Cricketweb poster with the best understanding of the game

[Son Of Coco]

Can't argue with that!

haha, I was thinking 'gee, that's a quick reply'.

 

[Richard]

even if you look at it innings by innings,against SA he had 7good innings + 5
bad ones, against pak he had 1 bad innings and 5 good ones and against england he had 3 bad innings and 5 good ones. it seems to me that he has more good innings than he has bad innings. and im sure if we were to analyze each of those innings, wed find several wickets of wicket taking deliveries.

Match-by-match is the way I look at it.
And cumulative of all matches bar one, to be most precise of all.

yet you dont seem to be able to give me a perfectly good reason as to why you do. we've analysed several of those series now and in all of them we've seen him bowl a few wicket taking deliveries for his wickets.

Maybe the odd one here and there, yes.
Not enough to absolve any annoyance I may have that he's got better figures than he deserved.

 

[Richard]

haha, I was thinking 'gee, that's a quick reply'.

Well - I really can't think of too much to say that I haven't said already.
I guess we've reached a "happy medium".

 

[tooextracool]

Match-by-match is the way I look at it.
And cumulative of all matches bar one, to be most precise of all..

match by match inning by inning whatever way you look at it, mcgrath has bowled well in more games than he has failed in that period.

Maybe the odd one here and there, yes.
Not enough to absolve any annoyance I may have that he's got better figures than he deserved.

and as i just showed in the game in which he took 8 wickets, there were at least 2 wicket taking balls.

 

[Richard]

match by match inning by inning whatever way you look at it, mcgrath has bowled well in more games than he has failed in that period.

Got good figures more often than not, yes.

and as i just showed in the game in which he took 8 wickets, there were at least 2 wicket taking balls.

Yes, I know, I never denied that - I just said that nonetheless if you discount it his record overall in winter 2001\02 is pretty ordinary.

 

[tooextracool]

Got good figures more often than not, yes.

Yes, I know, I never denied that - I just said that nonetheless if you discount it his record overall in winter 2001\02 is pretty ordinary.

and given that almost everyone has a period of poor form whats your point? you seem to be basing everything that mgrath has done in his entire career on that one winter when he wasnt bowling at his best.

 

[Richard]

Not everything, no - but I watched all the games with pretty close attention-to-detail and - with the exception of the Wanderers game - most of his games from that winter on followed a similar pattern to those of that winter.
I've always made every effort to stress that I'm not making comment on McGrath prior to summer 2001.

 

[tooextracool]

Not everything, no - but I watched all the games with pretty close attention-to-detail and - with the exception of the Wanderers game - most of his games from that winter on followed a similar pattern to those of that winter.
I've always made every effort to stress that I'm not making comment on McGrath prior to summer 2001.

and since then hes had at least 3 series that prove you convincingly wrong. 1 was the series against england, the other 2 were the most recent series in ind and against NZ.

 

[Richard]

And I only read about the series against Pakistan which sounded like a pretty similar story.
The three India Tests, meanwhile, seemed pretty similar (with the exception of the Second - he looked like he was played pretty well there). I didn't read up on them as attentively, though - just the odd report here and there.
I certainly heard about a few good balls, I'll say that, though.

 

[tooextracool]

And I only read about the series against Pakistan which sounded like a pretty similar story.
The three India Tests, meanwhile, seemed pretty similar (with the exception of the Second - he looked like he was played pretty well there). I didn't read up on them as attentively, though - just the odd report here and there.
I certainly heard about a few good balls, I'll say that, though.

which is precisely what im saying. by some extraordinary coincidence you've managed to watch only the games in which hes bowled poorly in, and them called him a lucky bowler for all his bowling performances since 2001.

 

[honestbharani]

bounce isnt exactly helpful for the bowlers. bounce is in fact more helpful for the batsmen because the ball comes onto the bat more. unless of course it is excessive bounce. which is why most of the pitches in australia of late(particularly in the ind-aus series) have been extremely flat, because they allow the ball to come onto the bat better and therefore its a lot easier to score runs.

It doesn't always help the batters. The good bowlers usually can find an area of uncertainity where the batsman is never sure if he should be on the front or the back foot and generally, they go forward, because it is India and with the ball jumping up more, there is always a case for a catch behind the wickets, either at the slips or to the keeper himself. Plus, the spinners generally enjoy good bounce. So it is not as easy for the batters as you make it out to be. I agree that there can be tougher conditions for batting, it is certainly not that easy to make runs on bouncy wickets.

 

[Richard]

which is precisely what im saying. by some extraordinary coincidence you've managed to watch only the games in which hes bowled poorly in, and them called him a lucky bowler for all his bowling performances since 2001.

If it's some extraordinary coincidence only I'm sure it'll be ironed-out in the next couple of years.

 

[tooextracool]

It doesn't always help the batters. The good bowlers usually can find an area of uncertainity where the batsman is never sure if he should be on the front or the back foot and generally, they go forward, because it is India and with the ball jumping up more, there is always a case for a catch behind the wickets, either at the slips or to the keeper himself. Plus, the spinners generally enjoy good bounce. So it is not as easy for the batters as you make it out to be. I agree that there can be tougher conditions for batting, it is certainly not that easy to make runs on bouncy wickets.

which is what i said, only the quality bowlers can use these conditions to their advantage aka mcgrath and gillespie. but seriously good bounce only makes it better for the batsmen, because as i said earlier, bounce = ball coming onto the bat = quick runs. IMO there is a misrepresentation of wickets in australia and SA these days. both those conditions as of late have been the flattest in the world because they have just the right bounce at just the right pace for players to be able to play their shots easily.
with regards to the catches behind the wicket, catches dont go behind the wicket with bounce, it is movement of the seam, in the air, angle etc that causes outside edges.

 

[tooextracool]

If it's some extraordinary coincidence only I'm sure it'll be ironed-out in the next couple of years.

and i think the recent 2 series have done just that.

 

[Richard]

The 2 recent series have been part of the last 3 years.
I didn't see any of the India games and I'll confess I didn't read about too much changing.
The First New Zealand Test was typical, the Second not so.

 

[tooextracool]

The 2 recent series have been part of the last 3 years.
I didn't see any of the India games and I'll confess I didn't read about too much changing.
The First New Zealand Test was typical, the Second not so.

i sometimes wonder where you read your match reports from? i recommend you look at mcgraths performance in that third test of the india series, because he bowled absolutely brilliantly in that one. from what i remember, almost every one of those wickets that he took in that game were off wicket taking balls that were absolutely unplayable.

 

[Richard]

Haven't read a thing on it.
What was the pitch like?

 

[tooextracool]

Haven't read a thing on it.
What was the pitch like?

i think honest bharani's defintion would be ideal for this wicket. it wasnt one of the slow wickets where the ball doesnt come onto the bat, it had pace and bounce and therefore the ball came onto the bat. there was a little movement of the pitch, but that was restricted to the new ball and particularly on the first day when there was fresh grass on the wicket. zaheer khan and the rest didnt use it well enough though.

 

[Richard]

If there was any real grass on the wicket it sums-up perfectly what I always say about McGrath - if there's any seam-movement in the pitch he'll exploit it better than just about anyone.

 

[tooextracool]

If there was any real grass on the wicket it sums-up perfectly what I always say about McGrath - if there's any seam-movement in the pitch he'll exploit it better than just about anyone.

there was fresh grass on it on day one, when australia batted. if there is no grass on the wicket at all, it'll be a complete dust bowl by day 4.