bring back alex tudor!!!

[tooextracool]

No, I say he had problems with spin not so long ago and I'm not willing to judge that he's solved them because of 2 matches.

you said that all the australian players bar hayden have problems with the turning ball and i believe that katich has shown no signs of that at the intl level just yet.

Neither of which I referred to..

and you said that he was bowling well in except for the last 4 years, yet at the intl level he didnt even pick up a wicket.

Yes, it was - anyone can play any fingerspinner without too much difficulty if it's not a spin-friendly wicket.
One game proves a lot more than it would isolated if it evokes another game 3 years ago...

if one game proves alot then so do the 2 games against the quality spinners in spinner friendly conditions!!

Shame.
But then again, form is temporary.
And he didn't look too bad in his sabbatical at Hants - while not his commanding best.

if he plays anywhere near as good as he did in sydney i doubt hes going to have any problems in india.

 

[Richard]

Of course, the whole rest of the world is wrong, and you're right

Yep - that's nowhere near as inconceivable as it sounds.

 

[Richard]

you said that all the australian players bar hayden have problems with the turning ball and i believe that katich has shown no signs of that at the intl level just yet.

If you want to get technical and deep he didn't look great agaisnt Raymond Price at The SCG either.
Yes, I know - another turning wicket, another good spinner - so he was nothing out of the ordinary.
And whether you've seen it or not, I have - so I was justified in that comment.

and you said that he was bowling well in except for the last 4 years, yet at the intl level he didnt even pick up a wicket.

Well, he did - in both cases the last wicket of the innings, though, so it can be discounted.
But he did bowl well in the domestic seasons 1999 and 2000 - 2000 which was one of the referance periods.

if one game proves alot then so do the 2 games against the quality spinners in spinner friendly conditions!!

Yes, hopefully so.
The reason the two games I refer to prove more is because there's far more time between them - 3 years, and, what, 3 months?

if he plays anywhere near as good as he did in sydney i doubt hes going to have any problems in india.

I hope so too.

 

[marc71178]

Yep - that's nowhere near as inconceivable as it sounds.

Oh it is.

It is entirely inconceivable.

 

[Richard]

Rubbish.

 

[marc71178]

I know it is, so why do you insist on continually saying it?

There is no way on this Earth that you with your limited Cricket viewing can know more than the rest of the World does.

 

[Richard]

Why not?
Why can one central set of beliefs ("pressure is caused by accurate bowling or whatever, the Test-scorebook is the be-all-and-end-all, etc.) that is assumed without ever being realistically questioned, not be incorrect?

 

[Neil Pickup]

I believe the earth was created by a nineteen million metre wide man named Zaminayah, who accidentally missed the interstellar toilet when doing his business.

 

[Richard]

Err... yes, OK.
I suppose we're all entitled to our views, aren't we?
In all fairness, that's a "view on" the subject that we can be least certain of of all, though.

 

[marc71178]

Whereas the pressure we can be more certain of, because it happens.

 

[Richard]

That's just the thing - pressure isn't something that just "happens", it is a feeling, a feeling in the mind.
We can never be certain of when someone else is feeling under pressure - we can guess, based on our own feelings, but we cannot be certain.
And my guess, judging by how batsmen tend to play when they're under pressure, is that it's not often that they feel pressurised by something that's just happened (eg playing-and-missing at the last 2 balls, scoring slowly for the last 7 or 8 overs, which have been suggested by tooextracool and SOC as reasons why batsman always feel under pressure), more that they use the great theory "forget what's happened previously in your innings, it's gone - concentrate on the next ball".

 

[tooextracool]

If you want to get technical and deep he didn't look great agaisnt Raymond Price at The SCG either.

do you even know the meaning of the word 'technical'?

Yes, I know - another turning wicket, another good spinner - so he was nothing out of the ordinary.
And whether you've seen it or not, I have - so I was justified in that comment..

you mean when he scored 52 ? its amazing how katich looks so completely useless against spin(or so you say he does) and still ends up scoring against them isnt it?

