Cricketweb poster with the best understanding of the game

[Son Of Coco]

If you remove a single Test (when he certainly got all his wickets through poor strokes) his figures against South Africa add-up to not especially good, so that he got most wickets through poor strokes doesn't matter too much.
Yes, too, McGrath was not especially impressive in The Ashes 2002\03 - though I don't doubt he'd have been devestating if he'd bowled when Caddick took his 7-for.

Every one of McGrath's wickets in a test fell through poor strokes!? Wow, that's amazing, and it reinforces my theory that your idea of what is a poor stroke and what isn't doesn't take into account what the bowler is actually trying to do at the time. Do you think about whether the bowler is working to a plan? Whether after tucking the batsman up with a few short balls (well, maybe more than a few) the ball pushed up and wide of off stump that induces an edge may not have anything to do with luck at all but actually be part of the plan?

 

[Langeveldt]

Spare the rod, spoil the child I say.

Wrong..

Spare the rod, Mutilate the minor

Can't say I love children tbh

 

[BoyBrumby]

Wrong..

Spare the rod, Mutilate the minor

Public school, eh? Six of the best? Trousers down?!?

 

[Mr Casson]

Word.. live and let live..

Group hug

Group hugs are the bomb. Too bad people get so awkward about them lol.

Earlier this year I started a chain hug at school. You had to pass it on to someone else (there was no time limit; I just persistently annoyed the hell out of whoever had it). It worked pretty well for a while - I was proud of it!!

 

[BoyBrumby]

Group hugs are the bomb. Too bad people get so awkward about them lol.

Earlier this year I started a chain hug at school. You had to pass it on to someone else (there was no time limit; I just persistently annoyed the hell out of whoever had it). It worked pretty well for a while - I was proud of it!!

& you're absolutely sure this was just an excuse to cop a feel of the fitter lasses?!?

Wow. How far off topic am I? Er, SJS, he's kwality!

 

[Craig]

I have a question for TEC, whilst I think he knows quite a bit about cricket, why does he support England yet he lives in India and I assume Indian?

Corey for me has the best understanding of the game, he has that why of making it seem so obvious, and I think "why did I never think of that?".

 

[Richard]

Every one of McGrath's wickets in a test fell through poor strokes!? Wow, that's amazing, and it reinforces my theory that your idea of what is a poor stroke and what isn't doesn't take into account what the bowler is actually trying to do at the time. Do you think about whether the bowler is working to a plan? Whether after tucking the batsman up with a few short balls (well, maybe more than a few) the ball pushed up and wide of off stump that induces an edge may not have anything to do with luck at all but actually be part of the plan?

Part of a plan to exploit exceptionally poor batting, maybe.
Any batsman who blunders into such an obvious trap deserves serious pillorying.

 

[Richard]

from which test in which series are you talking about?

The First Test at The Wanderers, fairly obviously. 8\49 in that match.
Get rid of it and his average for the series is 29.33 - not disgraceful, but coming after a series in which he averaged 65 it's not great, really.

oh yes im sure he must be disappointed with that disgraceful average of 20 at the end of that series, despite bowling on all the flat wickets of the series.

I'm sure he'd be delighted with it, myself. Just like he would be on the other occasions something similar happened.

 

[anzac]

not to forget of course an often forgotten member of the forum anzac, who despite his extremely long posts, usually posts some of the best analysis of batsmen technique and bowlers skill.

thanx for your kind words - as a self confessed rank plodder so far as my cricketing background goes I feel very privaleged to be included in such exhalted company........

however I must point out that some of my recent contributions have been rather questionable regarding historical accuracy to say the least!!!!!

 

[Langeveldt]

Public school, eh? Six of the best? Trousers down?!?

Hehe, I say Smythe, whats that hard thing in your pocket?

oh.....

 

[Richard]

thanx for your kind words - as a self confessed rank plodder so far as my cricketing background goes I feel very privaleged to be included in such exhalted company........

however I must point out that some of my recent contributions have been rather questionable regarding historical accuracy to say the least!!!!!

Nonetheless it's very easy to forget you and anyone who takes proper notice would actually notice someone with a very sound understanding of the game, even he's mostly concerned with New Zealand.

