Disappointing players

[Richard]

because no-one can, because no one ever has. and in the sameway just because you say they can, it doesnt mean they can either.

No, it doesn't.
Seriously, you genuinely think there are players who haven't played around weaknesses for some of the time?
I really can't believe that.
If it wasn't the case no-one who was weak against spin would ever score any runs with the ball turning.
You get breakouts all the time.
But if those are outnumbered, it's still fair to say that the weakness won out in the end.

 

[Richard]

a claim that i never made. i simply said that i dont follow domestic cricket, which is certainly acceptable given the amount of english domestic cricket broadcasted in india. i have however seen enough games of salisbury in domestic cricket and seen him take wickets off rubbish balls in the past. and i do know how poor english county cricketers were against spin around that time.

And I've also seen him bowl very well and take wickets through good bowling.

amazing isnt it? the same person who says that mcgrath has gone through a 3 year period with lucky wickets now suggests that you cant go through 3 years with that kind of figures without bowling well

The main difference is that I've watched the stuff and hence know about the individual circumstances.
Was unwise to say that when it could be interpreted the way it was, though.

i look forward to hearing how you twist and twirl your way around this one.

No surprises there.

lets just leave it at this then, you think temperament affects bowlers, i dont.

I'm quite happy to - but nonetheless it'll probably come-up again sometime.
These things have a habit of doing so.

 

[tooextracool]

Another old one comes back out of the bag!
No, he can't shrug-off bowling poorly - that's what lack of temperament is all about..

and you cant bowl poorly for every one of 15 games unless you lack the necessary skill ....

I can't?
And you know, don't you, because you know what I've watched, don't you?..

no you cant because its impossible to make such a claim by watching 'highlights'. everyone knows that highlights at least 8/10 times dont show the build up to the wicket and since you've probably not watched every one of hicks games, i find it hard to believe that you can even claim to know anything about hick let alone knowing more about him than me.

Funnily enough it's rather hard to procure old newspapers etl - there weren't actually that many online reports in 1997, let alone 1992..

and in another of your pathetic excuses for trying to save yourself. theres no proof for you to make such claims.

And of course it couldn't possibly be that the apparrent problems with the short-ball simply didn't affect Kirsten and Stephen Waugh, while they did affect Hick?
Quite simply, you think they didn't, I think they did.

'you think', thats the problem. your whole theory is based on guessing and hoping that it is true. the fact is that as one of my favourite players, ive happened to watch nearly everyone of hicks innings(possibly all), and im fairly certain that his weakness to the short ball was rarely exposed at the intl level.

 

[tooextracool]

And I've also seen him bowl very well and take wickets through good bowling.

this is almost the same thing as the mcgrath lucky wickets situation...except that mcgrath actually succeeded at both forms of the game and there is no excuse for the quality of players that hes bowled too. salisbury on the other hand has bowled poorly in both forms of the game, and given that the quality of batting against spin is relatively poor at the domestic level, hes succeeded.

The main difference is that I've watched the stuff and hence know about the individual circumstances.
Was unwise to say that when it could be interpreted the way it was, though..

whatever, knowing you, you really have the knack to manipulate performances to suit yourself. i wont admit that i've watched a lot of salisbury at the domestic level, but from what ive watched hes been rubbish and still got wickets. until i see some proof as to him bowling well at the domestic level, i wont change my mind.

I'm quite happy to - but nonetheless it'll probably come-up again sometime.
These things have a habit of doing so.

well unless you happen to bring it up when theres absolutely no need to, like the number of times you've brought up the chopra debate, i dont think it should

 

[tooextracool]

No, it doesn't.
Seriously, you genuinely think there are players who haven't played around weaknesses for some of the time?
I really can't believe that.
If it wasn't the case no-one who was weak against spin would ever score any runs with the ball turning.
You get breakouts all the time.
But if those are outnumbered, it's still fair to say that the weakness won out in the end.

these break outs dont happen consistently, they happen like gilchrist, the one good inning against spin in a series, but overall they dont change the fact that hes weak against spin. hick on the other hand had a whole 2 years where he performed consistently well, nearly 9 series, thats a major difference. add that to the fact that hes been playing around his weakness for every one of his domestic seasons.

