bring back alex tudor!!!

[Richard]

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.

Yes, and Katich played Kumble well - once he got himself established at the crease. Something I did, believe it or not, notice, I don't need those stats, though they do confirm what I suspected.
But nonetheless he didn't look great when he first came to the crease.

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

Yes, they would. So would I, who also watched the game.

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.

You really are losing it here, are you really trying to twist this to make it look like I'm actually being serious?
No, I'm not trying to claim Kumble bowled poorly against Katich - just saying it's not impossible. And I've never said Katich struggled against Kumble once he got in either. Sorry, nothing for you to work with there.
If Katich scores 500 runs in the Tests in India I'll say "right, he's quite clearly a better player against spin than he was 18 months ago and he's even nearer to being the complete player". Well, provided the wickets turn of course, and if The BCCI have got any sense they will.
Contrary to your idolistic ideas, I don't believe players are incapable of improving - I just don't think 3 innings show conclusively that he has improved.
Like it or not, you can't prove me wrong on this issue - I've never denied Katich played well in all three of the innings in question. I've never said I don't think he's improved against spin.
And you don't, either, know as much as I do about the fact that Katich did used to be weak against good spin. You clearly think you do, though.

 

[Richard]

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......

Somehow I doubt Katich will play on enough spinning tracks to score that amount of runs for the fact that spinners are poor to matter.
Why you're so determined to make it look like I have such a low rating of a player who I actually rate extremely highly I'm not entirely sure.

 

[tooextracool]

Somehow I doubt Katich will play on enough spinning tracks to score that amount of runs for the fact that spinners are poor to matter..

well if he did i wouldnt be surprised if you demeaned his efforts by saying something like he cant play spin bowling and had all the spin bowlers he had scored against all somehow managed to bowl poorly to him....

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, and Katich played Kumble well - once he got himself established at the crease.Something I did, believe it or not, notice, I don't need those stats, though they do confirm what I suspected.
But nonetheless he didn't look great when he first came to the crease.

just like almost every other batsman in the history of the game you mean? obviously you need to get set before you can settle down against someone like kumble on a turning pitch,face it how many batsmen can come in on a turner and play with absolute assurance at the start of their innings? the fact that he didnt get out early suggests that he wasnt in too much trouble eand that he got set extremely quickly. he had no problems at any point of the 2nd innings of the sydney test.

You really are losing it here, are you really trying to twist this to make it look like I'm actually being serious?

then why bring up such garbage in the first place?

No, I'm not trying to claim Kumble bowled poorly against Katich - just saying it's not impossible. And I've never said Katich struggled against Kumble once he got in either. Sorry, nothing for you to work with there.
If Katich scores 500 runs in the Tests in India I'll say "right, he's quite clearly a better player against spin than he was 18 months ago and he's even nearer to being the complete player". Well, provided the wickets turn of course, and if The BCCI have got any sense they will.
Contrary to your idolistic ideas, I don't believe players are incapable of improving - I just don't think 3 innings show conclusively that he has improved.
Like it or not, you can't prove me wrong on this issue - I've never denied Katich played well in all three of the innings in question. I've never said I don't think he's improved against spin.
And you don't, either, know as much as I do about the fact that Katich did used to be weak against good spin. You clearly think you do, though.

and the fact that he has succeeded against spin in those 2 tests suggests to me that hes already improved(if he was ever poor in the first place), in fact so much so that hes one of the best players of spin in the side.
and 3 quality innings against a leg spinner and off spinner in turning conditions proves more than enough if you ask me, he hasnt failed against spin yet, therefore he cant be classified as anything but a good player of spin.

 

[Richard]

well if he did i wouldnt be surprised if you demeaned his efforts by saying something like he cant play spin bowling and had all the spin bowlers he had scored against all somehow managed to bowl poorly to him....

Really? Just shows how keen you are to simply pick an argument, and read something I've said into something you can argue with.
And how rather desperate you are for me to say stupid things that I don't.

 

[Richard]

just like almost every other batsman in the history of the game you mean? obviously you need to get set before you can settle down against someone like kumble on a turning pitch,face it how many batsmen can come in on a turner and play with absolute assurance at the start of their innings? the fact that he didnt get out early suggests that he wasnt in too much trouble eand that he got set extremely quickly. he had no problems at any point of the 2nd innings of the sydney test.

Not many, no.
Believe me, I've seen people come in and look far more assured than Katich did at the start of his first-innings - he occasionally looked all-at-sea.
Credit to him that it didn't last long.

then why bring up such garbage in the first place?

