Disappointing players

[marc71178]

Not beyond question, but possibly, yes.

How on Earth do you know more about a game from watching highlights than someone who actually watched the whole thing?

That's as ludicrous as you saying you know more about the pressure of International Cricket than someone who's played it does.

 

[Richard]

Will you stop bringing knowing more into it? I've not once said I know more about anything than someone who's watched more extensively than me.
I've said there is a perfect possibility of me knowing as much about the significant stuff as such.

 

[marc71178]

But there is no way, because what you see is at the whim of an editor, someone who watched the WHOLE game doesn't have any restrictions so will see more.

 

[Richard]

But not neccesarily more of any significance.
A good highlights package (which editors are paid to produce and if they don't they'll rapidly lose the chance to be paid for doing it) will tell you about all that you need to know about a day's play.
There is much that happens during a day that doesn't really matter.

 

[marc71178]

And much that plays a part but is not shown.

There is no way you can know the whole story from a 1 hour package.

 

[Richard]

Not the whole story, no - but most of it that matters.

 

[marc71178]

But not all of it, that is the key thing, so there is no way you can be better informed than someone who watches it all.

 

[Richard]

No, but I can be equally well-informed - how many times do I have to say it?

 

[Prince EWS]

But then how can you say that you are right and he is wrong?

There is a chance that you are equally-well informed, but IF there is an arguement over the matter, then the person who saw more of the game should surely have an advantage....

 

[Richard]

The chances of me or tooextracool being right are equal as far as I'm concerned.
Sadly there are rather a lot of wickets whose character we disagree on.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think he has more chance of being right to tell you the truth.

You COULD have seen enough of the game to make a good decison on it, and if this was the case, it would be 50/50.

But since there is a chance that you didnt see enough of the game, your odds are reduced. Even if it is only a 10% chance that you didnt see enough, the odds then move to 55/45 in favour of tooextracool.

 

[Richard]

Hmm... I can see where you're coming from, but don't underestimate the worth of good highlights.

 

[Prince EWS]

I dont.

As I said, it is quite possible that your highlights package showed you everything you needed to know.

But there is a slight doubt - about 5 percent IMO - that you might have missed something that could have changed your opinion.

This leaves the ledger at 52.5 / 47.5

 

[Richard]

Won't argue with that!
Still, I think I can know about Hick's dismissals and the reasons behind them.

 

[marc71178]

No, but I can be equally well-informed - how many times do I have to say it?

How though?

You haven't watched for 6 plus hours, but for an editted hour at best,

 

[tooextracool]

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??

and so now you changed it all around to include short quick balls with movement and accuracy havent you? and of course heavy footedness means that you can play short balls but not short balls with movement doesnt it?
and how many times do i have to say it, that even the bowlers who troubled him most, waqar and ambrose troubled him far more often with the pitched up balls than they did with the short ones?

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.

it has happened to whom? no one else has ever had a 3 year period of prolific run scoring and then been exposed to this technical weakness.
a classic example of someone with a similar temperamental weakness is our friend ramprakash who for a while managed to show the required temperament and succeeded at the international level.

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

so he just suddenly changed the way he was playing the short balls then?
rubbish. if you have such a blatant weakness, its fairly obvious that with the technology you can quite easily find out what you are doing wrong and what you were doing right before.

 

[tooextracool]

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

and how many mcgrath games have you watched? possibly the 2 ashes series, the 2 trans tasman series and the 2 series against SA, thats it.

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.

how many wrist spinners played county cricket anywhere in the world? there were and still are far more finger spinners than there are wrist spinners, and considering the number of finger spinners who've had success at the domestic level and then failed at the international level it only goes to show how poor the english players were against spin. simply because salisbury was better than a poor bunch does not make him a test class bowler either

 

[tooextracool]

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

and considering he didnt succeed at the international level, it only means that he didnt have the skill

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...

no because even i can make up claims that ive read newspapers and reports that hick struggled with temperament and not technique at the international level. unless you show me proof i cant accept it as a fact.

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....

its fairly obvious to anyone that most highlights dont show the build up of the wickets. if they do its usually only the ball before, and certainly for hick to be ruffled by his weakness, he should have at least struggled with the short stuff for an over.

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.....

i have made up my mind because im certain. if you were to change it you'd have to say more than i've watched a few highlights from the 90s and therefore i'm right.

You're never going to be proven wrong, because it's not something that can be proven conclusively..

it can come extremely close to doing so if you had a secondary opinion, such as a match report or something backing you up.

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..

not really, if someone is to have a weakness against the short ball he should have been dismissed frequently by it. hick wasnt.

 

[tooextracool]

But not neccesarily more of any significance.
A good highlights package (which editors are paid to produce and if they don't they'll rapidly lose the chance to be paid for doing it) will tell you about all that you need to know about a day's play.
There is much that happens during a day that doesn't really matter.

good highlights rarely show a full over, let alone the full over of the build up of every wicket.

 

[tooextracool]

The chances of me or tooextracool being right are equal as far as I'm concerned.
Sadly there are rather a lot of wickets whose character we disagree on.

how can you know as much about my favorite player when you never watched a full game of his till 00. is this stupid or what?