 

[Richard]

and you cant bowl poorly for every one of 15 games unless you lack the necessary skill ....

Or the neccessary temperament...

no you cant because its impossible to make such a claim by watching 'highlights'. everyone knows that highlights at least 8/10 times dont show the build up to the wicket and since you've probably not watched every one of hicks games, i find it hard to believe that you can even claim to know anything about hick let alone knowing more about him than me.

Hour-long highlights - well-produced ones - tell you a hell of a lot.
Certainly more than enough in these cases.
Allied to the odd match-report here and there.

and in another of your pathetic excuses for trying to save yourself. theres no proof for you to make such claims.

Keep telling yourself that - might be right one day!

'you think', thats the problem. your whole theory is based on guessing and hoping that it is true. the fact is that as one of my favourite players, ive happened to watch nearly everyone of hicks innings(possibly all), and im fairly certain that his weakness to the short ball was rarely exposed at the intl level.

Fine - you think what you think, I'll think what I think.
You're not going to change my mind, because you can't alter what I've perceived.

 

[Richard]

this is almost the same thing as the mcgrath lucky wickets situation...except that mcgrath actually succeeded at both forms of the game and there is no excuse for the quality of players that hes bowled too. salisbury on the other hand has bowled poorly in both forms of the game, and given that the quality of batting against spin is relatively poor at the domestic level, hes succeeded.

And given that no-one has ever mentioned Salisbury in the one-day game, nor have I ever said that McGrath is anything but a superb one-day bowler on any pitch the game-form thing doesn't matter at all.
Salisbury, of course, will have had his share of wickets through poor batting. Nonetheless, I know for certain that he was capable of bowling good spells and that's enough for me.
Yes, it might be remarkable coincidence that the only good spells I've seen have been the only good ones in existence. Unlike most people, I don't deny that.
Nonetheless the chances of it are lower than the chances that it is not the case.

whatever, knowing you, you really have the knack to manipulate performances to suit yourself. i wont admit that i've watched a lot of salisbury at the domestic level, but from what ive watched hes been rubbish and still got wickets. until i see some proof as to him bowling well at the domestic level, i wont change my mind.

Well I highly doubt you will see anything, given that I can't see you seeing any spells of 4 years ago, nor can I really see you seeing him bowl well in 2005 (because I don't really think it'll happen).

well unless you happen to bring it up when theres absolutely no need to, like the number of times you've brought up the chopra debate, i dont think it should

Both of us are guilty of bringing-up stuff unneccesarily - and of course there are times when it crops-up in other discussions.

 

[Richard]

these break outs dont happen consistently, they happen like gilchrist, the one good inning against spin in a series, but overall they dont change the fact that hes weak against spin. hick on the other hand had a whole 2 years where he performed consistently well, nearly 9 series, thats a major difference. add that to the fact that hes been playing around his weakness for every one of his domestic seasons.

Or it is possible that there are hardly any bowlers in domestic cricket capable of exploiting it. Certainly that seems to be the case from where I'm standing.
No, there aren't many players who play round weaknesses for an extended period but that does not mean it's impossible.

 

[marc71178]

Hour-long highlights - well-produced ones - tell you a hell of a lot.
Certainly more than enough in these cases.

More than someone watching the whole game?

 

[Richard]

As much or nearly as much.
While not more, obviously.

 

[marc71178]

Yet you think it qualifies you to say more about something than someone who watched it all?

 

[tooextracool]

Or it is possible that there are hardly any bowlers in domestic cricket capable of exploiting it. Certainly that seems to be the case from where I'm standing.

so you're saying that bowlers in domestic cricket werent capable of bowling short balls? i mean imagine for 15 years of his domestic career, no one was good enough to bowl a decent amount of short balls at him
and yet after this you expect players who succeed at the domestic level to succeed at the international level....

