If you were a lesser player for the bulk of your career, you are not good enough in my books.Or it could imply that you were a lesser player from a point onwards.
Which is why players are not usually found out atleast 3-4 yeas from their debut eh ?No, it takes good analysis, which can be done by watching maybe 4 or 5 innings or bowling spells.
Irrelevant. those 'seam friendly conditions' are where Botham grew up and as such, is home territorry to him.And of course Imran and Kapil batted in exactly the same seam-friendly conditions as Botham?
First hand knowledge is far more insightful and develops the emotional and intellectual understanding that second or third hand knowledge doesnt.Or unless you've read his excellent descriptions of it.
By a slight amount ?No, it's just by a slight amount the most important aspect.
Do open your grammar book and the dictionary and check the meaning of the word 'never'.No, I just don't like people trying to "prove wrong" by making silly wordplay when it's exceptionally obvious that "never" hardly ever means "never" and almost invariably means "rarely if ever" or similar.
Its not for you to deciede how thin or how thick my cause is.No, it's just something you'd prefer existed because you need it to further your exceedingly thin cause.
That is NOT how the mind works.Except that judging riding a bike or anything such as that is utterly different to judging speed of a small ball.
If someone faces someone 10 years apart misperceptions are far, far more likely than not.
because my whole contention was that RSA/NZ/IND etc. were worthless for the first 15-20 years of their existance. You sought to dispute that by stating how good RSA was in the 30s or 40s...something that is irrelevant to the comment i've made initially.Why not? I clearly never referred to their first 15-20 years of international cricketing existence. I'd presume it was you that tried bringing that in.
Or it could underscore that an illicit tactic was used in that one series.
What got people crying 'unfairness' was the fact that batsmen were getting mauled.So why, then, was the leg-side field banned? Indeed, what was the point in it being set at all?
What got people crying "unfairness" was the fact that it was being used in a way never used before - and as a result it was far, far more effective than it had ever been with Root or anyone bowling it at the domestic level.
Unless you think that every successful cricketer in that era was a superbody, it is stupid to claim that it only involved the superbodies.It did indeed, more often than not at least.
Nonetheless the fact remains that it is not irrelevant that all the prevolant examples are superbodies - it demonstrates that this sort of match-fixing did not have any effect on the making of good players.
Irrelevant.You really need to learn to read - I am perfectly well aware of everything you have stated here. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that in Britain there's not been any increase in popularity for a long time.
Fact is, even with a large dip in popularity the game still will still have a massive fan-base that will retain it's status as a nationally recognised entity.
its not that rare. And i see no credit deserved for achieving it at the start of one's career and then failing to recapture it for the rest.And with that he is extremely rare, and deserves credit for that.
Actually given that most self opinionated idiots have never travelled more than a few hundred miles from their homes, it does make sense why there is so much verbal diarrea in humankind and utterly idiotic perspectives widely prevalent.If everyone believed you had to travel to experience there'd be no point in anyone doing anything, really.
THe trough is very relevant- because the player needs the peak and the trough to define how good they were. Else a player with 2-3 years of blazing brilliance sandwiched between years of mediocrity is as good as someone who had blazing brilliance for 2-3 years sandwiched between good performances.The trough isn't really relevant, given that it had little to do with a waning in ability or, contrary to some beliefs, a better combatting of that ability.
That anyone could outstip a batting average of 37 and a bowling average of 20, meanwhile, is extremely doubtful.
Every comedown is influenced by factors.Some get old, some get injured and some lose the magic touch.Depends - if the comedown is influenced by factors while the lack of comedown in others are not present it can be perfectly fair.
Which is why you will probably forever remain an idiot with very little clue as to how the world operates,runs and how humanity conducts itself inside various cultural and regional realms.And Iike I said - I've no wish to travel.
I'm more than happy with the "outlets" I trust, thanks.
ULEAC, the most prevalent board in britain, subscribes to the marking scheme i am alluding to.Maybe with some Boards - certainly not those that I've looked into.
All standards are relative. If i define the standard to be 'university level', then all highschools are substandard.I do, because while they may be of a lower standard than University, they're categorically not substandard.
Statistics spell out the bottomline and the biggest part of the story. As such, the intangiables cannot outweigh the tangiables for me.Even when there are clearly many factors in cricket that cannot be defined by statistics?
Statistics tell a lot as long as you use them properly, but the fact is there are things that you cannot use them to interpret.
You can analyse Smith all you want, and see his clear limitations.marc71178 said:Except when the batsman is G Smith of course...
Bloody hell!PY said:Without doubt, the longest page I've ever seen on CW in 30 months. I'm so glad I've got broadband.
