Disappointing players

[tooextracool]

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.

and the fact that he could play around that weakness suggests that it was not a weakness at all. dont you find it a little too stupid for someone to be able to avoid his weakness against the short ball for such a long period of time at the international level and in domestic cricket and then years later fall to that same weakness?

 

[Richard]

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.

Getting the chance to settle down isn't what I was referring to.
I was simply referring to the fact that he bowled very, very poorly because he couldn't deal with the pressures of international cricket. Sometimes he got attacked, which made it worse, sometimes he was allowed to bowl economically-ish without offering a threat.
Why is it ludicrous for a bowler to be affected for no more than a short time? It doesn't matter how many times you get the chance, you're not going to get any better at dealing with the pressure unless something changes in the mind - not really something we see too often.

 

[Richard]

and the fact that he could play around that weakness suggests that it was not a weakness at all. dont you find it a little too stupid for someone to be able to avoid his weakness against the short ball for such a long period of time at the international level and in domestic cricket and then years later fall to that same weakness?

No, I don't find it at all "too stupid" that someone can play around weaknesses sometimes and not at others.
I do find it very stupid that anyone could think otherwise, however.

 

[tooextracool]

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..

yes excpt it only happens on rare occasions. if he had a weakness against spin he would get out to the spinner far more often in those conditions than he would to a pace bowler.
just look at players who are relatively weak against spin. adam gilchrist when he played in india in 00/01 was dismissed by a spinner in every inning, when he played in SL he was dismissed by a spinner 4 times and on his most recent tour to india he was dismissed by a spinner in every game.
same goes with someone named robin smith who was dismissed by a spinner in every game that he played in the sub continent.

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.

and given that on most occasions highlights dont give you the build up for the wicket, there is absolutely no way you can even make a claim such as it was because of the short balls that got him to get out to the pitched up balls. certainly there is no way someone like you who hasnt watched a single full game of greame hick pre 98 can possibly know as much as someone whos watched every one of them.

 

[tooextracool]

Getting the chance to settle down isn't what I was referring to.
I was simply referring to the fact that he bowled very, very poorly because he couldn't deal with the pressures of international cricket. Sometimes he got attacked, which made it worse, sometimes he was allowed to bowl economically-ish without offering a threat.
Why is it ludicrous for a bowler to be affected for no more than a short time? It doesn't matter how many times you get the chance, you're not going to get any better at dealing with the pressure unless something changes in the mind - not really something we see too often.

the pressure of international cricket is something that you can only be affected for a couple of games at the most. its certainly impossible for someone to be affected by the pressure for 15 games. do you realise that such a claim can be made for every worthless bowler who couldnt succeed at the international level do you?
salisbury was rubbish at any level of the game, he was brought up to the international level and he continued to deliver the same rubbish and was therefore dropped.

 

[tooextracool]

No, I don't find it at all "too stupid" that someone can play around weaknesses sometimes and not at others.
I do find it very stupid that anyone could think otherwise, however.

tripe, this really is another one of your desperate claims. you cant explain the reason for his success both at the domestic level and at the international level and thus must simply let it go down as magic, even when it wasnt.

 

[Richard]

yes excpt it only happens on rare occasions. if he had a weakness against spin he would get out to the spinner far more often in those conditions than he would to a pace bowler.
just look at players who are relatively weak against spin. adam gilchrist when he played in india in 00/01 was dismissed by a spinner in every inning, when he played in SL he was dismissed by a spinner 4 times and on his most recent tour to india he was dismissed by a spinner in every game.
same goes with someone named robin smith who was dismissed by a spinner in every game that he played in the sub continent.

Yep, all these cases show one thing - that it happens on rare occasions for certain bowlers to cause problems and wickets to go to other bowlers.
It does not show that problems caused by certain deliveries (often from the same bowlers) cannot cause wickets to fall to other deliveries.

and given that on most occasions highlights dont give you the build up for the wicket, there is absolutely no way you can even make a claim such as it was because of the short balls that got him to get out to the pitched up balls.

On many occasions they don't, no.
On some of the occasions I've seen highlights of they show quite clearly that some short-balls have caused him problems and he's then played a poor stroke.
Yes, on some others he's simply been beaten by swing and seam like everyone is sometimes.

certainly there is no way someone like you who hasnt watched a single full game of greame hick pre 98 can possibly know as much as someone whos watched every one of them.

