*Congratulations* Brian Lara 10,000 Test Runs!

[Richard]

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

No, as a spectator.

 

[Richard]

Will this do?

Err, probably, I didn't really understand your original comment, it didn't make much sense.

 

[Richard]

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?

Oh, the domestic players, but that's not the point - it's perfectly possible that Bicknell's wickets have come all due to poor strokes, I've only watched a tiny proportion of the matches.
What matters is that this is very unlikely because I've seen him bowl deliveries on flat pitches that I can fairly conclusively say McGrath and Pollock haven't bowled in the last few years.

 

[Richard]

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

What USA have to do with anything I'll never know.
I spout absolute garbage only in the opinion of those who dismiss it without actually thinking about the facts of the matter.

 

[Richard]

because they are human.....

And of course humans always get everything wrong all the time, don't they?
It's totally beyond them to realise a simple fact like "the scoring-rate doesn't matter in a First-Class-game"?

 

[Richard]

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..

Make me look like a fool to yourself as many times as you want - I doubt I look like one to too many other people, rather you do for making so many attempts to manufacture stuff that can make me look foolish.

 

[Richard]

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

So the reason he was able to play such a massive number of incredibly slow innings was that he always felt pressure due to the fact that he was scoring so slowly...

and how many times must it be said, pressure isnt because of slow scoring rates

Ah, so that's why you, marc, Swervy and SOC have been continuously arguing that it is, then?

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?

No, I think he'd think "here's a chance, don't waste it" and play a well executed shot to the boundary. Because, in my experience, that happens a hell of a lot more than a loose shot.
And yes, he can be expected to be nervous if he's been beaten 4 times in a row - but how often do you see that? Twice in a row is surprising enough, three times almost unheard of.

 

[Richard]

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.....

Or rather you're doing a very poor job of attempting to twist them, and I'm finding it not remotely difficult to untwist them.

 

[Richard]

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.....

Or rather, one of whom I do rate and two of whom I don't (in the named circumstances only).
And where do you think that rating has come from?

 

[garage flower]

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.

Out of interest, how many examples do you have of Lara "flogging huge scores in drawn games"?

 

[Swervy]

Ah, so that's why you, marc, Swervy and SOC have been continuously arguing that it is, then?

no no no..the pressure isnt caused by slow scoring..the pressure is caused by good accurate bowling...slow scoring is just a by-product of the good bowling.

So when a bowler has been bowling really well to a batsman,and then maybe he bowls one bad ball, the batsmans instant reaction maybe to try and score off it...he maybe over eager and maybe try and hit the ball to hard or something,and then he gets out...You would say that the bowler doesnt derserve the wicket, we say that he does because of the pressure that has been built up in the previous overs.

 

[Richard]

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

Yes, it is - how many times do we see people prosecuted for "withholding evidence" (and more significantly, how often do we not find-out and prosecute someone)? Ie not telling something that is significant. Just because it has not been disclosed does not mean it isn't evidence.
In any case, I can show them to you, it's not beyond possibility, but I'd prefer you to keep stating that something which happened didn't. Then if you ever want to find-out, you can find-out for yourself.

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.

Well he certainly didn't in the first 2 Tests in England in 2002, nor at Kingsmead in 2000\01. Can't comment on the others but I don't really see that 2 Tests prove conclusively that someone is incapable of bowling well on a seamer.

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.

No, it just goes to show that the others were very poor, he was even worse.
And the cloud-cover (which wasn't all that often present during that series) doesn't influence seam-movement at all, anywhere in The World. Of course it always makes the ball more likely to swing, and if you remembered correctly you'd know that he did swing it on occasions, both conventionally and reverse - he just didn't hit the right areas.

 

[Richard]

and that helps your case how?

It doesn't - I was simply pointing-out that not everything was due to batsman error, but partly due to Umpiring error.

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.

England would have scored nowhere near the number they did but for Deep "Drop" Dasgupta, who missed three simple chances in the innings himself. Not to mention the other dropped-catches.

ramprakash failed in that game because he simply was not good enough.

Oh, this rubbish again. Ramprakash failed in the second-innings because of the need for quick runs. He didn't fail in the first-innings, just couldn't carry on with a 37 - which, considering his average from the previous few games, wasn't a particularly heinous crime.

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.

The wicket lost a bit of pace, the batting was better - and Giles didn't hit the right areas as much as he did in the first-innings.

