Dravid goes to number 1 in test ratings

[Richard]

Why then, do you talk like you have no idea what actually happens on a field!? If you've never played the game, but based your thoughts on reading and watching cricket there's next to no chance you'd know more about it than someone who has played at the top level. This doesn't mean that everyone who has played at a high level knows everything about the game mind you.

No, you can learn every bit as much by watching as playing - possibly even more, because you've not got to concentrate on yourself.
I have plenty of idea of what happens on a field - because I've watched things happen, countless times.

 

[Richard]

That didnt make ANY sense.
If its 'completely understandable' to get fooled by a straight delivery while the previous 50 have been jagging around, i dont see why it isnt 'completely understandable' to get fooled by a slower delivery (say 83mph) when the previous 50 have been consistently 90mph or above.

I've disputed that where?
All I've said is that the mistake made by mis-picking the pace rarely results in wickets, the "mistake" in playing what turned-out to be the wrong line very often does.

You obviously havn't watched much cricket if you think the slower delivery isnt a wicket-taking delivery.
I would suggest you watch Walsh in the mid-late 90s onwards when his well-concealed slower delivery was the primary wicket-taking delivery of his.
I would also suggest that you watch Akram bowling in the death overs (ODIs) or Tests(in general) and see just how many of his wickets are from the slower ball. You will find quiete a few.
I would also suggest that you watch Kapil Dev in action in the mid-80s when the slower delivery and his outswinger were the primary wicket-taking deliveries in his arsenal.

You think I haven't?
And you think I also haven't noticed that they all took far more wickets by swinging (or in Walsh's case seaming and cutting) the ball?

 

[Richard]

I beg to differ. I think its plenty of dementia to be frank. But then again, self-praise is the last bastion of the egotistic fools, or so said someone.

You would - but you have no clue of the situation, you do not know what research I have conducted. Nor, seemingly, do you grasp basic truths.

Like i said, the human eye isnt good at precise calculations (with respect to velocity or trajectory) but it is quiete good at 'relative speed' guaging. Ie, you cannot tell if a car that zoomed by was going at 85mph or 88mph but you can very well tell which one is the slower car, given that one goes past at 85mph and the next at 82mph.

No, you can't - no human eye can possibly tell the difference of 3mph. It's quite conceivable that the slower one might seem quicker, we see it countless times, because of other factors.

And there are plethora of reaons why bowling on average can conceivably be slower than it became in the post 70s era( by average i dont mean the absence of a superfast bowler but rather, the number of superfast bowlers in any given timeframe or the mean average bowling speed of the field,broken down by type-specific bowling).

For one, try getting your mind around the fact that bowling is a HIGHLY complex action that requires astounding precision and coordination of muscles. Its not just running in and hurling the ball. If that were so, the strongest bowlers would almost always be the fastest bowlers.
The fact that there were no coaches back then, or atleast, coaches with even remotely of the same callibre as the ones we've had for a few decades is a decisive reason. The reason you see many 'weird' bowling actions that are totally amatuerish in old tapes and shows is a direct reason of that.

For two, try getting your mind around the fact that nutrition in the early 1900s/late 1800s was nowhere CLOSE to the 70s/80s/90s/2000s etc. standard and neither were rehabilitation therapy.

And you've never seen weird actions result in incredibly fast bowling? Because I sure have. And you've never seen people without good diets bowling quickly?

if you dont think that 'constant length' means 'identical deliveries', then i see no reasoning behind your comment : " Any doubt created by constant length is unreasonable."

The reasoning is that you can't possibly say it's reasonable to be unable to deal with a fullish ball just because a load of recent ones have been shortish, you shouldn't be premeditating the length, but playing each ball as you see it.

It *IS* based on statistical research.
There is always more than what meets the eye and Ambrose/McGrath are prime examples of that.
I've TALKED to players personally who've faced McGrath and they all tell you one thing :
That after Wasim Akram, McGrath has the most variety and variations in his bowling.

