Disappointing players

[Link]

you can quite easily go through 10 balls with a few singles and 2s. IMO that was his major flaw, in that if he got a period of slow scoring he couldnt resist trying to do something stupid to change the situation without even waiting for the right ball.

thats a matter of opinion, but look , i aint backing Blackwell here

 

[sledger]

thats a matter of opinion, but look , i aint backing Blackwell here

yes backing him would be rather unwise, after all he isnt exactly what i would define as a great player, in fact hes barely a player of the sport in any sense,

 

[vic_orthdox]

one can most definently have a weakness - technical or physical - concerning the short ball and still not go out to it. the preying on the mind that a short ball might be coming can cause slow feet, hard hands, etc. that cause a batsman to be dismissed. much like warne getting out cullinan, who undoubtedly encountered trouble with the flipper, but was more often dismissed by warne by more standard deliveries.

 

[tooextracool]

thats a matter of opinion, but look , i aint backing Blackwell here

yes we might disagree on a trivial thing, but the overall point is that blackwell was rubbish and shouldnt come near an english side again.

 

[tooextracool]

one can most definently have a weakness - technical or physical - concerning the short ball and still not go out to it. the preying on the mind that a short ball might be coming can cause slow feet, hard hands, etc. that cause a batsman to be dismissed. much like warne getting out cullinan, who undoubtedly encountered trouble with the flipper, but was more often dismissed by warne by more standard deliveries.

the thing is that hick never had too many problems with the short ball, his success at the domestic level and at the international arena for a brief period shows that.

 

[Mister Wright]

the thing is that hick never had too many problems with the short ball, his success at the domestic level and at the international arena for a brief period shows that.

I remember Hick giving Gillespie 'what for' when Gillespie tried to bounce him out in Perth. Hit a quick fire 60 IIRC, and Gillespie got hammered.

 

[Richard]

Public libraries?

No, a library in my own back room.

 

[Richard]

its quite impossible to have a weakness against the short ball and yet be dismissed far more often by pitched up deliveries. you havent watched half his career, so lets just say that you know nowhere near as much as i do.

I haven't watched them live, no. Maybe I don't know as much as you, but equally maybe I do.
Why is it not possible, though? The ball that gets the wicket against it's name isn't the be-all-and-end-all where batsmen are concerned.

 

[Richard]

which doesnt affect bowlers over extensive periods of time. its quite impossible for a bowler to go through 15 tests without a single good one unless hes rubbish, which salisbury undoubtedly was.

And Salisbury, at international level, was rubbish - because of a poor temperament. Not because of lack of skill.
Of course poor temperament can affect bowlers - it's all about the ability to avoid the massive step-up in audience creating pressure. Those with the right temperament can do that; those without it feel pressure where those with the good temperaments don't.
It doesn't matter whether you're in a one-mistake-and-you're-done situation or a bowler-like one. You've still got to avoid feeling unneccessary pressure.

 

[Richard]

I remember Hick giving Gillespie 'what for' when Gillespie tried to bounce him out in Perth. Hit a quick fire 60 IIRC, and Gillespie got hammered.

And he did similar things in the period of 1994-1995\96.
But he didn't do it before or after.

 

[sledger]

yes we might disagree on a trivial thing, but the overall point is that blackwell was rubbish and shouldnt come near an english side again.

yes i agree, he is very poor, a disgrace some might say.

 

[Langeveldt]

yes i agree, he is very poor, a disgrace some might say.

???!!

Okay then.. What, do you think he deserves shooting?? Tell you what, he is going out with a neighbour of mine, and she is.. schwooaar... Her second pro cricketer as well..

 

[sledger]

unfortunately this does not conceal the fact (or fortunately as it may be) that he is a player of a very poor standard

 

[tooextracool]

I haven't watched them live, no. Maybe I don't know as much as you, but equally maybe I do.
Why is it not possible, though? The ball that gets the wicket against it's name isn't the be-all-and-end-all where batsmen are concerned.

because theres no way someone like you could have watched most of the whole games from the last decade, certainly if you were to state something like it was the build up that exposed his weakness, even though he didnt get out to it, you would have had to have watched every ball of every(or most) hick games.
and i personally think the closest you ever came to knowing anything about hick was by reading match reports, and i wouldnt mind it if you went back and looked at the match reports to see whether or not his dismissal was a consequence of good short bowling.
with regard to the final comment, if someone has a weakness against some particular kind of bowling, it is expected that he gets out more to that type of bowling than any other. it is inconceivable for someone who say has a weakness against spin to get out more often to pace bowlers, simply because there was a spinner bowling at the other end at the same time.