 

[marc71178]

The First Test at The Wanderers, fairly obviously. 8\49 in that match.
Get rid of it and his average for the series is 29.33 - not disgraceful, but coming after a series in which he averaged 65 it's not great, really.

But you have no grounds to get rid of it, because it happened.

 

[Kent]

Nonetheless it's very easy to forget you and anyone who takes proper notice would actually notice someone with a very sound understanding of the game, even if he's mostly concerned with New Zealand.

Stick to what you watch IMO, Anzac. That way you don't risk making rather pretentious comments like "I haven't seen _____ swing the red ball", "____ is a flat track bully", etc. like someone else on CW does.

 

[Mr Casson]

But you have no grounds to get rid of it, because it happened.

Yeah, I really don't understand these random omissions by Richard. Why get rid of it? It happened!!

If you discount all McGrath's wickets bar one, he'd average several thousand.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah, I really don't understand these random omissions by Richard. Why get rid of it? It happened!!

If you discount all McGrath's wickets bar one, he'd average several thousand.

hahaha. Well obviously you'd have to have a footnote.........G.McGrath Test Career - 1 wicket @ 8578.23 (but he didn't take another 489 wickets @ 0)!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Part of a plan to exploit exceptionally poor batting, maybe.
Any batsman who blunders into such an obvious trap deserves serious pillorying.

Part of formulating a bowling plan involves recognising the ability a bowler has to draw a batsman into a false stroke by setting him up first. Kind of like when you tell kids not to try to take a wicket with every ball Richard. Every single batsman has a weakness, and you'd have to expect Test level bowlers to be good enough to work out where a Test level batsman's weakness is would you not? The trap is not always as obvious as you suggest, and I'd defy you to show me a batsman who, after receiving a few overs of well-directed balls short of a length, does not have the eyes light up when he finally sees one pitched up outside off - even if it is slightly too wide to drive.

Intelligent bowling will get you wickets more often than not.......and it's not something I think you should be discounting just because it makes the batsman look foolish.

 

[Richard]

But you have no grounds to get rid of it, because it happened.

I do - it was an anomaly in an - admittedly short - trend.
Had it not happened, people would have realised that McGrath didn't really threaten the South Africans that much.

 

[Richard]

Stick to what you watch IMO, Anzac. That way you don't risk making rather pretentious comments like "I haven't seen _____ swing the red ball", "____ is a flat track bully", etc. like someone else on CW does.

I tried that - I find it incredibly boring only taking an interest in English cricket.
Each to his own, obviously - and of course not everyone has the time I've mostly had for the last 4 years.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I really don't understand these random omissions by Richard. Why get rid of it? It happened!!

If you discount all McGrath's wickets bar one, he'd average several thousand.

Exactly - you only discount what you have grounds to discount.
In that match, McGrath did considerably better than he did in any other of the 8 games that summer - so it's fair to discount it.

 

[Richard]

Part of formulating a bowling plan involves recognising the ability a bowler has to draw a batsman into a false stroke by setting him up first. Kind of like when you tell kids not to try to take a wicket with every ball Richard.

I tell them that so as to place some emphasis on not being too expensive and undoing the wickets with lots of Full-Tosses and Half-Volleys.

Every single batsman has a weakness, and you'd have to expect Test level bowlers to be good enough to work out where a Test level batsman's weakness is would you not? The trap is not always as obvious as you suggest, and I'd defy you to show me a batsman who, after receiving a few overs of well-directed balls short of a length, does not have the eyes light up when he finally sees one pitched up outside off - even if it is slightly too wide to drive.

In my experience these type are far, far more common than everyone assumes.
If their eyes do light up, the ball usually flashes to the boundary and any pressure which might be present is eased.
Spells of sustained short-pitched bowling rarely - directly or indirecly - result in wickets.

Intelligent bowling will get you wickets more often than not.......and it's not something I think you should be discounting just because it makes the batsman look foolish.

Intelligent bowling rarely involves more than the very occasional short-ball - unless the batsman has a very obvious weakness with them.
Batsmen with weaknesses against the short-ball, I might add, are very few and far between.