Disappointing players

[tooextracool]

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.

which relies on a player forgetting how to do something, which is quite imposssible.

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".

yes and ive said that he didnt have trouble with it havent i? how many times do i have to say it? just like kirsten, waugh etc, he worked around it.

 

[tooextracool]

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

yes hence hicks problems were temperamental.

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

oh so now you;ve watched every significant ball of his career havent you? just by watching every highlights from hicks international career, how unlikely is that?

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

they are certain anyways, my claim about hick isnt guesswork, which is what you rely on. and the fact that is backed up by several people only proves that.

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.

no but it would have got him into problems when he played all those SA and australian attacks from 93-95 and most certainly would have gotten him in trouble if he had a problem against it when he scored the 172 against the WI(who largely bowled short anyways) for his domestic side.

 

[Nate]

ahh its pages like this me hates.

 

[tooextracool]

and its not like you were going to contribute to the thread anyways.

 

[Richard]

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

Even three-hour highlights aren't the whole game.

 

[Richard]

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

Because there is almost invariably some stat that displays a reflection of some aspect of the game - that's why people use them.

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.

And given that Salisbury doesn't need turners to get good figures, he just needs to bowl well, that's not relevant.
The fact is, Salisbury bowled well for those 3 seasons in succession, which is a better achievement than bowling well for 3 seasons in isolation.
And yes, the same people that I go completely against whenever you use them - because no-one will agree with everyone on everything, and just because you disagree with someone on some topic doesn't mean you can't agree with them on another.

 

[Richard]

which relies on a player forgetting how to do something, which is quite imposssible.

No, it just relies on them doing it sometimes and not others.
Batting is not about forgetting and remembering, it's about instinct - things happen too fast for you to think about your shots.

yes and ive said that he didnt have trouble with it havent i? how many times do i have to say it? just like kirsten, waugh etc, he worked around it.

Except that he regularly let it affect him just after, unlike them.

 

[Richard]

yes hence hicks problems were temperamental.

Except it's possible to play at the domestic level and not have technical faults exposed, too - doesn't happen all that often, but it does happen. There weren't many bowlers going around at English domestic level who could bowl at high pace with any real semblence of accuracy, were there (Devon Malcolm and Andre Van Troost were about the best - which sums the thing up quite well).

oh so now you;ve watched every significant ball of his career havent you? just by watching every highlights from hicks international career, how unlikely is that?

No, never said I watched every significant ball, did I? Just that I've watched plenty significant stuff, enough to make-up my mind with some validity.

they are certain anyways, my claim about hick isnt guesswork, which is what you rely on. and the fact that is backed up by several people only proves that.

And the fact that mine is backed-up by several people too means?
Any claim is guesswork - we can never know for certain what caused Hick's problems at Test-level. The fact that he certainly had the temperament for ODIs, too, has some impact on my thinking, whereas faults with the short-ball can't be used to the bowler's advantage in the ODI game.

no but it would have got him into problems when he played all those SA and australian attacks from 93-95 and most certainly would have gotten him in trouble if he had a problem against it when he scored the 172 against the WI(who largely bowled short anyways) for his domestic side.

And of course no-one can play the odd breakout innings (such as the 172 in 1988 IIRR).
It would not have got him into problems in 93-95 if he played around it, of course.

 

[marc71178]

And given that Salisbury doesn't need turners to get good figures, he just needs to bowl well, that's not relevant.

So how did he get so many chances for England then?

 

[Nate]

and its not like you were going to contribute to the thread anyways.

sorry, just trying to get some variety happening

 

[Richard]

So how did he get so many chances for England then?

He bowled on turners plenty of times - and failed as badly as on non-turners.
The pitch-conditions aren't relevant.

 

[marc71178]

Because he quite simply wasn't good enough.

 

[crickey]

Steve McGill

 

[crickey]

lol opps Stuart...maybe it has something to do with Warney trying to shag his mrs

 

[tooextracool]

Except it's possible to play at the domestic level and not have technical faults exposed, too - doesn't happen all that often, but it does happen. There weren't many bowlers going around at English domestic level who could bowl at high pace with any real semblence of accuracy, were there (Devon Malcolm and Andre Van Troost were about the best - which sums the thing up quite well)..

except that he succeeded against the likes of hughes, mcdermott, donald, ambrose, walsh,marshall(in tour game on a green wicket), bishop(in prime), devilliers, fleming, pollock etc all of whom were capable of exposing absolutely any weakness especially the short stuff.

