played both kumble and karthik with absolute ease, any dim witted person could see that he played both of them with far more assurance than every other batsman in the side.
and if you look carefully you'll see that he was so comfortable that his strike rate in those innings was 75 and 80 respectively. any more b/s you got?

 

[Richard]

what rubbish, katich played both kumble and karthik with absolute ease, any dim witted person could see that he played both of them with far more assurance than every other batsman in the side.
and if you look carefully you'll see that he was so comfortable that his strike rate in those innings was 75 and 80 respectively. any more b/s you got?

And of course that had nothing to do with the rubbish served-up by Agarkar, Pathan and the part-timers, no.

 

[tooextracool]

And of course that had nothing to do with the rubbish served-up by Agarkar, Pathan and the part-timers, no.

why does it not surprise me that someone like you who didnt watch the match would come up with something as stupid as that?
analysing katich's first innings,he scored 57 off 81 balls against kumble at a SR of 4.2 in the first innings, while all the other batsmen scored at an SR of 2.08. in the 2nd innings he in fact got even more aggressive against kumble, scoring 39 runs from 42 balls faced at 5.6 runs an over. gee i wonder why he played kumble better than everyone else in the side?

 

[marc71178]

Isn't that obvious?

Kumble bowled poorly against Katich, but brilliantly against the rest!

 

[Richard]

why does it not surprise me that someone like you who didnt watch the match would come up with something as stupid as that?
analysing katich's first innings,he scored 57 off 81 balls against kumble at a SR of 4.2 in the first innings, while all the other batsmen scored at an SR of 2.08. in the 2nd innings he in fact got even more aggressive against kumble, scoring 39 runs from 42 balls faced at 5.6 runs an over. gee i wonder why he played kumble better than everyone else in the side?

So in fact what is needed is not watching the game but looking at statistics.
Which could (though I'm not saying does) mean lots of edges and lucky strokes.
Equally, it could disguise that Kumble bowled poorly against Katich and well against the rest, though that strikes me as rather unlikely (though not impossible as many would dismiss it as).

 

[tooextracool]

So in fact what is needed is not watching the game but looking at statistics.

oh no, watching the game is vital to being any argument, unfortunately if i said that katich played well because i watched him do so, it wouldnt prove half as much as if i brought stats to back it up....which is precisely what ive done.

Which could (though I'm not saying does) mean lots of edges and lucky strokes.

and any fool who watched this game would know that it was not....

Equally, it could disguise that Kumble bowled poorly against Katich and well against the rest, though that strikes me as rather unlikely (though not impossible as many would dismiss it as).

you really do get into the habit of making yourself look more like a fool(which would seem extremely hard given your previous claim) as the argument progresses. first you said that katich struggled against kumble, now you say that kumble bowled poorly against him. the fact is that if katich went on to score over 500 runs in the series in india you would still come up with stupid claims like he was lucky, or that the bowlers bowled poorly against him.
i watched all of the sydney game, and kumble bowled consistently well against every batsman, however katich used his feet to him better than every other batsman, and hence got more runs. and the figures that ive shown prove that.

 

[tooextracool]

Isn't that obvious?

Kumble bowled poorly against Katich, but brilliantly against the rest!

as did murali....apparently katich happens to be just as lucky as mcgrath and pollock, who knows he might go on to score 8000 runs, 4000 of which will come on flat tracks and the rest against poor spin bowling......