*Congratulations* Brian Lara 10,000 Test Runs!

[Richard]

How can you say you think different to what the person is saying they've experienced?

When did I say that?

How do you know this? You cannot even begin to understand the pressures of International sport, yet you think you know what they're feeling?

If this pressure was so incomprehensible no-one would ever manage to have the success so many do on the international stage.

 

[Richard]

Could that be because Bicknell has played most of his games on the bowling friendly English wickets and the fact that Pollock & McGrath would have bowled to better batsman?

No, I took seaming pitches out of the equation when I said "on flat pitches".
And I also took the quality of the batsmen out of the equation when I said "with good deliveries".

 

[Richard]

Figures, Ramprakash is one of those batsmen like Key and Vaughan who tend to get out in 'style'. Vaughan keeps getting out by aiming an off-drive inside the line to a bog-standard slightly wide length delivery and makes it look like a great delivery. Key plays across any delivery that moves half an inch away and hitting off-stump so it looks like he'd been bowled by a jaffa when any other batsmen would play straight and at worst get a thick edge to third man. It seems Richard likes all those that have done little or nothing for England, I wonder if Richard has is way whether any of the current Test players would get a game?

You seriously think anyone had a realistic chance of hitting that Collymore ball? That's ridiculous - did you actually notice how much it moved? It was about 2 bat-widths away from the edge - hence it would have been about 1 bat-width had the bad been die-straight.
Vaughan drives at deliveries he shouldn't, often, that's why he's not a very good Test-match opener, just like I always said he wasn't. At four, however, he's got heaps of potential.
Ramprakash, meanwhile, simply made a very large improvement, that saw his average rise from 16 pre-1998 to 37 from then on. An improvement that hardly anyone noticed.

 

[Mister Wright]

No, I took seaming pitches out of the equation when I said "on flat pitches".
And I also took the quality of the batsmen out of the equation when I said "with good deliveries".

Oh please!...Don't give me that tripe! You can't chage the situation to prove your argument. And someone who likes to tell everyone they posess such a great amount of cricket knowledge should know that the better batsman will not get out to as many good deliveries as the less classy batsman. Just because bowlers like McGrath & Pollock may not get as many wickets with these 'good deliveries' does not mean they are not bowling them.

 

[Scaly piscine]

If you stay here long enough you'll find-out.
And if you can find anything I've mentioned in all my time here (other than passing, four-or-five word comments) unrelated to the topic - cricket - then you'll have done well.

Richard displays his total inability to read again. This thread is called *Congratulations* Brian Lara 10,000 Test Runs! and as usual you're going on about something totally unrelated which is the same as stuff you keep rambling on about in other threads. If you're gonna endlessly post the same stuff all day that I'm sure most people don't care to read (mostly because you patently know less than you think about cricket - I can picture you there with a spare room full of lever arch files full of Pollock with a tally of RUDs, fluke wickets and 2nd chance runs even tho you claim averages and ratings are useless) you should create your own thread so everyone else is not forced to flick through your same comments, most threads I've seen generally end up with a succession of your posts totally unrelated to the thread name.

Re: Thread - I don't particularly like Lara as a person but he's obviously a great batsman but I do feel he gets a lot of runs from flogging huge scores in drawn games, granted he's got crucial 150 type scores to lead his team to victory against Australia a few times.

 

[Richard]

Oh please!...Don't give me that tripe! You can't chage the situation to prove your argument. And someone who likes to tell everyone they posess such a great amount of cricket knowledge should know that the better batsman will not get out to as many good deliveries as the less classy batsman. Just because bowlers like McGrath & Pollock may not get as many wickets with these 'good deliveries' does not mean they are not bowling them.

I didn't "change the situation" - I mentioned the context, you took it out of that context.
Of course the less good batsman will get out more often, but so? I still reckon Bicknell would be a better bowler on flat, grassless wickets if Pollock and McGrath didn't get so many poor strokes played to them.
Of course, both are better than Bicknell on a seamer, but Bicknell's still not bad.

 

[Richard]

Richard displays his total inability to read again. This thread is called *Congratulations* Brian Lara 10,000 Test Runs! and as usual you're going on about something totally unrelated which is the same as stuff you keep rambling on about in other threads. If you're gonna endlessly post the same stuff all day that I'm sure most people don't care to read (mostly because you patently know less than you think about cricket - I can picture you there with a spare room full of lever arch files full of Pollock with a tally of RUDs, fluke wickets and 2nd chance runs even tho you claim averages and ratings are useless) you should create your own thread so everyone else is not forced to flick through your same comments, most threads I've seen generally end up with a succession of your posts totally unrelated to the thread name.

Don't you get it?
Threads do not stay on their title-topic for that long if they go into multiple pages.
And if you're having to resort to meaningless garbage like "I can picture you... blah, blah, blah" that tends to suggest that you're getting rather desperate and aren't doing very well in your suggestion that "you patently know less than you think about cricket". Sorry, I know more about cricket than most people will have forgotten in their lifetime.
And no, I'm not saying I know far more than the best of these boards, because they can all match me easily.

 

[marc71178]

I've seen Bicknell take more wickets through good bowling on flat wickets than I've ever seen Pollock or McGrath take.