No, there isn't.
I can, however, know something.

 

[Richard]

tripe, this really is another one of your desperate claims. you cant explain the reason for his success both at the domestic level and at the international level and thus must simply let it go down as magic, even when it wasnt.

No, you're the only one who's mentioned magic.
I've simply said I think people play around weaknesses sometimes and not at others.
You, who don't like this, label it a desperate claim, same way you've resorted to with quite a few other things.

 

[Richard]

the pressure of international cricket is something that you can only be affected for a couple of games at the most. its certainly impossible for someone to be affected by the pressure for 15 games. do you realise that such a claim can be made for every worthless bowler who couldnt succeed at the international level do you?
salisbury was rubbish at any level of the game, he was brought up to the international level and he continued to deliver the same rubbish and was therefore dropped.

So rubbish was he that in 3 consecutive seasons he took 148 wickets at 20.71 (in 1998, 1999 and 2000). Salisbury most certainly was not rubbish at the domestic level (well, he by-and-large has been from 2001 onwards, but he hasn't played any Tests in that time so it doesn't actually matter much).
He was, however, rubbish at the international - because he couldn't cope with the pressure and bowled nothing like as well as he did at the domestic.
If it's impossible for someone to be affected by pressure for 15 games, why, then, did Hick get affected for something like 40 games or so? Because according to you, that's what he did.
Poor temperament can affect anyone for any number of games and you know it.
You do not, however, seem to know that Salisbury was one of those.

 

[tooextracool]

Yep, all these cases show one thing - that it happens on rare occasions for certain bowlers to cause problems and wickets to go to other bowlers.
It does not show that problems caused by certain deliveries (often from the same bowlers) cannot cause wickets to fall to other deliveries..

no it shows that salisbury had his chances to settle down, but since he was complete tripe he still couldnt get wickets. this is what you initally stated "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."
then you looked to try and find something else to save face after your beloved domestic success just turned to be a completely useless no skilled player at the international level.

On many occasions they don't, no.
On some of the occasions I've seen highlights of they show quite clearly that some short-balls have caused him problems and he's then played a poor stroke.
Yes, on some others he's simply been beaten by swing and seam like everyone is sometimes..

yes and since they dont show you enough about the build up to the wicket its quite obvious that you cant make such a claim about something that you dont know anything about.

No, there isn't.
I can, however, know something.

the only thing that you know about hick is what happened after 98, what happened before that is what you rely on match reports for. and im certain that even those wouldnt show that hick struggled with the short ball often.

 

[tooextracool]

No, you're the only one who's mentioned magic.
I've simply said I think people play around weaknesses sometimes and not at others.
You, who don't like this, label it a desperate claim, same way you've resorted to with quite a few other things.

and because no one can play around a weakness for 2 years at the international level and in every year of his domestic career and then struggle with this weakness for the rest of his international career, it must only be explained by magic.

 

[tooextracool]

So rubbish was he that in 3 consecutive seasons he took 148 wickets at 20.71 (in 1998, 1999 and 2000). Salisbury most certainly was not rubbish at the domestic level (well, he by-and-large has been from 2001 onwards, but he hasn't played any Tests in that time so it doesn't actually matter much)..

and what in the blue hell makes you think that i give a **** about what salisbury did at the domestic level? i couldnt care less about whether he took wickets against a bunch of county pros, but from what i saw off him in domestic cricket he would bowl rubbish balls and still get wickets, which really only shows me how great our domestic system was, not to mention their ability to play spin.

He was, however, rubbish at the international - because he couldn't cope with the pressure and bowled nothing like as well as he did at the domestic.
If it's impossible for someone to be affected by pressure for 15 games, why, then, did Hick get affected for something like 40 games or so? Because according to you, that's what he did.
Poor temperament can affect anyone for any number of games and you know it.
You do not, however, seem to know that Salisbury was one of those.

and what part of temperament does not affect bowlers for extended periods of time do you not understand?
all it takes for a batsman to get out is one mistake, just one moment of fear, indeed all it takes is to have at the back of your mind that if you failed you could very well be dropped from the side and face it hick was faced with that pressure for a very large part of his career. then 1 bad shot can result in the end of the innings, even if he had batted for 40 balls before that with full concentration and without any poor strokes. see he had done well for 40 balls and then had 1 bad ball and as a result had failed
salisbury on the other hand had about 100 balls per innings. even if he was rubbish for 50 or so, i find it hard to believe that if he was as skilled as you make him out to be, he would have struggled to pick up wickets with the other 50 balls.