I didn't - marc did.

and the fact that he has succeeded against spin in those 2 tests suggests to me that hes already improved(if he was ever poor in the first place), in fact so much so that hes one of the best players of spin in the side.

If he has improved, it would be logical to think that that improvement would have come having joined NSW, so yes, if it proves to be the case that he has improved then of course the improvement will have happened before that SCG Test.
Funnily enough, I've never said otherwise.

and 3 quality innings against a leg spinner and off spinner in turning conditions proves more than enough if you ask me, he hasnt failed against spin yet, therefore he cant be classified as anything but a good player of spin.

Fine - you jump into it and risk being wrong, I'll wait until I'm more sure of myself.

 

[tooextracool]

Not many, no.
Believe me, I've seen people come in and look far more assured than Katich did at the start of his first-innings - he occasionally looked all-at-sea.
Credit to him that it didn't last long.

err no, katich was never 'all at sea' against the spinners....perhaps he wasnt extremely comfortable, which not many batsmen are on turners against kumble but the fact is that even that didnt last long and he ended up scoring big. even someone like steve waugh looked far less assured than katich against kumble early on in his innings and at any other point in his innings for that matter.

I didn't - marc did.

which bares relevance to my post how?

If he has improved, it would be logical to think that that improvement would have come having joined NSW, so yes, if it proves to be the case that he has improved then of course the improvement will have happened before that SCG Test.
Funnily enough, I've never said otherwise.

no but you've said that he isnt much of a player against spin.....

Fine - you jump into it and risk being wrong, I'll wait until I'm more sure of myself.

no my point is that someone who has played spin as well as he has so far in his career must be said to be a good player of spin.

 

[tooextracool]

Really? Just shows how keen you are to simply pick an argument, and read something I've said into something you can argue with.
And how rather desperate you are for me to say stupid things that I don't.

oh you dont say stupid things now do you? like the mcgrath and pollock have taken lucky wickets crap? or that harmison doesnt take wickets from good bowling?

 

[Richard]

err no, katich was never 'all at sea' against the spinners....perhaps he wasnt extremely comfortable, which not many batsmen are on turners against kumble but the fact is that even that didnt last long and he ended up scoring big. even someone like steve waugh looked far less assured than katich against kumble early on in his innings and at any other point in his innings for that matter.

Yep, he did - which changes the fact that Katich looked very vulnerable too how?
Can't you just accept that I am right that Katich wasn't great at the start of his innings - whatever the reasons - and stop trying to create something I can be proved wrong about?

which bares relevance to my post how?

Err, the bit about "why (did you) bring-up such... blah, blah" maybe?

no but you've said that he isnt much of a player against spin.....

No, I haven't, I've said he wasn't in 2003. That might have changed in 2003\04, and we'll probably see soon whether it really has or not.

no my point is that someone who has played spin as well as he has so far in his career must be said to be a good player of spin.

No, he must be said to have played spin well so far in his Test-career.
But 3 innings don't make it valid to say someone is a good player of spin for absolute certain when there has been a time not so long ago when he wasn't.

 

[Richard]

oh you dont say stupid things now do you? like the mcgrath and pollock have taken lucky wickets crap? or that harmison doesnt take wickets from good bowling?

And of course that is proven to be stupid, by the fact that most of the good figures of all three (McGrath and Pollock in the last 3 years, Harmison in the last 7 months) have been caused by wickets taken through poor strokes.

 

[marc71178]

Conveniently ignoring the good deliveries all 3 bowl that don't get rewarded.

 

[Richard]

Not ignoring them - just taking into account they don't take wickets.

 

[Waughney]

And of course that is proven to be stupid, by the fact that most of the good figures of all three (McGrath and Pollock in the last 3 years, Harmison in the last 7 months) have been caused by wickets taken through poor strokes.

Did you stop to think that these strokes were brought about by good bowling? Especially in McGrath's case, the pressure that he builds up causes batsmen to crack and play a poor stroke.

 

[tooextracool]

Yep, he did - which changes the fact that Katich looked very vulnerable too how?

if someone as good against spin bowling as steve waugh had in fact more problems against kumble than katich then surely katich's problems were only minor.

Can't you just accept that I am right that Katich wasn't great at the start of his innings - whatever the reasons - and stop trying to create something I can be proved wrong about?

do you not understand that katich was only in about as much trouble as any other quality batsman of spin would have been on that wicket against kumble? he was never 'all at sea' against kumble at any point of the match....so stop with the b/s

Err, the bit about "why (did you) bring-up such... blah, blah" maybe?

and if i remember correctly that had to do with you responding to one of my posts with comments that i never stated in the first place.....