 

[tooextracool]

And Salisbury, at international level, was rubbish - because of a poor temperament. Not because of lack of skill.
Of course poor temperament can affect bowlers - it's all about the ability to avoid the massive step-up in audience creating pressure. Those with the right temperament can do that; those without it feel pressure where those with the good temperaments don't.
It doesn't matter whether you're in a one-mistake-and-you're-done situation or a bowler-like one. You've still got to avoid feeling unneccessary pressure.

no salisbury was rubbish period. bowlers dont suffer from temperament, as i have said about 1 million times before, it is impossible for a bowler to bowl as badly as salisbury for an extended period of time unless he doesnt have the necessary skill. unlike a batsman where you only get so many chances in a game, the difference for a bowler is that you can get hammered for 6 4s, and can still come back the next over(or a few overs later) and still get the batsman out. for someone to not be able to show the required skill for 100 balls(at least?) per test in over 15 tests is unheard off.

 

[tooextracool]

And he did similar things in the period of 1994-1995\96.
But he didn't do it before or after.

and you can prove to me that his dismissals pre 94 and post 96 were a consequence of short pitch bowling cant you?
even you cant come up with a good enough explanations as to how someone who has such an apparent weakness against the short ball can succeed against quality bowling attacks and overcome this weakness for a period of more than 2 years. its all magic i presume?

 

[Richard]

no salisbury was rubbish period. bowlers dont suffer from temperament, as i have said about 1 million times before, it is impossible for a bowler to bowl as badly as salisbury for an extended period of time unless he doesnt have the necessary skill. unlike a batsman where you only get so many chances in a game, the difference for a bowler is that you can get hammered for 6 4s, and can still come back the next over(or a few overs later) and still get the batsman out. for someone to not be able to show the required skill for 100 balls(at least?) per test in over 15 tests is unheard off.

No, it's not unheard of, there are some who have done it, including Salisbury.
The difference as a bowler is being hammered can knock the stuffing out of you and you can fail to have the neccessary temperament to shrug that off.
To say that bowlers cannot be affected by poor temperament is quite ludicrous.

 

[Richard]

and you can prove to me that his dismissals pre 94 and post 96 were a consequence of short pitch bowling cant you?
even you cant come up with a good enough explanations as to how someone who has such an apparent weakness against the short ball can succeed against quality bowling attacks and overcome this weakness for a period of more than 2 years. its all magic i presume?

I highly doubt it's magic, but as you yourself have shown not all weaknesses invariably result in low scores.
For a time, Hick's didn't - for the rest of the time either side, it did.

 

[Richard]

because theres no way someone like you could have watched most of the whole games from the last decade, certainly if you were to state something like it was the build up that exposed his weakness, even though he didnt get out to it, you would have had to have watched every ball of every(or most) hick games.
and i personally think the closest you ever came to knowing anything about hick was by reading match reports, and i wouldnt mind it if you went back and looked at the match reports to see whether or not his dismissal was a consequence of good short bowling.
with regard to the final comment, if someone has a weakness against some particular kind of bowling, it is expected that he gets out more to that type of bowling than any other. it is inconceivable for someone who say has a weakness against spin to get out more often to pace bowlers, simply because there was a spinner bowling at the other end at the same time.

Why?
It is perfectly conceivable that someone might play a false stroke to a seamer because of the effect a the presence of a spinner has had. Or, indeed, that they might play a false stroke because they've been "softened-up" by the short-ball.
No, I didn't watch every ball of every Hick innings before 1998 (pretty much have done since) but I did watch some brief highlights and read a lot of accounts, and all of it has led me to the conclusion that Hick's flat-footed technique got him into trouble against the short-ball and caused him to fail by playing poor strokes.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it's not unheard of, there are some who have done it, including Salisbury.
The difference as a bowler is being hammered can knock the stuffing out of you and you can fail to have the neccessary temperament to shrug that off.
To say that bowlers cannot be affected by poor temperament is quite ludicrous.

no bowlers can be affected by temperament only for a short period of time. for a bowler to be affected for every spell in every one of his 25 innings is simply ludicrous.
and equally no bowler can get hammered in every inning they bowl especially when they get the chance to bowl on turners, unless they simply lack the ability, because batsman can only keep attacking you on turners, only if you arent good enough.
in fact even salisbury had several occasions where he didnt get hammered and still failed to pick up wickets, such as against SA at lords in 94, against pakistan at lords in 96, against SL at the oval in 98, against pakistan in lahore in 00, and pretty much in every other match in that series, again in each of those games he was rubbish despite getting the chance to settle down.