*Congratulations* Brian Lara 10,000 Test Runs!

[Richard]

So it's just coincidence that his improvement in figures actually started before this supposed influence had it's say?

 

[marc71178]

Depends whether you look at the slight improvement last summer, or the massive improvement since he sorted himself out with Cooley.

 

[Richard]

There's been no improvement either last winter, last summer or the summer before that, the only improvement came in the autumn of 2001 where he went from very fast in occasional spells to being able to bowl long spells of at high pace.
There's been no further improvement, he's become no more penetrative at any point after that, he's just had more poor strokes played against him and less catches dropped. Something people were saying had to happen since the summer of 2002.
I can't help feeling it's likely to stop when Graeme and co. get hold of the attack this winter.

 

[marc71178]

Right, so Flintoff himself saying his bowlings improved is all rubbish, because how would he know?

There has been considerable improvement since his chat with Cooley - he now sees himself as a strike rather than stock, and is getting the wickets to back that up.

 

[Richard]

So what is actually different about his bowling? What has he added to make himself more penetrative?
Given that your own mindset can't change how the batsmen play, I don't see how it's relevant. And also that his average has started to come down since before his supposed change in mentality.

 

[superkingdave]

So what is actually different about his bowling? What has he added to make himself more penetrative?
Given that your own mindset can't change how the batsmen play, I don't see how it's relevant. And also that his average has started to come down since before his supposed change in mentality.

Well his four series before West Indies he averaged
52 against Sri Lanka in 2002
71.4 against India in 2002
59.20 against South Africa in 2003
24.55 against Sri Lanka in 03/04

So, with the Sri Lanka series clearly an Anomoly how was his average starting to come down?

In fact at the Start of Sri Lanka 2002 his average was 40.31 and at the start of Sri Lanka 2003/04 it was 49.95 so tell me how it was coming down?

The only improvement in average started in Sri Lanka this year.

 

[marc71178]

So what is actually different about his bowling? What has he added to make himself more penetrative?

He's started to see himself as a strike bowler, reather than stock, so is aiming for more wicket taking balls.

Now lets see:
Pre-chat with Cooley: 29 games - 52 wickets @ 45.55 - S/R 94.71
Post-chat with Cooley: 10 games - 33 wickets @ 23.91 - S/R 49.21

Now please explain how the chat hasn't effected him.

Or is it all luck and coincicence?

 

[Swervy]

well he has either improved as a bowler, or he has stayed the same as a bowler and is more luckly (as opposed to the pretty poor luck he had previously)...it doesnt really matter doesnt it...he is bowling bloody well at the moment

 

[Deja moo]

Congratulations to Lara on reaching 10,000 runs !!

I switched on the telly and saw the replay of him getting out , and thought to myself that he'd blown it one more time . But he hadnt .

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Yes congragulations on lara for finally getting 10,000 runs.. and getting out the next ball..

Whoop whoop

 

[steds]

Congratulations Mr. Lara.

I was there! Oh yes.

 

[steds]

Up until the last day, Laras two innings were the highlights of the game

 

[Richard]

Well his four series before West Indies he averaged
52 against Sri Lanka in 2002
71.4 against India in 2002
59.20 against South Africa in 2003
24.55 against Sri Lanka in 03/04

So, with the Sri Lanka series clearly an Anomoly how was his average starting to come down?

In fact at the Start of Sri Lanka 2002 his average was 40.31 and at the start of Sri Lanka 2003/04 it was 49.95 so tell me how it was coming down?

The only improvement in average started in Sri Lanka this year.

Err... and that's what I said.
What gave you the idea I was talking about Sri Lanka 2002?

 

[Richard]

He's started to see himself as a strike bowler, reather than stock, so is aiming for more wicket taking balls.

And the fact that he's not bowling them rather negates that.

Now lets see:
Pre-chat with Cooley: 29 games - 52 wickets @ 45.55 - S/R 94.71
Post-chat with Cooley: 10 games - 33 wickets @ 23.91 - S/R 49.21

Now please explain how the chat hasn't effected him.

Pre-Sri Lanka tour: 43 wickets at 49.95
Sri Lanka tour onwards: 42 wickets at 24.04
That explain it enough for you? There is an improvement of 26 in the period I mention, an improvement of 22-and-a-half in yours.

Or is it all luck and coincicence?

No, it's just people can see something they'd like to think made a difference if you start from the Bridgetown Test; there's nothing so apparent when you look at the place where the change actually started. So instead the only conclusion would be that the regular poor strokes actually started before the chat with Troy Cooley, a conclusion no-one wants to come to because it wouldn't give either bowler or coach as much credit as otherwise.

 

[marc71178]

And the fact that he's not bowling them rather negates that.

And there was me thinking he hadn't just got one of the best batsmen of all time out 3 times in a row with cracking deliveries. How stupid am I?

Pre-Sri Lanka tour: 43 wickets at 49.95
Sri Lanka tour onwards: 42 wickets at 24.04
That explain it enough for you? There is an improvement of 26 in the period I mention, an improvement of 22-and-a-half in yours.

Oh great, and if he'd followed the SL series with 2 series of the old Flintoff you'd remove the SL series as an anomaly and criticise him. Now it suits you to include it.

No, it's just people can see something they'd like to think made a difference if you start from the Bridgetown Test; there's nothing so apparent when you look at the place where the change actually started. So instead the only conclusion would be that the regular poor strokes actually started before the chat with Troy Cooley, a conclusion no-one wants to come to because it wouldn't give either bowler or coach as much credit as otherwise.

So, yet again, you know more about the man than the man does himself. If you really do know so much more, please tell me the result of the next 50 Tests to be played, as I'd like to put a big accumulator on them and be able to retire in luxury at an early age to be able to travel the world and watch the wonderful unpredictable game that is Cricket.

 

[Richard]

And there was me thinking he hadn't just got one of the best batsmen of all time out 3 times in a row with cracking deliveries. How stupid am I?

Very, if you think any of them were cracking deliveries. The Yorker was a goodish ball, but one was a short-ball which he lost sight of, the other a wide, threatless ball which, for some reason, had a poor stroke played to it.
And just because Lara happens to be one of the best batsmen of all-time, it doesn't actually stop him getting the odd cheap dismissal.

Oh great, and if he'd followed the SL series with 2 series of the old Flintoff you'd remove the SL series as an anomaly and criticise him. Now it suits you to include it.

Err, it doesn't suit anyone, the fact is, if it was followed by two more poor series it would be an anomaly, but because it isn't it's instead the start of a new trend. How long that trend will last is anyone's guess.

So, yet again, you know more about the man than the man does himself. If you really do know so much more, please tell me the result of the next 50 Tests to be played, as I'd like to put a big accumulator on them and be able to retire in luxury at an early age to be able to travel the world and watch the wonderful unpredictable game that is Cricket.

And despite the fact that I have demonstrated why Flintoff and anyone else who claims his good figures started with that discussion are wrong, I can't be right, because I can't actually be right, as this defies belief.
If your last resort is "Flintoff has to know more than you, because it concerns him, even though the figures suggest otherwise", then you really are clutching at straws, and anyone who's actually reading with an open mind will see that.

 

[marc71178]

The ball to remove Lara at OT was a real ripper of a ball.

 

[Richard]

It was a good Yorker, but it wasn't one that Lara would have had much difficulty with at his best. It didn't deviate at all.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

doesnt he mean the bouncer?

 

[Swervy]

It was a good Yorker, but it wasn't one that Lara would have had much difficulty with at his best. It didn't deviate at all.

erm...a lot of successful yorkers dont deviate, they just go straight in for the kill