(I have it on 40 posts per page by the way and that is one LONG argument, the last 40 posts amounted to 51 full pages of A4 paper [I'm bored ] ))
(Opens popcorn)Richard said:Bloody hell!
When stone meets stone, eh?
I'm certainly not giving-up any time.
Oh, indeed, in mine too.C_C said:If you were a lesser player for the bulk of your career, you are not good enough in my books.
Kambli was found-out after a handful of Tests - Adams wasn't found-out either, he just had faced 2 exceptional bowling-attacks in his last 2 Test-series. Stackpole I haven't a clue because I haven't taken a decent look.Which is why players are not usually found out atleast 3-4 yeas from their debut eh ?
Jimmy Adams, Vinod Kambli, Keith Stackpole, etc. all were found out after the initial years.
And sometimes people do play a few innings in various conditions.Primarily because it takes a few years for a side to notice you and really work you out- or atleast, thats how it used to be. And a few innings is simply not enough to figure you out, as you need to play for a while in various different conditions.
So? Being home territory doesn't make difficult conditions easily playable.Irrelevant. those 'seam friendly conditions' are where Botham grew up and as such, is home territorry to him.
As any good exponent of swing can.Besides, West Indies fast bowlers wernt really seamers - their bread and butter was immaculate control, brutal pace, awkward bounce and moving the ball in the air. The one genuinely dabbling in swing was Holding and Marshall and both of em could swing it anywhere on this planet.
And Botham only played in West Indies during the time when he was a good batsman once, in which he was shockingly poor.In west indies- when the conditions were just as foreign to all three, Kapil averaged 2x with the bat and Imran 1.5x with the bat compared to Botham.
He failed miseably against the best of the best - that is different from having a drop in your performance due to excellent opposition.
Except you haven't got any first-hand knowledge of most of what Atherton experienced - you don't even seem to have any grasp of precisely what it was.First hand knowledge is far more insightful and develops the emotional and intellectual understanding that second or third hand knowledge doesnt.
But there were many other contributing factors, none of which you grasp.By a slight amount ?
That has gotto be the biggest understatement i've read on this board.
The fact that his back problem was acute and was the central aspect of his day-to-day life makes it the most important and defining aspect of his life by a large margin.
Yes, and I was wrong to not place everything in a totally bulletproof case.Do open your grammar book and the dictionary and check the meaning of the word 'never'.
Never is a definite negetive- not a subjective negetive involving various degrees.
Which is why people QUALIFY it with 'mostly never' or 'hardly ever' when they mean to imply that.
When you say 'never has this been done' and someone throws up an instance it was, you were wrong. Thats categoric, since never doesnt involve degrees to it. Its definitive!
You'll find that the majority got bored long ago.Its not for you to deciede how thin or how thick my cause is.
And it is not according to my preference- it is according to my interpretation of the facts.
Something you are free to dispute but you'll find that the majority do not.
And footballing quality is totally different to speed of a cricket ball, there are so many wider, more ambiguous things that come in.That is NOT how the mind works.
Whenever you face someone who is unusual in an aspect, your mind remembers because he/she is different from the rest.
If you faced Pele even ONCE in your life, you'd remember the quality of the play like it was yesterday- because it was different. same goes with unusual men from any walk of life.
If you faced Holding 20 years ago and now face Akhtar, you'd be very well placed to compare, since both men stand out in respect to their speed of bowling.
It all started with me mentioning how South Africa mostly competed with England and Australia, referring to the period from the 1910s onwards.because my whole contention was that RSA/NZ/IND etc. were worthless for the first 15-20 years of their existance. You sought to dispute that by stating how good RSA was in the 30s or 40s...something that is irrelevant to the comment i've made initially.
Never before, eh?What got people crying 'unfairness' was the fact that batsmen were getting mauled.
Not where the fielder was standing.
The primary criticism of bodyline was the short pitched bowling aimed at the torso of the batsmen.
As such, it is the fundamental crux of the philosophy.
Why did they ban the field setting ? because in short, they were idiots.
the field setting was an accessory to the act, not the central defining aspect of the act.
Do read the books on bodyline and player opinions. THe grumbling was from the fact that never before were batsmen targetted by short pitched bowling on to their torso.
Not where the fielders were standing.
Fieldig position is irrelevent in bodyline-both psychologically(as the grumblings and writings prove) as well as from the end result ( batsmen getting hurt/wickets falling).
Well I've yet to hear how it involved 90% of players.Unless you think that every successful cricketer in that era was a superbody, it is stupid to claim that it only involved the superbodies.