No, I haven't, I've said he wasn't in 2003. That might have changed in 2003\04, and we'll probably see soon whether it really has or not.

and where is the proof that he wasnt in 2003? you seem to be bringing up series from over 4 years ago against useless bowlers to try and prove your point...

No, he must be said to have played spin well so far in his Test-career.
But 3 innings don't make it valid to say someone is a good player of spin for absolute certain when there has been a time not so long ago when he wasn't.

and if 3 innings dont prove that he is a good player of spin then neither do 4 innings in which he failed that you refer to from his performances in county cricket.....you said that all the australian batsman bar hayden have 'trouble' with the turning ball, i ask you where is the evidence at the international level to suggest that katich has trouble against the turning ball?

 

[tooextracool]

Did you stop to think that these strokes were brought about by good bowling? Especially in McGrath's case, the pressure that he builds up causes batsmen to crack and play a poor stroke.

been there done that.......richard doesnt believe in pressure, he believes that all good players are robots, they dont feel any pressure and just focus on the next ball. they can also never be out-thought because apparently they arent stupid.....

 

[tooextracool]

And of course that is proven to be stupid, by the fact that most of the good figures of all three (McGrath and Pollock in the last 3 years, Harmison in the last 7 months) have been caused by wickets taken through poor strokes.

and you have proven this how i might ask?

 

[Son Of Coco]

And of course that is proven to be stupid, by the fact that most of the good figures of all three (McGrath and Pollock in the last 3 years, Harmison in the last 7 months) have been caused by wickets taken through poor strokes.

you are indeed a pioneer Richard..........possibly in endless stupidity.........but a pioneer none-the-less.

Sitting there watching your TV, no doubt a lot of strokes seem poor to you..i.e pretty much every shot a batsman gets out on. You have no understanding of the effect the build-up prior to the dismissal has on the batsman (you've said good batsmen aren't affected by a variety of things that could possibly contribute to their downfall), and your understanding of what a good bowler does seems very minimal (i.e a lot of their effort and wickets are put down to 'luck').

I know you think you understand pretty much everything there is to understand about the game by parking yourself on your butt in-front of the TV, but do you understand that these guys put in enormous amounts of practice everyday so that they can land the ball with a degree of control that you or I can only imagine? Do you understand exactly how good a ball you have to bowl to beat a batsman all ends up? DO you understand that no matter how good the batsman is, if a bowler starts doing both of these things on a regular basis it has an effect on their mindset and approach?

 

[Richard]

Did you stop to think that these strokes were brought about by good bowling? Especially in McGrath's case, the pressure that he builds up causes batsmen to crack and play a poor stroke.

Did you stop to read all the stuff instead of taking an isolated comment and not looking at why I've been attempting to explain away all this stuff?

 

[Richard]

if someone as good against spin bowling as steve waugh had in fact more problems against kumble than katich then surely katich's problems were only minor.

do you not understand that katich was only in about as much trouble as any other quality batsman of spin would have been on that wicket against kumble? he was never 'all at sea' against kumble at any point of the match....so stop with the b/s

Well, fine - have it your way.
You aren't going to convince me that Katich wasn't very edgy at the start of that innings, whatever the reasons.

and if i remember correctly that had to do with you responding to one of my posts with comments that i never stated in the first place.....

No, it didn't.

and where is the proof that he wasnt in 2003? you seem to be bringing up series from over 4 years ago against useless bowlers to try and prove your point...

If the bowlers were so useless (which, BTW, you'd realise Saqlain and Salisbury aren't) surely that makes it even worse that he strugged against them?
The proof that he wasn't in 2003 was that he strugged against Brown and Swann. It's all the proof I need - whether you accept that he used to be poor against spin is irrelevant, because you think he is not now - and the now is what matters.

and if 3 innings dont prove that he is a good player of spin then neither do 4 innings in which he failed that you refer to from his performances in county cricket.....you said that all the australian batsman bar hayden have 'trouble' with the turning ball, i ask you where is the evidence at the international level to suggest that katich has trouble against the turning ball?

We'll see if Katich plays the turning ball as well as Hayden in the upcoming 2 months.
If he does, I will quite happily add him to my list of Australian batsmen who don't have trouble with the turning ball. I'd be delighted to, in fact. Just like I am that Lehmann is on it.

 

[Richard]

been there done that.......richard doesnt believe in pressure, he believes that all good players are robots, they dont feel any pressure and just focus on the next ball.

Wrong, never said anything of the sort.

they can also never be out-thought because apparently they arent stupid.....

Correct.
They can, however, be out-bowled.