Well, he did - in both cases the last wicket of the innings, though, so it can be discounted.
But he did bowl well in the domestic seasons 1999 and 2000 - 2000 which was one of the referance periods.

yet he failed miserably at the international level, which suggests that he obviously wasnt that good ITFP

Yes, hopefully so.
The reason the two games I refer to prove more is because there's far more time between them - 3 years, and, what, 3 months?.

yes which makes it all the more random.....i could bring up several occasions where steve waugh struggled against the short ball, would you say he was useless against pace then?

 

[tooextracool]

"forget what's happened previously in your innings, it's gone - concentrate on the next ball".

if they could do that then players like rudolph wouldnt have too many problems with the bicknell outswinger.

 

[Richard]

do you even know the meaning of the word 'technical'?

Yep

you mean when he scored 52 ? its amazing how katich looks so completely useless against spin(or so you say he does) and still ends up scoring against them isnt it?

Not too amazing, given the two dropped catches.
And the fact that he spent time at the crease gave me the opportunity to analyse his problems with spin, which I would not have got the chance to had had been out on 7 like he should have been.

yet he failed miserably at the international level, which suggests that he obviously wasnt that good ITFP

No, it suggests that he went to pieces on the bigger stage - something that happened to Ramprakash almost every single time in the first 6 years of his Test-career.

yes which makes it all the more random.....i could bring up several occasions where steve waugh struggled against the short ball, would you say he was useless against pace then?

Not unless he got out to them, and got out lots more in the in between.

 

[Richard]

if they could do that then players like rudolph wouldnt have too many problems with the bicknell outswinger.

No, but they would have trouble with the inswinger - because that's what actually got him out.

 

[tooextracool]

but going by your theories the one that got him out was the one that matters, and given that it was realtively easy to fend off it means that it was poor batting rather than good bowling

 

[tooextracool]

Yep.

then use it properly in a sentence the next time.....

Not too amazing, given the two dropped catches.
And the fact that he spent time at the crease gave me the opportunity to analyse his problems with spin, which I would not have got the chance to had had been out on 7 like he should have been..

and given that he didnt show any problems against price and your making things up again?

No, it suggests that he went to pieces on the bigger stage - something that happened to Ramprakash almost every single time in the first 6 years of his Test-career.

nope its a lot less likely for a bowler to bowl consistently badly unless he is useless at the international level than it is for a batsman, because as a batsman all it takes is one mistake.

Not unless he got out to them, and got out lots more in the in between.

and he got out to them often enough, suggesting that he kept making the same mistake, just like smith did.

 

[Richard]

but going by your theories the one that got him out was the one that matters, and given that it was realtively easy to fend off it means that it was poor batting rather than good bowling

It wasn't relatively easy to fend-off - there was absolutely no way he could have been expected to predict that the ball was going to end-up where it did.

 

[Richard]

then use it properly in a sentence the next time.....

I was using exaggeration - I didn't mean "technical" and you know it. A more accurate term would have been "far-reaching" or something.

and given that he didnt show any problems against price and your making things up again?

No, I'm not.
And if you really think any of the Australian batsmen who faced Price in that game didn't have trouble with him you're deluding yourself.

nope its a lot less likely for a bowler to bowl consistently badly unless he is useless at the international level than it is for a batsman, because as a batsman all it takes is one mistake.

So you really reckon bowlers can't suffer from poor temperament, then?

and he got out to them often enough, suggesting that he kept making the same mistake, just like smith did.

Except with Smith he very, very rarely makes the mistake of missing that type of ball.
Stephen Waugh, meanwhile, got out so irregularly that no one bowler could possibly be said to have troubled him with the short-ball.
So that's not a very good comparison.
And, I might add, let's try not to get the Smith thingy into this one, too.

 

[tooextracool]

It wasn't relatively easy to fend-off - there was absolutely no way he could have been expected to predict that the ball was going to end-up where it did.

how was it not easy to fend off?all he had to do was play at it!! and if someone cant predict when the outswinger is coming then someone cant precit when the yorker is coming either.