Yet they'd already established themselves and gained impressive stats - the fact that they managed to continue to do so doesn't actually matter.If practically 90% of good players indulged in that sort of activity, it leads to inflation of one's statistics artificially amongst the good players.
Does everything turn to amateur for you?Irrelevant.
My intial statement was that cricket had a largely amatuer following in the subcontinenet before the 70s. Do look up the meaning of the word 'amatuerish' and then realise that an amatuer following is quiete different from a serious following.
No, very few do it from the start, a few do it at the end and most do it in the middle.its not that rare. And i see no credit deserved for achieving it at the start of one's career and then failing to recapture it for the rest.
it simply is a matter of happenstance - some do it early on, some do it mid career and some do it near the end.
You'd think all society was on the brink of collapse, wouldn't you?Actually given that most self opinionated idiots have never travelled more than a few hundred miles from their homes, it does make sense why there is so much verbal diarrea in humankind and utterly idiotic perspectives widely prevalent.
Neither of them affect the brilliance of the peak - the peak is equally brilliant whatever surrounds it.THe trough is very relevant- because the player needs the peak and the trough to define how good they were. Else a player with 2-3 years of blazing brilliance sandwiched between years of mediocrity is as good as someone who had blazing brilliance for 2-3 years sandwiched between good performances.
Botham's waning figures were due to his waning performance - not to people getting a better idea of how to combat ability which remained the same.And i thought your entire contention early on was that Botham's waning figures were due to his waning ability- his fitness shot to pieces and him allegedly unable to bowl certain deliveries anymore.
Do make up your mind.
And as such Sobers and Miller were clearly better batsmen because, in general, they were playing sufficiently often in comparably difficult conditions.Amongst quality allrounders, there are quiete a few who outstripped or match a batting average of 37 and bowling average of 20 during the same period. Most notably, Imran Khan, Sobers and Miller.
All of them had far better troughs than Botham.
And "losing the magic touch" and basic being-worked-out (which are fairly similar) are something which affects a player's standing in my eyes.Every comedown is influenced by factors.Some get old, some get injured and some lose the magic touch.
Its all 'to-MAY-toes' and 'to-MAH-toes' to me.
If it's so fine why do you even bother suggesting I "change".Which is why you will probably forever remain an idiot with very little clue as to how the world operates,runs and how humanity conducts itself inside various cultural and regional realms.
Fine by me!
University Of London Examinations And Assessment Council is actually not a remarkably commonly-used Board, OCR, EdExcel and AQA to name three are much better-known.ULEAC, the most prevalent board in britain, subscribes to the marking scheme i am alluding to.
No, they're just of a lower standard.All standards are relative. If i define the standard to be 'university level', then all highschools are substandard.
And because there are so many intangibles that affect the tangibles that's why you fall down sometimes.Statistics spell out the bottomline and the biggest part of the story. As such, the intangiables cannot outweigh the tangiables for me.
You seriously view this as theatre?luckyeddie said:(Opens popcorn)
He was a lesser player for most of his career. 5 years of sunshine...9-10 years of doghouse.Oh, indeed, in mine too.Just that Botham wasn't a lesser player for most of his career - he was a good batsman for pretty much 2\3 of it.
Kambli was found out after 2-3 years and Adams was found out categorically so. He didnt just run into two great attacks and bombed out against them- those two attacks exposed his weakness that almost every other team consistently exploited from then on.Kambli was found-out after a handful of Tests - Adams wasn't found-out either, he just had faced 2 exceptional bowling-attacks in his last 2 Test-series. Stackpole I haven't a clue because I haven't taken a decent look.
Umm. Read a few more cricket books. Botham was figured out primarily by batting outside the crease to negate his swing. He lacked a decent yorker or a shorter one to make them step back in.And sometimes people do play a few innings in various conditions.
If it was certain conditions that Botham was worked-out in, meanwhile, I wonder why no-one ever mentioned how they'd done it.
You'd think 66 Tests of success, however, might be enough to demonstrate that someone can't be worked-out, though.
yes it does it make it easier relatively, because you have more experience in dealing with the conditions.So? Being home territory doesn't make difficult conditions easily playable.
Irrelevant.As any good exponent of swing can.
Fact is, there are conditions that make mere high pace and bounce awkward, too, if there are enough bowlers bowling it.
If you think all of them were no harder to play on a green seamer than a featherbed, meanwhile, think again.
Incorrect. He played WI twice during his 'purple patch' of pre early 80s days and sucked ********.And Botham only played in West Indies during the time when he was a good batsman once, in which he was shockingly poor.
Doesn't prove a tremendous amount.
That he failed in 1985\86 didn't say anything we don't know already.