Variations in what, I wonder? Pace, movement, length, line? Some, obviously, some, obviously not.
There are variations a batsman can spot better than a spectator. Equally, there are some the other way around.

The fact that his current ball moves 3cm away while his previous one moved 3cm in is enough of a movement to create doubt and trouble in the mind of batsmen.

Clarrie Grimmett wasn't a big spinner of the ball. Anil Kumble isnt a big mover of the ball.
Curtley Ambrose wasnt a big mover of the ball and neither is Ambrose.
Yet they are/were all highly successful. Why ? because their variations are subtle and gets the job done.

Ambrose wasn't a big mover of the ball? McGrath isn't? (I'm presuming that second Ambrose is supposed to be McGrath) Dunno what you've been watching.
No, McGrath isn't a big mover of the ball on non-seaming wickets, but that's why he's not very good on them - because 3cm will barely be noticed, it's so easy to adjust to. Look at deliveries that have moved 3cm - nearly all hit virtually the full face of the bat.

 

[C_C]

You would - but you have no clue of the situation, you do not know what research I have conducted. Nor, seemingly, do you grasp basic truths.

I think you are the one displaying an inability to grasp basic truths. And its irrelevant as to what research you've conducted. Self praise *IS* the last bastion of the egotistically idiotic ones. you are building quiete a case for yourself in that category.

No, you can't - no human eye can possibly tell the difference of 3mph. It's quite conceivable that the slower one might seem quicker, we see it countless times, because of other factors.

Medically, you can tell consistently the difference of 3mph. And the slower one might seem quicker to US. because we are seeing it from a totally different trajectory and angle, not to mention we have an element of parallax involved.
The batsmen dont have the parallax problem and when you are batting you DO know which one is quicker. Ask a player to stand where the batsman is and rate deliveries as quicker or slower than the previous/next one while confirming with a speedgun. The accuracy you will find is quiete impressive.

And you've never seen weird actions result in incredibly fast bowling? Because I sure have. And you've never seen people without good diets bowling quickly?

I am not talking on an individual level. I am talking on a collective level. and no, collectively a weirder action and inferior nutrition will give you a slower mean bowling speeds.

The reasoning is that you can't possibly say it's reasonable to be unable to deal with a fullish ball just because a load of recent ones have been shortish, you shouldn't be premeditating the length, but playing each ball as you see it.

Your reasoning is inconsistent ( not to mention, ridiculous). I still fail to see why premeditating the length is any worse than premeditating the movement.

Variations in what, I wonder? Pace, movement, length, line? Some, obviously, some, obviously not.
There are variations a batsman can spot better than a spectator. Equally, there are some the other way around.

There are no variations a spectator will spot BETTER than a close in fielder or a batsman.
The players who've faced McGrath ( and like i said, some of them i've talked to personally are international level players who are quiete successful) are on record saying that he has the most variations of any pacer in the last 10-15years barring Akram. Something i agree with, having watched McGrath bowling in the nets.

Ambrose wasn't a big mover of the ball?

Ambrose was NOT a big mover of the ball. I've seen Ambrose bowl throughout the 90s and he didnt move the ball much at all.

No, McGrath isn't a big mover of the ball on non-seaming wickets, but that's why he's not very good on them - because 3cm will barely be noticed, it's so easy to adjust to. Look at deliveries that have moved 3cm - nearly all hit virtually the full face of the bat.

Again, i say, you have NO CLUE.
a 1cm movement is enough to fox a batsman. Thats all it takes to induce an edge or for the ball to miss the bat.

Not to mention, you are factually incorrect- as batsmen have one of the least level of success consistently middling McGrath's deliveries compared to other bowlers, not to mention, Kumble as well.

 

[C_C]

All I've said is that the mistake made by mis-picking the pace rarely results in wickets, the "mistake" in playing what turned-out to be the wrong line very often does.