No, there aren't many players who play round weaknesses for an extended period but that does not mean it's impossible.

yes it is. if it hasnt happened for 100 years of international cricket then it never will. it simply doesnt make any sense to anyone whos not blind enough to look past his own little world. theres simply no way that someone can just forget how to play how to play around a weakness despite doing it for 2.5 years.

 

[tooextracool]

And given that no-one has ever mentioned Salisbury in the one-day game, nor have I ever said that McGrath is anything but a superb one-day bowler on any pitch the game-form thing doesn't matter at all..

i was referring to domestic cricket and international cricket, not ODI cricket.

Salisbury, of course, will have had his share of wickets through poor batting. Nonetheless, I know for certain that he was capable of bowling good spells and that's enough for me.
Yes, it might be remarkable coincidence that the only good spells I've seen have been the only good ones in existence. Unlike most people, I don't deny that.
Nonetheless the chances of it are lower than the chances that it is not the case.

its just as impossible as someone like me coicidentally seeing every game in which salisbury performed poorly and still got wickets.

Well I highly doubt you will see anything, given that I can't see you seeing any spells of 4 years ago, nor can I really see you seeing him bowl well in 2005 (because I don't really think it'll happen).

ive actually watched enough of salisbury pre 2000 to know how bad a bowler he really was. does it never occur to you that the quality of batting that he was faced with was consistently rubbish against spin?

 

[tooextracool]

Or the neccessary temperament....

and given that he never had the bowling skill to succeed at the international level , the temperament never really mattered anyways.

Hour-long highlights - well-produced ones - tell you a hell of a lot.
Certainly more than enough in these cases.
Allied to the odd match-report here and there

hour long highlights rarely show you anything, i watched a lot of highlights from 93-96, they used to show a lot of that in india at the time, and i can assure you that very rarely did they show the build up of the wicket. if they were to show the build up of every wicket + all the runs and wickets got in the day, it would easily take more than an hr. certainly claiming that by watching this you know are right while when i watched far more full days play then you could possibly dream off is really the biggest bunch of b/s ive ever heard.
as far as the match reports are concerned, you off all people cant use that to prove anything, considering you've already denied that they are accurate most of the time and the fact that you quite conveniently cant find these reports anymore.

Keep telling yourself that - might be right one day! .....

i know im right though, for you to state something about a player who you've rarely watched any cricket about is quite frankly ludicrous.

Fine - you think what you think, I'll think what I think.
You're not going to change my mind, because you can't alter what I've perceived.

the thing is what i think has been proven to be true, match reports, stats and everything back it up. what you say on the other hand is simply backed up by absolutely nothing, and your attempt to use match reports that you dont even have with you any more shows that. if im proven to be wrong about hick, i'll eat my computer and never watch a ball of cricket again.

 

[Richard]

Yet you think it qualifies you to say more about something than someone who watched it all?

Not beyond question, but possibly, yes.

 

[Richard]

so you're saying that bowlers in domestic cricket werent capable of bowling short balls? i mean imagine for 15 years of his domestic career, no one was good enough to bowl a decent amount of short balls at him
and yet after this you expect players who succeed at the domestic level to succeed at the international level....

Flaws in techniques which cause problems (such as Hick's) are pretty rare - most flaws are indeed exposed at domestic and international level.
You've conveniently ignored the blatant fact that I'm not simply talking about short-balls, I'm talking about short quick balls combined with accuracy and movement to follow it up. Something there aren't too many bowlers capable of achieving at the domestic-level in Britain recently.
In 1990s Test-cricket, though, there were a fair few, weren't there?

yes it is. if it hasnt happened for 100 years of international cricket then it never will. it simply doesnt make any sense to anyone whos not blind enough to look past his own little world.