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?

This is ridiculous.
Your comment was "first you say x, then you say y", now it's "where did you say x or y?"
You state yourself I have said both, now you ask where I have said either.

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

And how do I know what I know? By watching where I can, by reading where I cannot watch.

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

Get it down - get it to the ground before reaching a fielder?
Clear enough? Can you make some sense of a straightforward sentance now?

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.

So that's why there are so often mistakes in CricInfo and Wisden reports, then.
If it is checked (and it might well be) the mistakes are not noticed. Mistakes in spelling etc. are the likelier things which are picked-up on in proof-reading.

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?

Well, yes, it should have been "anyone who is following who hasn't already decided that I'm wrong".

 

[Richard]

no no no..the pressure isnt caused by slow scoring..the pressure is caused by good accurate bowling...slow scoring is just a by-product of the good bowling.

A by-product?
Personally I'd say it's a very important product - THE ONLY important product. The whole point in bowling accurately is to try to stop runs being scored.
And I repeat something I said earlier - if you're bowling a really, really accurate spell, and the batsman is playing an innings like Chris Gayle or Lance Klusener, where he's repeatedly hitting perfectly decent balls for four through the covers, do you think they are feeling under pressure?
Because personally I don't ever hear anyone talk about pressure (except on the bowlers) unless the scoring-rate is slow, no matter how accurate the bowling.

So when a bowler has been bowling really well to a batsman,and then maybe he bowls one bad ball, the batsmans instant reaction maybe to try and score off it...he maybe over eager and maybe try and hit the ball to hard or something,and then he gets out...

Maybe he might - and maybe he mightn't. This is a possibility (or rather, in my experience, a likelihood) that seems not to occur to you guys. Maybe it's far more likely he'll slam that bad ball to the boundary.

You would say that the bowler doesnt derserve the wicket, we say that he does because of the pressure that has been built up in the previous overs.

And I'd say that it's the batsman's fault if he's feeling under pressure, because he needn't - he'd do far better to not worry himself with the scoring-rate and do his job properly.

 

[Swervy]

A by-product?
Personally I'd say it's a very important product - THE ONLY important product. The whole point in bowling accurately is to try to stop runs being scored..

And here was me thinking that taking wickets was important...That is the key isnt it???

Just becuase I say by product doesnt mean its not important

 

[harris_zaman]

Runs

Congragulations Brian Lara.. one of the greatest test batsmen, finally the man has reached a great milestone 10,000 Test Runs

*Applauds* May the man keep going on , hes a real delight to watch every chance i get.

Inzamam reached 10,000 odi runs

 

[Scaly piscine]

Out of interest, how many examples do you have of Lara "flogging huge scores in drawn games"?

277 v Aus, 375 v Eng, 152 v Eng, 179 v Eng, 209 v SL, 400* v Eng. Granted WI are poor enough that he's had a few more that have been losing efforts in the end.

 

[Neil Pickup]

277 v Aus, 375 v Eng, 152 v Eng, 179 v Eng, 209 v SL, 400* v Eng. Granted WI are poor enough that he's had a few more that have been losing efforts in the end.

501* v Durham also.

 

[tooextracool]

So the reason he was able to play such a massive number of incredibly slow innings was that he always felt pressure due to the fact that he was scoring so slowly
Ah, so that's why you, marc, Swervy and SOC have been continuously arguing that it is, then?.

what the ****ing hell are you talking about?
where have i said that slow scoring causes pressure in tests? common lets see a quote then? stop involving me in an argument that i've actually stayed out of.....

No, I think he'd think "here's a chance, don't waste it" and play a well executed shot to the boundary. Because, in my experience, that happens a hell of a lot more than a loose shot.
And yes, he can be expected to be nervous if he's been beaten 4 times in a row - but how often do you see that? Twice in a row is surprising enough, three times almost unheard of.

oh it happens quite a bit, it doesnt have to be beaten 4 times in a row though....one over consisting of 2 balls that beat the bat, one edge that goes between the slip/over slip, one ball thats left alone and one ball thats played rather uncomfortably would still cause just about as much pressure on the last ball as being beaten 4 times in a row.....

 

[tooextracool]

And of course humans always get everything wrong all the time, don't they?
It's totally beyond them to realise a simple fact like "the scoring-rate doesn't matter in a First-Class-game"?

and because i've never made any comment of the sort you are just trying to put words on my keyboard.....