You obviously havn't seen many Michael holding, Waqar Younis ( early version), Imran Khan(80s), Thommo or even Alan Donald dismissals.
Not to mention, you are completely incorrect about mispicking the pace of the ball.
Walsh, Kapil, etc. THRIVED on it.

You think I haven't?

You either havn't or you didnt understand it at all. Otherwise you wouldn't be comming up with such ridiculous ideas.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It's not possible for a ball to be straighter than you thought - unless, of course, it moves, or unless you've made the crass error of premeditating your stroke, leaving a ball having already decided before it's bowled that it's not going to be straight.
And as for slower-balls - yes, of course I know that the best way is to bowl it with the same action (not easy to do of course), but that doesn't change the fact that changes of pace rarely get wickets, the most common thing is to induce a false stroke.

When on Earth have I said that?
All the instances you name are good bowling.

Again - when on Earth have I said that this isn't good bowling?

Yes, and believe it or not I do.

If you do, then why so much evidence to the contrary.

A lot of what I mentioned above relates to how McGrath bowls, so if he's 'lucky' I presume you think that's bad bowling.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yes, you do indeed.
You don't, however, if you reckon McGrath is adept at the tactic (or was in the 2001-2004 period) on flat pitches.
In our recent correspondances you've devoted a whole lot of time telling me that something is good bowling which I already know is good bowling.
Why?

Because in your posts you seem to lose your grasp on what's good bowling and put it down to luck. You also seem to judge each ball individually without taking into account what's happened before....how exactly does McGrath bowl differently on flat decks? His line would be similar, his length would be similar in that allows for a ball coming through at top of stump height (obviously not the same length as a wicket with bounce, but the attempted result would be the same), he obviously wouldn't move it as often on a wicket that doesn't invite seam, it requires more patience and variation on flat wicket - something McGrath is an expert at using. Your posts seem to suggest he's a bit of a one trick pony, whether this is intentional or not. Do you pick up the subtle variations a bowler uses when you're watching on TV Richard? The use of the crease? The small amounts of movement they actually are able to pick up? Contrary to your belief that you have to move the ball large amounts, moving it both ways off the seam negates the need for massive amounts of movement even more so.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, you can learn every bit as much by watching as playing - possibly even more, because you've not got to concentrate on yourself.
I have plenty of idea of what happens on a field - because I've watched things happen, countless times.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. If you've never played cricket you have no idea how the concepts you seemingly understand work in practice. You won't understand how easy/difficult it is to achieve something you see on TV, or how you approach certain situations in a match. I know you do play, which makes some of this stuff all the more mystifying.

In a game I'm concentrating on what has to be done to get a certain batsman out, etc etc, and you learn from this. You're not simply concentrating on yourself, if you are then you have problems.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've disputed that where?
All I've said is that the mistake made by mis-picking the pace rarely results in wickets, the "mistake" in playing what turned-out to be the wrong line very often does.

You think I haven't?
And you think I also haven't noticed that they all took far more wickets by swinging (or in Walsh's case seaming and cutting) the ball?

I think that you'd have to look at the percentages though, i.e. the % with regards to the number of times a slower ball took a wicker vs any other ball. They bowl stock balls, like seam and swing, more often than a slower ball so you'd expect they'd take more wickets with them.

 

[Son Of Coco]

You would - but you have no clue of the situation, you do not know what research I have conducted. Nor, seemingly, do you grasp basic truths.

No, you can't - no human eye can possibly tell the difference of 3mph. It's quite conceivable that the slower one might seem quicker, we see it countless times, because of other factors.

And you've never seen weird actions result in incredibly fast bowling? Because I sure have. And you've never seen people without good diets bowling quickly?

The reasoning is that you can't possibly say it's reasonable to be unable to deal with a fullish ball just because a load of recent ones have been shortish, you shouldn't be premeditating the length, but playing each ball as you see it.

Variations in what, I wonder? Pace, movement, length, line? Some, obviously, some, obviously not.
There are variations a batsman can spot better than a spectator. Equally, there are some the other way around.