I have a far bigger grasp of what atherton went through compared to you because i was in similar condition personally.Except you haven't got any first-hand knowledge of most of what Atherton experienced - you don't even seem to have any grasp of precisely what it was.
Irrelevant. The central defining aspect was his back problem, something i can intimately identify with, unlike you.But there were many other contributing factors, none of which you grasp.
When people want to make a statement that has a degree associated with it, they make it plain. And if they dont and are corrected, they are humble and quick enough to accept their mistake, instead of being an **** and trying to fight about it.Yes, and I was wrong to not place everything in a totally bulletproof case.
Something that, with most people, won't matter.
With someone who's desperately flailing around for any mistake they can clutch at, it does matter.
here you go again with your narcissistic delusions of grandeur. What the majority thinks or for the matter, any other individual thinks, is not for you to claim but for them to voice.If they did check, though, they'd find, as I do, that there are no faults where you've said there are.
They may not be able to tell you who bowled the fastest delivery amongst the two, but anyone who's faced them both would be able to tell you who was faster on average.Both Holding and Shoaib stand-out, indeed, but as to who was faster - Shoaib might have been a bit quicker, they might have been a slight difference.
Read again- i made a claim how south africa were the bangladesh of their times and you disputed it.It all started with me mentioning how South Africa mostly competed with England and Australia, referring to the period from the 1910s onwards.
No one had bowled a sustained spell of short pitched bowling with the legstump line targetting the body of the batsmen before bodyline.Never before, eh?
You think no-one had ever bowled sustained spells of short-pitched bowling?
it involved nearly 90% of the good/great players. Read up on your own time- the evidence is pretty categoric.Well I've yet to hear how it involved 90% of players.
ofcourse it does matter. If this was the same setting, Andrew Strauss would be involved in matchfixing and performance fixing...which would affect most of his career in the future.Yet they'd already established themselves and gained impressive stats - the fact that they managed to continue to do so doesn't actually matter.
The loss is yours if you havnt heard of 'amatuer following'.Does everything turn to amateur for you?
I've never heard something as ridiculous as an amateur "following" - fact is a following is either keen or it's not.
Pure happenstance. It doesnt matter where your peak is. What matters is how your peak compares to the rest and how your trough compares with the rest.No, very few do it from the start, a few do it at the end and most do it in the middle.
It's pretty unusual - and very credible - for anyone to achieve in Test-cricket from their first forays.
Collapse or not is irrelevant. It is quiete f*cked because a lot of people with very little clue(like yourself for example) think that their viewpoint is the correct one that describes this world accurately.ou'd think all society was on the brink of collapse, wouldn't you?
Without the balanced perspective of overall career and the troughs to define the peaks, nobody has any claims to greatness, for a lot of people have performed for that one brilliant moment and if taken a calculus perspective- where only the peak matters, one can arguably say that everybody who's cracked a century is pretty much as good a batsman as another, for during one's peak ( the solitary century spanning a solitary test), he was as good as any.Neither of them affect the brilliance of the peak - the peak is equally brilliant whatever surrounds it.
The overall career is what is concerned with the examples you have given - and frankly I couldn't give a flying fu<k about the 1984-1991 Botham because I don't think it said anything other than that he was being affected by injury.
it was because of both. Batsmen took to batting outside the crease to Botham and Botham lost it from then forth.Botham's waning figures were due to his waning performance - not to people getting a better idea of how to combat ability which remained the same.
BS.Imran, on the other hand, more often had far easier conditions.
I agree with the last part of the statement but i maintain that Botham was worked out to a large degree with batsmen batting outside the crease to him.And "losing the magic touch" and basic being-worked-out (which are fairly similar) are something which affects a player's standing in my eyes.
Being injured and getting old is something which has no effect in my eyes.
I was trying to be of some nominal help- obviously that wont happen.If it's so fine why do you even bother suggesting I "change".
You can keep you banal and downright pathetic views of my "clue as to how the world operates,runs and how humanity conducts itself inside various cultural and regional realms" if you want, I don't really care.
It is the second most common board after EdExcel and oh by the way- EdExcel uses similar marking schemes.University Of London Examinations And Assessment Council is actually not a remarkably commonly-used Board, OCR, EdExcel and AQA to name three are much better-known.
Substandard is something that is eclipsed by a higher standard.No, they're just of a lower standard.
Substandard is only applicable if something is involved in a certain level when not good enough to be there - eg Bangladesh in ODIs.
Judging by the tangiables always gives a more accurate picture than judging by the intangiables.And because there are so many intangibles that affect the tangibles that's why you fall down sometimes.
Richard said:You can analyse Smith all you want, and see h
Yes, and it's something that has happened.