No, never said I watched every significant ball, did I? Just that I've watched plenty significant stuff, enough to make-up my mind with some validity.

yes you watched so much of it in fact that your initial theory was that hick always failed against quality bowling attacks

And the fact that mine is backed-up by several people too means?
Any claim is guesswork - we can never know for certain what caused Hick's problems at Test-level. The fact that he certainly had the temperament for ODIs, too, has some impact on my thinking, whereas faults with the short-ball can't be used to the bowler's advantage in the ODI game.

err backed up by invisible people doesnt count. or saying that you read somewhere 10 years ago that he was suspect against the short ball. if he had problems with the short ball he would have been dismissed by it frequently, something which he clearly wasnt.

And of course no-one can play the odd breakout innings (such as the 172 in 1988 IIRR).
It would not have got him into problems in 93-95 if he played around it, of course.

err breakout innings arent consistent performances series after series for 3 years in a row. he played around it for all his career. the fact is that hick often played stupid strokes, spooning shots to mid off, flicking balls to square leg and not moving his feet and getting absolutely plum. such problems can only be temperamental.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it just relies on them doing it sometimes and not others.
Batting is not about forgetting and remembering, it's about instinct - things happen too fast for you to think about your shots.

instinct doesnt just 'happen' for 3 years in a row and then suddenly just disappear again for the rest of your career.

Except that he regularly let it affect him just after, unlike them.

except that he didnt. he played poor strokes to just about any kind of delivery after 95, because of his poor temperament.

 

[tooextracool]

Because there is almost invariably some stat that displays a reflection of some aspect of the game - that's why people use them.

yes except that you choose to ignore them whenever you want to(such as the stats that point out that hick was bowled, lbw and caught so often as opposed to being caught.

And given that Salisbury doesn't need turners to get good figures, he just needs to bowl well, that's not relevant..

why does he not need turners to bowl well? the fact is that any bowler bowls better on turners than he does on non turners. and salisbury is no different, except that hes too poor to pick up wickets on non-turners.

The fact is, Salisbury bowled well for those 3 seasons in succession, which is a better achievement than bowling well for 3 seasons in isolation.
And yes, the same people that I go completely against whenever you use them - because no-one will agree with everyone on everything, and just because you disagree with someone on some topic doesn't mean you can't agree with them on another.

why is it a greater achievement? you still havent explained why? the fact is that its quite possibly that he got plenty of turners in all of those 3 years and hence improved his record. the fact that he was rubbish for the rest of it suggests that he was rubbish.

 

[tooextracool]

Even three-hour highlights aren't the whole game.

yes and since highlights are 1 hr, theres no way they can possibly show such detail for every wicket.

 

[MattO]

Merv Hughes sorted out Hick in 1993. I don't think it was a weakness as such in his game. He just wasn't mentally strong.

Of the Aussie players mentioned:

Mark Waugh: My favourite ever player. His ODI record is one of the best of all-time. He should have averaged higher but his record in scoring 100's when others struggled around him was impressive. He basically did his job rather than ruthlessly set out for personal records. Outstanding team player.

Matthew Elliott: He did well to play 21 Tests in the era of Taylor, Slater, Hayden and Langer. He was very lucky to get a Test call up when Slater was doing well and wrongfully dropped.

Andrew Symonds: He was lost in two minds when he played Tests. He should have played his natural game that saw him emerge as a world class ODI player during the 2003 World Cup. He has lost his chance now with Shane Watson there for the long-term.

One Aussie player who has been a disappointment has been Brett Lee. Massively hyped up by the media but since his opening 7 Tests has been very lucky to still be in the Aussie frame.

Former players who could have done better were David Hookes, Greg Matthews (bowling only - outstanding batting record) and Kim Hughes. Whilst Matthews never received serious support from Border, all three never really tried to make the sacrifices required for Test Cricket. Matthews from a personality front, Hookes batting and Hughes captaincy.

 

[tooextracool]

Merv Hughes sorted out Hick in 1993. I don't think it was a weakness as such in his game. He just wasn't mentally strong.
.

yes thats precisely the point. a lot of bowlers sorted out hick, because once he had problems against it he simply couldnt recover from it. more often than not he would have the softest dismissal possible to dismiss himself and having the axe above his head constantly didnt help either.