 

[Richard]

no it shows that salisbury had his chances to settle down, but since he was complete tripe he still couldnt get wickets. this is what you initally stated "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."
then you looked to try and find something else to save face after your beloved domestic success just turned to be a completely useless no skilled player at the international level.

Then you tried once again to manipulate what I'd said into "you said that so you can't augment it".
For "being hammered" simply read "not getting wickets" - most people actually mean the same thing.
This seems pretty familiar. We weren't even talking about Salisbury here, we were talking about Hick - you create expanded, unneccessary parts by bringing-in stuff which is debated elsewhere.

yes and since they dont show you enough about the build up to the wicket its quite obvious that you cant make such a claim about something that you dont know anything about.

And it's quite obvious that I know far from anything.
Not as much as you? Maybe. Nothing? Wrong.

the only thing that you know about hick is what happened after 98, what happened before that is what you rely on match reports for. and im certain that even those wouldnt show that hick struggled with the short ball often.

Well I'm more than certain they do.
Seriously, I've never heard anyone claim Hick didn't have trouble with the short-ball before... same way I never heard anyone claim Lara didn't lose sight of the two Flintoff balls at Edgbaston and Old Trafford.

 

[Richard]

and because no one can play around a weakness for 2 years at the international level and in every year of his domestic career and then struggle with this weakness for the rest of his international career, it must only be explained by magic.

And because no-one can... because you say they can't.
And because you say they can't, that means they can't.
No matter that they actually can and, in some cases (such as this) did.

 

[Richard]

and what in the blue hell makes you think that i give a **** about what salisbury did at the domestic level? i couldnt care less about whether he took wickets against a bunch of county pros, but from what i saw off him in domestic cricket he would bowl rubbish balls and still get wickets, which really only shows me how great our domestic system was, not to mention their ability to play spin.

This from the one who claimed he never saw any domestic cricket.
Sorry, you don't get those sorts of figures over a three-year period without bowling pretty well - having watched the odd one of those games, I can tell you that beyond all question.

and what part of temperament does not affect bowlers for extended periods of time do you not understand?

All of it - you, however, seem not to understand the "it does" bit.

all it takes for a batsman to get out is one mistake, just one moment of fear, indeed all it takes is to have at the back of your mind that if you failed you could very well be dropped from the side and face it hick was faced with that pressure for a very large part of his career. then 1 bad shot can result in the end of the innings, even if he had batted for 40 balls before that with full concentration and without any poor strokes. see he had done well for 40 balls and then had 1 bad ball and as a result had failed
salisbury on the other hand had about 100 balls per innings. even if he was rubbish for 50 or so, i find it hard to believe that if he was as skilled as you make him out to be, he would have struggled to pick up wickets with the other 50 balls.

I find it perfectly conceivable.
If someone's bowling rubbish for half the time it's highly unlikely they'll bowl any better the other half.
I am perfectly well aware of the differences in situational factors between batting and bowling, but nonetheless poor temperament can have an effect on both.
Failure breeds failure. You have a poor temperament - you start poorly. You start poorly, the feelings caused by your poor temperament are exaggerated; you then continue to bowl poorly. And so on.

 

[steds]

*looks at length of posts*

*buggers off back to off topic*

 

[Richard]

'T'was inevitable, eventually.
Uneasy lack-of-large-50-quote-posts could last only so long.

 

[SupaFreak2005]

Franklyn Rose
Nixon Mclean

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The Freak has found CC. He's got a point though. Both named I'd agree with.

 

[godonnygo]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned him before but MATTHEW ELLIOTT. One of the HUGEST disapoointments ever. He's clearly one of the top 10 strokeplayers the world has seen, but his luck in Tests is just so bad. Watch him in the Pura Cup and he's a gun, but in Tests, against weaker opponents, he can't get his mental state right.

Also Abdur Razzaq. He's an exciting player and only averages 28 with the Test bat and 37 with the Test ball.