Disappointing players

[tooextracool]

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

and given that no bowler can not have the right temperament for more than 3-4 games at the most, salisbury obviously had no skill.

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.

not sadly, conveniently. amazing isnt it, apparently only the hard copy reports agree with you.....

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..

and given that this happens about 1/10th of the time, that is precisely how much i think you know about hick, 1/10th.

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.

and perhaps you'd be better off at making me change my mind if you could come up with proof(internet articles or people) that actually go against me, instead of the rubbish, it must be right because im saying so argument.

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.

lets hear from these 1000s of people then? lets see the reports from these people that said it. as ive said 10000 times before, whether or not he had a weakness against the short ball is irrelevant, the question i ask you is whether that weakness got him out.

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

except those with a weakness to it, bevan for example.

 

[Richard]

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.

I mentioned the '00 because you mentioned it earlier.
Well done on noticing that Hick's Test-career lasted 3 months longer than '00, though.
No, I don't know as much as you, I've never said I have - but I have said that I know enough to form an opinion that differs to yours.
Something I've done plenty of other times.

 

[tooextracool]

I mentioned the '00 because you mentioned it earlier.
Well done on noticing that Hick's Test-career lasted 3 months longer than '00, though.
No, I don't know as much as you, I've never said I have - but I have said that I know enough to form an opinion that differs to yours.
Something I've done plenty of other times.

its fairly obvious that you didnt watch that series in SL either.
and as far as im concerned, im about as likely to be wrong about hick as india is off dropping tendulkar.

 

[Richard]

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.

Nope, it doesn't - as discussed elsewhere.

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.

Not a case of forgetting or remembering, simply batting subconsciously - doing something right sometimes, and wrong others.
Of course it'll sound absurd to you, but tat's no surprise - anything that contradicts your ideas does.

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

Good, good - lovely articles, but telling me basically the same thing you've been telling me for God-knows-how-long.
They'd if I had not watched anything, but I have - and that's what counts.

 

[Richard]

its fairly obvious that you didnt watch that series in SL either.

Same way it is about me not watching umpteen other games I've watched.
I can tell you several commentary comments from that series, if that helps.
Dharmasena has served-up two Long-Hops to Trescothick on the second evening, both cut for four. Bob Willis comments "well, this is poor bowling from Dharmasena, in fact it's absolute rubbish!"
Michael Atherton has been caught-and-bowled Fernando by a delivery that leaps off the pitch. Ian Botham: "this has popped, through the top."
Atherton has opened-up his stance to Vaas in the first-innings of the same Test, something Hussain and Stewart have done earlier, and Vaas has had two shouts for lbw, both turned-down correctly. He then produces a magic ball which again traps Atherton. Botham: "Now, that's closer, yes."

and as far as im concerned, im about as likely to be wrong about hick as india is off dropping tendulkar.

I'm not in the least surprised about that either.

 

[Richard]

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

They show what is significant; if that includes the build-up to a wicket (be it 1 over, 4 different balls from 3 different overs, or whatever) then that's what they show.

 

[Richard]

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

And funnily enough, I've never commented on the years before 2001 which I did not see.

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.

So let's see the three consecutive seasons of such very high success any of the above, or anyone else for that matter, had, then?

 

[tooextracool]

They show what is significant; if that includes the build-up to a wicket (be it 1 over, 4 different balls from 3 different overs, or whatever) then that's what they show.

no they dont, what they usually show is just the wicket and the ball before. and of course its quite possible for someone to get a short ball and be completely unfazed by it and still get out on the next ball.

 

[Richard]

It is indeed.
It's likely, however, that if they got 2 or 3 short-balls fairly recently and looked uncomfortable against them then played a poor stroke do cause dismissal, that the short-balls had some impact.
Of course, you know what they usually show because you've recorded so many of them, haven't you? You're not just relying on generalisation and false half-hour highlights at all, no.