And it has happened.
Every time you bring up this "your own little World" rubbish you lose that bit more credibility, because it quite simply makes precisely zero sense.

theres simply no way that someone can just forget how to play how to play around a weakness despite doing it for 2.5 years.

And who's to say he knew what he was doing differently?

 

[Richard]

its just as impossible as someone like me coicidentally seeing every game in which salisbury performed poorly and still got wickets.

Not at all - how many Salisbury games did you watch?
Not as many McGrath games as me, I can't help guessing.

ive actually watched enough of salisbury pre 2000 to know how bad a bowler he really was. does it never occur to you that the quality of batting that he was faced with was consistently rubbish against spin?

Yes, you don't need to tell me how poor English batsmen in the 1990s tended to be against spin.
Nonetheless if they were that poor anyone who bowled wristspin to a remotely acceptible standard would lord it at the domestic level - and lo-and-behold, how many wristspinners played county-cricket in the 1970s, 80s and 90s? Not many, and none with any real success.

 

[Marcus]

Ian Blackwell most dissapinting player for me, great for somerset, runbbish for england, he has the talent, but wont lose weight or wont work on hid fitness. On a conuty level James Bryant is possibly the worst ever player for Somerset, South African player but was the worst batsmen ever to have played at the county ground, oh and Thos Hunt, somerset members will never look upon him again.....and on a international level James Anderson all the talent, but reallly hes lost it

 

[Richard]

and given that he never had the bowling skill to succeed at the international level , the temperament never really mattered anyways.

Or rather it wouldn't have done - had he not had the skill.

hour long highlights rarely show you anything, i watched a lot of highlights from 93-96, they used to show a lot of that in india at the time, and i can assure you that very rarely did they show the build up of the wicket. if they were to show the build up of every wicket + all the runs and wickets got in the day, it would easily take more than an hr. certainly claiming that by watching this you know are right while when i watched far more full days play then you could possibly dream off is really the biggest bunch of b/s ive ever heard.
as far as the match reports are concerned, you off all people cant use that to prove anything, considering you've already denied that they are accurate most of the time and the fact that you quite conveniently cant find these reports anymore.

Quite convenient? So of course I should be expected to find every newspaper I've ever read, shouldn't I?
I've never said they aren't accurate most of the time - I have also said that if you read 3, even 4, reports of the same thing you're almost certain to get a pretty accurate picture.
As far as highlights are concerned - fine, you clearly weren't watching very well produced highlights.
Either that or I was watching even worse ones - because they gave an impression of something happening that wasn't, rather than simply failing to give an impression of something that was.

i know im right though, for you to state something about a player who you've rarely watched any cricket about is quite frankly ludicrous.

And you know you're right about the "ridiculous claims to save yourself" bit - because you can't see anything else, you've already made-up your mind and anything that runs counter to that is "ridiculous".
I could say exactly the same thing - I just don't.

the thing is what i think has been proven to be true, match reports, stats and everything back it up. what you say on the other hand is simply backed up by absolutely nothing, and your attempt to use match reports that you dont even have with you any more shows that. if im proven to be wrong about hick, i'll eat my computer and never watch a ball of cricket again.

You're never going to be proven wrong, because it's not something that can be proven conclusively.
If you don't believe the short-balls were the cause of Hick's cheap dismissals, it can't be proven otherwise.
Likewise, if I do, it can't be proven they weren't.

 

[Richard]

Ian Blackwell most dissapinting player for me, great for somerset, runbbish for england, he has the talent, but wont lose weight or wont work on hid fitness.

He has the talent to slap the ball, yes, he doesn't have the talent to play the right shots to the right balls with any consistency whatsoever.
And an average of 25 (that's roughly what his List-A-one-day average for Somerset is) is hardly great.
Yes, he's had some success for them in the First-Class game, but most of that has come at Taunton, and his record away from that ground (at grounds of normal size) says far more about him that his record there.