Ambrose wasn't a big mover of the ball? McGrath isn't? (I'm presuming that second Ambrose is supposed to be McGrath) Dunno what you've been watching.
No, McGrath isn't a big mover of the ball on non-seaming wickets, but that's why he's not very good on them - because 3cm will barely be noticed, it's so easy to adjust to. Look at deliveries that have moved 3cm - nearly all hit virtually the full face of the bat.

Have you got the statistical research you conducted to back up the claim that nearly all deliveries that move 3cm hit the middle of the bat? Not every ball will move 3 cm in the same direction, not every ball will move 3cm, you make some assumptions about situations that stay constant in a frequently changing environment. It's possible for a delivery that moves 3 cm to take a wicket based on what has happened prior to that delivery.

 

[aussie]

Nope, the period I was talking about commences at The Oval 2001 and concludes at The 'Gabba in 2004\05.

does it make much of a difference, ur point is still totall garbage

 

[honestbharani]

I agree with Richard.....


McGrath is not a good bowler at all......

















I mean Anthony McGrath

 

[tooextracool]

I agree with Richard.....


McGrath is not a good bowler at all......

















I mean Anthony McGrath

well he does average 14 with the ball in tests

 

[honestbharani]

well he does average 14 with the ball in tests

He Does?



There is something about that name then....... Maybe Pathan and Zaheer should look at changing their names........ Irfan McGrath doesn't sound bad, does it?

 

[tooextracool]

He Does?



There is something about that name then....... Maybe Pathan and Zaheer should look at changing their names........ Irfan McGrath doesn't sound bad, does it?

then they'd only get lucky wickets

 

[honestbharani]

then they'd only get lucky wickets

As long as he actually GETS wickets.....

 

[Richard]

does it make much of a difference, ur point is still totall garbage

Of course it makes a difference, I am perfectly right in saying what I'm saying about that period; I've never said anything about the period before because I don't know enough about it.

 

[Richard]

Have you got the statistical research you conducted to back up the claim that nearly all deliveries that move 3cm hit the middle of the bat? Not every ball will move 3 cm in the same direction, not every ball will move 3cm, you make some assumptions about situations that stay constant in a frequently changing environment. It's possible for a delivery that moves 3 cm to take a wicket based on what has happened prior to that delivery.

It is, and it's far more likely that it won't. I've analysed plenty of deliveries, as many as I could get my hands on, that moved two or three centimetres (in both directions) and hardly any of them caused any problems.

 

[Richard]

I think that you'd have to look at the percentages though, i.e. the % with regards to the number of times a slower ball took a wicker vs any other ball. They bowl stock balls, like seam and swing, more often than a slower ball so you'd expect they'd take more wickets with them.

Which simply shows that slower-balls are bowled lots and lots less (there's a good reason they're bowled less, too - if you bowl a slower-ball too often it becomes highly predictable) - and so it's a better idea to try sideways-movement than change-of-pace.

 

[Richard]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. If you've never played cricket you have no idea how the concepts you seemingly understand work in practice. You won't understand how easy/difficult it is to achieve something you see on TV, or how you approach certain situations in a match. I know you do play, which makes some of this stuff all the more mystifying.

In a game I'm concentrating on what has to be done to get a certain batsman out, etc etc, and you learn from this. You're not simply concentrating on yourself, if you are then you have problems.

Yet you should only worry about what you can and can't do; the last thing you want to do is try to play outside your limitations.
There are certain tactics that work for some players; there are certain tactics that are very effective against pretty much anyone (eg the ball that pitches leg from wide of the crease and hits off).
Of course it's incredibly difficult to achieve something you see players do at the high levels; if it wasn't all you'd need to do would be try and you'd be able to do it.
And of course you can understand how certain match-situations work by watching them unfold - every bit as well as you can by playing them.
There are many fine commentators on the game who've never played to any real level.