tooextracool said:
how can you come up with 'amazing evidence' when you cant show it to me? rubbish.....
Oh, there's nothing "amazing" about it, it's just a basic scorecard, which has been taken-down by scorers recording the exact outcome of every delivery (including who bowled it, and what over it was in).
And I could show it to you if I wanted - but I don't.
and how often has he done so in england or SA?
Never - but he's only had one chance to do so in each country, because on neither of his most recent tours has a seaming pitch been present.
no there was seam movement particularly in that brief period for which there was plenty of cloud cover.
Wrong, yet again you haven't watched proplerly. And here, you seem to be suggesting that cloud-cover can cause a pitch to seam, which everyone knows is not the case, and there is no basis for thinking so.
oh no kumble wasnt really threating in that first innings either, if he was it wouldnt have taken him 51 overs to get those wickets. as ive said several times in the past, a wicket with slow turn makes it difficult for batsman to score runs of spinners but it does not make it easy for spinners to get wickets, however if wickets do fall, they are far more likely to fall to spinners. 7/115 in 51 overs does not suggest to me that too many batsmen had problems against him, what it suggests is that they survived long periods of time against him and eventually made a mistake to get themselves out..
Not neccessarily made a mistake - Hussain and Vaughan were simply given out incorrectly.
But if it suggests these sorts of things to you it suggests you don't actually remember what happened - including several wicket-taking deliveries.
oh yes it got slower, but it was slow to begin with in the first place, and since the amount of turn that the pitch offered remained the same then by your counts quality spinners should still be getting wickets easily and it shouldnt get any easier to bat on.
No, not at all - spinners can still get wickets on it, but they have to bowl better still. Instead, Giles bowled worse.
nope he bowled just as well as he did before. first you say that the pitch got easier to bat on, then you say that giles bowled worse,make up your mind.
In fact, as you notice above, I say both. In fact, you'd have noticed I've said both several times (in several threads
) if you had an especially good memory.
interesting you say match reports when you dont agree with any of them.....
No, I agree with most things in most match-reports - but because there are a hell of a lot of things reported, that means there are still quite a few mistakes made.
oh it is when you can use drift and flight to your advantage, believe me the distance from the middle of the bat and the edge is not very far at all....
No, but the distance between the middle and the edge which will be taken thin enough that the batsman can't control it and get it down is far enough that no fingerspinner can turn it sufficiently except on a normal wicket.
or rather you probably didnt watch the match and are only generalising how the pitch played based on vettori figures, just like you always do. the pitch didnt offer significant turn, any fool who watched it could deduce that.
Yes, any fool like you.
And you can "probably" all you want - like it or not, I watched the match.
oh marc has argued with you on nearly every thread that the 2 of us have argued about, swervy has frequently argued with you instead of me too. add SOC in one of the threads and you certainly cant make such a stupid statement as "you are wrong and its obvious to anyone thats even bothering to follow". of course they are all anomalies i presume?
No, they're all very much in the majority. Just because you and marc happen to have the same mentality with regards arguing to death about the deserving or not of balls with wickets against their names, though, that's about all you've got in common. SOC seems to have a slightly similar mentality.