 

[tooextracool]

And funnily enough, I've never commented on the years before 2001 which I did not see.

of course not, you've watched about half of mcgraths career from 2001 and conveniently missed out all his good performances on flat wickets. then of course, you've decided to eliminate the rare good performances from the ones that you've watched on flat wickets and called them anomalies. then based on the information left, you've gone on to name him as a lucky bowler.

So let's see the three consecutive seasons of such very high success any of the above, or anyone else for that matter, had, then?

and it needs to be consecutive because?

 

[tooextracool]

It is indeed.
It's likely, however, that if they got 2 or 3 short-balls fairly recently and looked uncomfortable against them then played a poor stroke do cause dismissal, that the short-balls had some impact.
Of course, you know what they usually show because you've recorded so many of them, haven't you? You're not just relying on generalisation and false half-hour highlights at all, no.

im fairly sure i know more about highlights than you do even though i havent as much highlights as you have.

 

[Richard]

and given that no bowler can not have the right temperament for more than 3-4 games at the most

If you ask you.

not sadly, conveniently. amazing isnt it, apparently only the hard copy reports agree with you.....

It isn't convenient at all - convenient for you, yes, because you can claim their falsity, but not for me.

and given that this happens about 1/10th of the time, that is precisely how much i think you know about hick, 1/10th.

1\10th of the time in your estimation, of course.

and perhaps you'd be better off at making me change my mind if you could come up with proof(internet articles or people) that actually go against me, instead of the rubbish, it must be right because im saying so argument.

Funnily enough most of the time your apparrent superiority is due to astonishing ability to put your opinion across as fact.
You have managed to find other accounts to back you mainly in the cases of pitch-condition.
Yes, and the two Hick ones above.

lets hear from these 1000s of people then? lets see the reports from these people that said it. as ive said 10000 times before, whether or not he had a weakness against the short ball is irrelevant, the question i ask you is whether that weakness got him out.

Or rather, it's whether it caused him to get out.
And most of the things weren't reports - they were simple quotes. Simon Hughes' analysis of Hick's technique on the third day of England-Zimbabwe in 2000, for instance.

except those with a weakness to it, bevan for example.

Not to mention Gary Kirsten, Stephen Waugh et al who you've repeatedly told me have a weakness against the short-ball but it doesn't get them out.

 

[tooextracool]

Nope, it doesn't - as discussed elsewhere.

yes it does

Not a case of forgetting or remembering, simply batting subconsciously - doing something right sometimes, and wrong others.
Of course it'll sound absurd to you, but tat's no surprise - anything that contradicts your ideas does.

and how the hell can someone do something right for 3 years straight and then completely stop doing it right there after. its simply rubbish.

Good, good - lovely articles, but telling me basically the same thing you've been telling me for God-knows-how-long.
They'd if I had not watched anything, but I have - and that's what counts.

oh yes so now we know that 2 experts whove watched hick more than you have are both wrong then. yes in fact if the whole world went against you you'd still claim that you were right based on the highlights.

 

[Richard]

of course not, you've watched about half of mcgraths career from 2001 and conveniently missed out all his good performances on flat wickets. then of course, you've decided to eliminate the rare good performances from the ones that you've watched on flat wickets and called them anomalies. then based on the information left, you've gone on to name him as a lucky bowler.

No, I actually do something a lot simpler than that.
I watch most of his wickets on flat pitches and judge that they're caused by poor strokes.
And I notice some occasions where he doesn't actually get the poor strokes, and notice that him getting poor strokes resulting in wickets is not completely inevitable.

and it needs to be consecutive because?

Because anyone can have a good season here and there - especially those with careers of the length of Croft and Such.
What counts is stringing the performances together.

 

[Richard]

im fairly sure i know more about highlights than you do even though i havent as much highlights as you have.

Which runs directly counter to the "I've watched more so I know more" stuff you've used countless times.
I'm pretty good on highlights, believe me - and I think the extended ones do a pretty decent job more often than not.

 

[Richard]

yes it does

The "as discussed elsewhere" is fine for me.

and how the hell can someone do something right for 3 years straight and then completely stop doing it right there after. its simply rubbish.

