Disappointing players

[marc71178]

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.

In an hour?

And I guess they also show every run scored as well.

 

[marc71178]

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

Of course it's not convenient for you, because it shows you to be as ill-informed as it is becoming increasingly apparent you are.

 

[tooextracool]

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

err you need to explain convincingly why it can happen, there is no need for me to explain why something thats never happened cant happen. its like saying that its literally going to rain cats and dogs tomorrow, i mean its never happened but who is to say it wont?

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

except that they didnt actually say anything of the sort.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

and of course when players like hick have succeeded at the domestic level they clearly cant have a weakness in temperament..

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 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).

and given that anyone whos watched every ball of hicks career is almost certainly likely to be right your claim is simply useless.

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

perhaps not, but 2 other me's or 2 other you's that back my opinion make me certain to be right.

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 after he hammered 101 against them. and where have i said that hick had brilliant footwork? im simply saying that the footwork was good enough for him to succeed at the test level.

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.

no he played around it for most of his career, he couldnt play around his other weakness i.e temperament though.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

no you watch what you think are flat wickets and ignore whatever you hope isnt, such as your ignoral of both india tours.

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.

a year and there? if they had 3 years of success, it doesnt matter whether they came consecutively or not, it matters that they had the same success you know. it can be said that salisbury was just forunate enough to have 3 years here and there after which his rubbish actually showed up? or that he didnt get a bunch of turning pitches during those years?

 

[tooextracool]

Which runs directly counter to the "I've watched more so I know more" stuff you've used countless times.

yes at least you figured that out.

I'm pretty good on highlights, believe me - and I think the extended ones do a pretty decent job more often than not.

as am i , even though i dont watch that much highlights. and im certain that no highlights actually show the buildup to every wicket.

 

[Richard]

In an hour?

And I guess they also show every run scored as well.

They hardly ever miss a boundary or a three, certainly.
And in three-hour highlights, of course, they almost never fail to show anything of significance.

 

[Richard]

Of course it's not convenient for you, because it shows you to be as ill-informed as it is becoming increasingly apparent you are.

Yes, of course it does.
Be interesting to find-out how it does.

 

[Richard]

err you need to explain convincingly why it can happen, there is no need for me to explain why something thats never happened cant happen. its like saying that its literally going to rain cats and dogs tomorrow, i mean its never happened but who is to say it wont?

Except there is a reasonable scientific explanation as to why it won't.
There is no such thing as to why a player can't play around a weakness for 3 years and not for the time either side.

except that they didnt actually say anything of the sort.

No, you just don't believe they did.
The one I remember most clearly, having watched the day's highlights about a million times, is Mark Nicholas' comment after Hick uncomfortably Hooked Walsh for four last ball before Tea at Lord's on the third-day in 2000: "And they'll go to Tea with the lovely little boost of a boundary from a batsman who historically has had trouble with the short-ball but has taken it on".

 

[Richard]

and of course when players like hick have succeeded at the domestic level they clearly cant have a weakness in temperament..

Why not?
To play well at the domestic level requires a different temperament to that required to play well at the international.

anyone whos watched every ball of hicks career is almost certainly likely to be right

No, anyone who's watched almost all the significant deliveries of Hick's career is almost every bit as likely to be right.

perhaps not, but 2 other me's or 2 other you's that back my opinion make me certain to be right.

No, they make you more likely.
They do not make it certain.

yes after he hammered 101 against them. and where have i said that hick had brilliant footwork? im simply saying that the footwork was good enough for him to succeed at the test level.

Except when it got him into trouble against the short-ball.
It didn't, of course, get him into much trouble against the fantastic medium-pace of Whittall, Mbangwa and Strang, nor the largely useless wristspin of Murphy. Nor against Streak who barely bowled a Bouncer all game.

 

[Richard]

no you watch what you think are flat wickets and ignore whatever you hope isnt, such as your ignoral of both india tours.

So I decide what to watch having looked at the pitch.
Well at least it provides a good summary of your misled interpretation of what cricket I watch.

a year and there? if they had 3 years of success, it doesnt matter whether they came consecutively or not, it matters that they had the same success you know. it can be said that salisbury was just forunate enough to have 3 years here and there after which his rubbish actually showed up? or that he didnt get a bunch of turning pitches during those years?

So having success in 1992, 1997 and 2001 and averaging 40 in all the seasons in between would be as worthwhile as doing very well in three consecutive seasons?
I can assure you not many people will agree with that.

 

[Richard]

as am i , even though i dont watch that much highlights. and im certain that no highlights actually show the buildup to every wicket.

Well I'm certain they do - given the number of packages I've watched where they do.

 

[bestfriendh]

heya

the name tht comes to my mind is mohamed sami.i remember seein him for the first time and i was like this guy has it in him to be the next waqar......he has the pace....variation.......maybe consistency is not quite there......anyways...he is not delivering even half of wat he is capable of......

 

[sledger]

hmmm sami hasnt been that dissapointing really ahs he?? hes still a regular in the side. regardless of that hes a mighty handy player to have in your side at times

 

[bestfriendh]

hey

hmmm sami hasnt been that dissapointing really ahs he?? hes still a regular in the side. regardless of that hes a mighty handy player to have in your side at times

well but still not performing to his full potential......

 

[sledger]

perhaps not but to say that he is a huge under achiever would seem a tad innacurate or unfair in my opinion, but if we are being critical....

 

[bestfriendh]

hi

yeah i do agree with ur opinion abt him not bein a true under achiever....juss tht....personally i expected a lot from him...

 

[tooextracool]

Well I'm certain they do - given the number of packages I've watched where they do.

except it wouldnt be highlights then, it would be the full game because it would take more than an hr.

 

[tooextracool]

So I decide what to watch having looked at the pitch.
Well at least it provides a good summary of your misled interpretation of what cricket I watch.

nope personally i really wonder how much cricket you actually watch since you almost solely rely on stats.

So having success in 1992, 1997 and 2001 and averaging 40 in all the seasons in between would be as worthwhile as doing very well in three consecutive seasons?
I can assure you not many people will agree with that.

why not? of course the same people who you go completely against whenever i use it against you must be looked at now. and i doubt they would anyways. because its just as conceivable that someone could have had turners for 3 consecutive years as it is that someone had them to have had gaps with 3 good years.

 

[cricket player]

well but still not performing to his full potential......

YOu need to read the thread from start to finish.
He just struggeld in australia but he has been consistentlay good with his bowling.

shahid afridi tops my list.