Disappointing players

[Richard]

How though?

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

Most of the 5 hours of which don't really matter because they consist of players wondering around in the field and harmless deliveries being left alone.

 

[Richard]

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?

No, they got him out more with the full ones.
I've added the bit about reasonable pace and accuracy because it's fairly obvious to anyone that slow, ill-directed short-balls don't cause anyone a problem, however flat-footed.
The movement, as you perfectly well know, was with no reference to the short-balls but full ones.

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.

Except that no-one ever identified any flaws in Ramprakash's technique that made him look even remotely uncomfortable.
Even if it has happened to no-one (I find that hard to conceive, incidentally - though no, I don't know any definite cases) why does that make it impossible?

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.

Technology which was oh so well used in those days, yes...
How much of the stuff do you really think was used in 1996?

 

[Richard]

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.

5 games in 2001, 9 in 2001\02, 4 in 2002\03 plus wicket-summaries of 5 more; 2 in 2004; 5 in 2004\05.
For a total of 25 plus 5 of which I've seen all the balls with wickets against them.

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

So go on then - let's see these fingerspinners with outstanding - or even remotely good - domestic averages, then?

 

[Richard]

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

Or it could mean he didn't have the temperament.

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.

I don't expect you (or anyone else for that matter) to.
Sadly I can't get the stuff I believe is evidence onto the board - so it's simply a case of I'm not going to change your mind.

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 on several occasions highlights I showed suggested there was exactly the sort of build-up.
It's not unheard-of for highlights to show full overs just bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang if the produces think it's a worthwhile over to show.

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.

It's incredibly clear to me that I'm going to change your mind on next-to nothing.
So far about all I've managed to make you see is that Ealham was more than simply "almost" a regular in the England side in 1997-2001.

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

Thousands of people said Hick struggled with the short-ball for most of his Test-career - if you haven't heard that, you haven't been listening.
Nonetheless it's not at all unheard of for stuff the mass agree on to be wrong - Harmison, for instance (if the pattern of this series continues in the next 2 Tests and the remainder of this game, I will have been proven right and frankly just about everyone proven wrong) - and just because a load of people agree on stuff doesn't automatically make it right.

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

In spite of the fact that hardly anyone ever gets dismissed by the short-ball regularly.

 

[Richard]

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

The first, yes; the second? No. Not on full-length highlights.

 

[Richard]

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?

Because I actually watched just about every ball of just about every game from '98, ot '00, onwards.

 

[marc71178]

Most of the 5 hours of which don't really matter because they consist of players wondering around in the field and harmless deliveries being left alone.

How do you know that without seeing it?

 

[marc71178]

5 of which I've seen all the balls with wickets against them.

And those 5 games don't show anything about him setting the batsman up and getting him out as part of a sequence.

 

[Richard]

How do you know that without seeing it?

You can't say that in every case, of course, but in most days of Test-cricket 1 hour's highlights (and of course sometimes you can get 3) will tell you a pretty true story of the day.

 

[Richard]

And those 5 games don't show anything about him setting the batsman up and getting him out as part of a sequence.

Setting them up, how? By bowling accurately? Sorry, already done that one - setting batsmen up doesn't simply involve bowling accurately as far as I can see - so even if he supposedly did, I'd not take it on face-value.

 

[marc71178]

Of course you wouldn't, because you didn't see it, and you seem to think that each ball is an individual event in a match.

 

[Richard]

With competant batting, it is.
Nonetheless there are things you can learn from past balls - and sometimes good bowling will see you learn something deceptive.

 

[marc71178]

So now you can learn from past balls, yet still think you don't need to see the whole game?

 

[nightprowler10]

Shahid Afridi
definitely Saqlain

Mushtaq Ahmad even.

 

[Richard]

So now you can learn from past balls, yet still think you don't need to see the whole game?

Err - the batsman (who is after all watching) is the one I was talking about here.
Nothing to do with spectators.

 

[Richard]

Mushtaq Ahmad even.

Yet Mushtaq was pretty darn good for more of his career than not.
It took him a little while to settle at the Test-level but he was pretty darn outstanding for what equates to 61.5% of his career then sadly dropped off, with not a single good game in his last 16.
Didn't make the most of his talent, no, but his career should not be misinterpreted as a total waste of time.

 

[tooextracool]

Because I actually watched just about every ball of just about every game from '98, ot '00, onwards.

and given that you watched less than a third of his career, when he played complete rubbish well done. certainly proves that you know as much as me too. also you might want to note that hicks career didnt end in 00, so well done with the watching.

 

[tooextracool]

No, they got him out more with the full ones.
I've added the bit about reasonable pace and accuracy because it's fairly obvious to anyone that slow, ill-directed short-balls don't cause anyone a problem, however flat-footed.
The movement, as you perfectly well know, was with no reference to the short-balls but full ones.

if they got him out with the full ones more often, it obviously means that he couldnt have had a weakness against the short balls.

Except that no-one ever identified any flaws in Ramprakash's technique that made him look even remotely uncomfortable.
Even if it has happened to no-one (I find that hard to conceive, incidentally - though no, I don't know any definite cases) why does that make it impossible?

because you're whole theory doesnt make any sense. how can any batsman just forget how to play short pitch bowling, and yet somehow manage to remember how to do it for a 3 year period.

Technology which was oh so well used in those days, yes...
How much of the stuff do you really think was used in 1996?

enough to know about an obvious weakness. certainly if you could just make it out by watching highlights, can you imagine what the people who watched every ball twice could have?
just to add a little more, i suggest that you read these articles which give a far better explanation about hicks failure than you can even dream off.
http://plus.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/1998/DEC/CMJ_ON_HICK_11DEC1998.html
http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat..._ENG/ARTICLES/NICHOLAS_ON_HICK_28AUG1998.html

 

[tooextracool]

The first, yes; the second? No. Not on full-length highlights.

so the full highlights rarely show full overs, yet they show the build up overs of every wicket. rubbish.

 

[tooextracool]

5 games in 2001, 9 in 2001\02, 4 in 2002\03 plus wicket-summaries of 5 more; 2 in 2004; 5 in 2004\05.
For a total of 25 plus 5 of which I've seen all the balls with wickets against them.

yes go on complementing yourself for having seen less than a quarter of mcgraths career.

So go on then - let's see these fingerspinners with outstanding - or even remotely good - domestic averages, then?

1 thing that you should know. salisbury had a rubbish domestic average. so what we're actually looking for is someone who had a similar amount of success- 3 years of success at the domestic level.
im pretty certain ashley giles(who btw averages 28 in domestic cricket), robert croft, peter such, mm patel and the like have had just about as many successful seasons as salisbury has had. also you might want to add saqlain mushtaq given the success he has had in england.