No, you just can't see how it can happen.

oh yes so now we know that 2 experts whove watched hick more than you have are both wrong then. yes in fact if the whole world went against you you'd still claim that you were right based on the highlights.

Except that the whole World doesn't go against me - even MCJ and CMJ themselves have mentioned Hick's weaknesses with the short-ball on air, even if these two articles suggest they've thought of other possibilities.

 

[tooextracool]

If you ask you.

if you ask anybody who knows anything about cricket really. because any fool can simply say that someone like mohammad sami is a quality bowler but failed at the test match level because he didnt have the right temperament. when the fact was that he was a rubbish bowler, just like salisbury.

It isn't convenient at all - convenient for you, yes, because you can claim their falsity, but not for me.

it is, because you can get away with something like, i read so and so article 10 years ago and because they agree with me, i must be right.

1\10th of the time in your estimation, of course.

or in any person's estimation, anyone who of course isnt trying to save his argument

Funnily enough most of the time your apparrent superiority is due to astonishing ability to put your opinion across as fact.
You have managed to find other accounts to back you mainly in the cases of pitch-condition.
Yes, and the two Hick ones above..

yes and its fairly obvious to anyone that what the experts say is far more likely to be right than you are, let alone if its backed up by multiple experts.

Or rather, it's whether it caused him to get out.
And most of the things weren't reports - they were simple quotes. Simon Hughes' analysis of Hick's technique on the third day of England-Zimbabwe in 2000, for instance.

oh what test match?

Not to mention Gary Kirsten, Stephen Waugh et al who you've repeatedly told me have a weakness against the short-ball but it doesn't get them out.

yes and how many times did i mention the fact that they played around their weakness on most occasions just like hick did?
the fact is that bevan didnt.

 

[tooextracool]

No, you just can't see how it can happen.

possibly because you cant explain convincingly why it can happen. simply saying that someone stopped doing the right thing after 3 years of success is ridiculous.

Except that the whole World doesn't go against me - even MCJ and CMJ themselves have mentioned Hick's weaknesses with the short-ball on air, even if these two articles suggest they've thought of other possibilities.

oh im sure they have. yes apparently they write contradictory stuff in their articles.

 

[Richard]

if you ask anybody who knows anything about cricket really. because any fool can simply say that someone like mohammad sami is a quality bowler but failed at the test match level because he didnt have the right temperament. when the fact was that he was a rubbish bowler, just like salisbury.

It's not impossible that Sami's problem is temperament not ability.
But he's not had the sustained domestic success Salisbury has, so really I've come to the conclusion that he's just not got the basic ability.

it is, because you can get away with something like, i read so and so article 10 years ago and because they agree with me, i must be right.

No, there's no must about it at all - in fact there's no "agree" - it's simply that certain things have helped shape my perception.

or in any person's estimation, anyone who of course isnt trying to save his argument

Or in anyone who's not had the chance to study the situation, but who has instead relied on assumption or other data (such as different highlights).

yes and its fairly obvious to anyone that what the experts say is far more likely to be right than you are, let alone if its backed up by multiple experts.

Except that none are any more expert than you or me.

oh what test match?

First Test - only one that was shown live on C4 - the other one was on Sky, so SH didn't have the scope.
He was comparing Hick and Stewart's footwork.

yes and how many times did i mention the fact that they played around their weakness on most occasions just like hick did?
the fact is that bevan didnt.

Yes, I realise that Bevan didn't.
And the thing is, of course, Hick didn't play around it on "most" occasions, but merely in what equated to less than 40% of his career.

 

[Richard]

possibly because you cant explain convincingly why it can happen. simply saying that someone stopped doing the right thing after 3 years of success is ridiculous.

Why?
Because you find it inconceivable.
Perhaps you should explain convincingly why it can't happen? Rather than just "it's ridiculous".

oh im sure they have. yes apparently they write contradictory stuff in their articles.

Or rather perhaps they realise there is more than one possibility.