Yes, and I've just flown by Pig to get some Moon Cheese for my tea.

Completely ignore the fact that there are rarely flat wickets in County Cricket, and that he's rarely had quality players to play against.

 

[marc71178]

But in my experience anyone who thinks some other batsman is feeling under pressure due to a slow rate often is wrong.

This is your experience of countless Tests and First Class games as a player?

Didn't think so.

 

[marc71178]

When did I say that?

Will this do?

It suggests to me that there are lots of other commentators who had similar experiences - didn't experience pressure when they were actually the batsmen, but still perceive batsmen batting in front of them to be feeling it.

 

[marc71178]

I still reckon Bicknell would be a better bowler on flat, grassless wickets if Pollock and McGrath didn't get so many poor strokes played to them.

Of course, and considering Bicknell has consistently been bowling to County Batsmen and Pollock and McGrath to Internationals, who are more likely to play poor strokes, the county players or the Internationals?

 

[marc71178]

Sorry, I know more about cricket than most people will have forgotten in their lifetime.

So how come you feel obliged to not share this perceived knowledge with usa, and instead continue to spout absolute garbage then?

 

[tooextracool]

What I want to know is, why should these people who have played to such a high standard believe they should feel under pressure just because of something that is irrelevant.

because they are human.....

 

[tooextracool]

Any thread which brings-up something you and I disagree on has all but reached a dead-end there and then.
Almost all due to similar topics.

i dont think it has at the moment, and i will go on making you look like a fool until it does. of course if i do end up disappearing for a while again you would typically be proud of getting the last word in so good luck on that..

 

[tooextracool]

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 if you cant show it to me, then its not 'evidence' in the first place.

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..

oh hes had enough chances, he had the chance on a seaming wicket in the 2nd test against NZ in 97,he had the chance to do it in SA in 00 in durban, he had the chance to do it in england in 02 in first 2 tests, and he had the chance to do it in the first test against SA in 02.

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.

no but it is quite often the case in england, when theres cloud cover the ball usually seams and swings and doesnt everything. and the fact that all the other bowlers got wickets while he didnt just goes to emphasise that.

Not neccessarily made a mistake - Hussain and Vaughan were simply given out incorrectly.

and that helps your case how?

But if it suggests these sorts of things to you it suggests you don't actually remember what happened - including several wicket-taking deliveries.

rubbish i remember that game quite clearly, and i never denied that kumble didnt bowl any 'wicket takin' deliveries, on rather by your counts 'jaffas' but those happen on every wicket and in this case they were few and far between. as i said earlier, if it was indeed a turner then kumble wouldnt have taken 51 overs to get his wickets and england wouldnt have scored as much as they did. ramprakash failed in that game because he simply was not good enough.

No, not at all - spinners can still get wickets on it, but they have to bowl better still. Instead, Giles bowled worse..

nope which just goes to show how much of that game you watched, giles bowled just as well as he always bowled, but the wicket was dead and the batting was better.

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.

no i dont happen to remember most of what you have said in the past, perhaps you'd like to point out the time that you did so?

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.

why do you need to read them in the first place?given that you know more than everyone on this world put together.....

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

'get it down is far enough'? please speak in english....i have no clue what you are talking about here....

Yes, any fool like you.
And you can "probably" all you want - like it or not, I watched the match.

and like it or not, so did i and as did the cricinfo reporter, whos report was probably checked by someone else (who also probably watched the match) before it was posted on teh website.

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.

so that comment that you made about anyone who is bothering to follow knows that im wrong was just another one of your stupid statements then?

 

[tooextracool]

I think not, somehow.
In any case, I've still heard him talk about pressure due to slow scoring - how'd he know, if he didn't feel it (and I'm absolutely certain he didn't).

because now you can read peoples minds too and know whether they never felt pressure then?

What, a slow scoring rate "gets to" batsmen, when they needn't worry about it in the slightest?

and how many times must it be said, pressure isnt because of slow scoring rates, if you bowled 4 balls that beat the bat continuously do you not believe that the batsman is going to be nervous about the next ball to some extent? do you not believe that if he saw a ball that was short and wide that he would actually think 'finally something i can score off' and play a loose shot?

 

[tooextracool]

No, I prefer making him look more and more stupid every time he says things happened in a way they didn't - generalising, based on what he thinks fit the figures.
When in fact the figures are simply more fitting of a very good bowler.

and your doing a poor job of it, although from what ive seen you do seem to be doing a good job of making yourself look stupid by twisting your arguments backwards and forwards.....

 

[tooextracool]

I've seen Bicknell take more wickets through good bowling on flat wickets than I've ever seen Pollock or McGrath take.

which is your usual attempt of looking at similar balls of 2 bowlers, one of whom you dont like and the other of whom you do like.....

 

[tooextracool]

No, I took seaming pitches out of the equation when I said "on flat pitches".
And I also took the quality of the batsmen out of the equation when I said "with good deliveries".

good luck in trying and proving that to everyone.....

 

[Richard]

Completely ignore the fact that there are rarely flat wickets in County Cricket

As demonstrated by the abundance of 400-500-600 scores in the last 3 seasons.

and that he's rarely had quality players to play against.

Maybe he's not had that many Test-class players, but as I've said to you before, it is more than possible to be quality without being Test-class.