England 30 man squad for icc championships

[marc71178]

You cannot prove it is fact that wickets in themselves slow the rate.

So the fact that it happens in just about every game is a mere coincidence?

 

[marc71178]

It is ludicrous only because you do not wish a Ramprakash failure to have any mitigation.
If you actually watched the ball-by-ball footage, you'd see it.
Sadly I doubt you have any.

It is impossible for a pitch to change so drastically from one ball to the next and then stay that way.

 

[Richard]

So the fact that it happens in just about every game is a mere coincidence?

Except that it doesn't happen.
In improvement in accuracy slows run-rates very regularly, sometimes that improvement in accuracy comes after a wicket.
Sometimes, equally, it doesn't. In fact, sometimes the two happen the other way around.
Indeed, you've admitted as such when you've tried to argue that the one-day game's scoreboard-pressure also applies in the First-Class-game.

 

[Richard]

It is impossible for a pitch to change so drastically from one ball to the next and then stay that way.

Yes, of course it's impossible.
Except that the change wasn't so drastic as you seem to be suggesting - it hadn't seamed much on the whole third-day, but there were still occasional balls that seamed.
Ramprakash's dismissal was the last seaming ball of the match, believe me, I watched every ball with attention-to-detail.

 

[marc71178]

Indeed, you've admitted as such when you've tried to argue that the one-day game's scoreboard-pressure also applies in the First-Class-game.

So yet again, something that happens countless times is written off as not happening then?

You were the one that said there is no greater judge of the game than the game itself (I assume you actually think that that is a distant second to you though)

Pressure happens, and wickets fall because of it - a notable example is being discussed on here at the moment re: Giles and SRT...

 

[Richard]

So yet again, something that happens countless times is written off as not happening then?

What, wickets falling in the First-Class game because the batsman feels under pressure due to a slow scoring-rate. No, it does happen, I've never denied that. I've just said it doesn't happen far, far more frequently than it does. Mostly, batsmen don't pressurise themselves because of a slow scoring-rate and comfort themselves in the knowledge that slow runs are better than no runs.
In fact, bowlers often fail to keep-up accuracy for long periods so you get the chance to up the scoring-rate anyway.

You were the one that said there is no greater judge of the game than the game itself (I assume you actually think that that is a distant second to you though)

Believe it or not, I actually make my judgements on... yes... what happens in the game.

Pressure happens, and wickets fall because of it - a notable example is being discussed on here at the moment re: Giles and SRT...

Oh, yes, pressure happens, and wickets fall because of it. But far more often, situations that supposedly invariably cause pressure happen, no pressure is in fact felt, and no wickets fall as a result.
The Giles-Tendulkar-Foster stumping I'd dispute was anything to do with SRT feeling pressure, more frustration at someone implanting such an outrageous tactic and getting away with it for a while, then someone coming in (Sehwag) and making a mockery of it.

 

[marc71178]

So it wasn't pressure, it was frustration

 

[tooextracool]

In spite of the fact that Das and Ramesh both earnt their chances by cashing-in on the weak attacks they faced, whereas Chopra hasn't, he's just had Sehwag to do it for him.

and how many times must it be said.....the attacks that chopra faced were far better than the attacks that das and ramesh faced.

 

[tooextracool]

And perhaps that's because there have been as few good big-turning wristspinners in the last 30 years as there have been in the game's history.

gee i wonder why?perhaps theres a conenction with the number of good finger spinners declining in the last 30 years?

Barnes, Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud, Abdul Qadir, Warne, Murali. Anil Kumble is a wristspinner but he doesn't spin it any more than a fingerspinner.
So you can see that there are no bowlers except Warne and Murali that you would expect to show that wristspinners can bowl on any surface.

barnes, grimmett, o reilly and benaud all played in the era of uncovered wickets, so to use them in your argument is stupid. qadir averaged more than 45 outside home so that should suggest something. murali as ive said earlier is not an orthodox wrist spinner and cant be considered part of the group and id like to see times when warne actually bowled well without help from the pitch and the batsmen......

 

[tooextracool]

Come on Hals, you must have noticed by now that tooextracool regularly says things were different to how they were.
Some things (like that Ealham did bowl in the first 15 overs most of the time) can be shown beyond all question, with things like the pace of wickets, we who are correct must simply reside in our knowledge.

oh this coming from someone that said"the pitch started seaming and swinging all over the place when ramprakash came into bat and then stopped seaming as soon as he got out"
incidentally i managed to watch some highlights off that 1st test match and guess what, one again our very own richard distorts the facts.
the ball that got ramprakash had much to do with his inept batting rather than brilliant bowling.....if you would have indeed watched that game you would have seen that ramprakash could indeed have left that ball alone, it was a short delivery that cut in a bit but was still sufficiently wide outside off stump. yet however our brilliant ramprakash managed to poke at the ball and dragged it onto the stumps.
of course that had a lot to do with the bowling ability of chris drum didnt it?

 

[Swervy]

Kumble spins the ball no more than a routine fingerspinner, and I never saw Qadir bowl except the odd ball from the Gatting-Shakoor Tour in real-time, so I can't really tell how much he spun the ball.
I'd guess, though, that he didn't spin it much more than Kumble given how unimpressive his record outside the subcontinent is.

you guess wrong..Qadir could spin the ball a lot.

then again, there does appear to be a lot of guess work in what you say Richard

 

[tooextracool]

The India attack Ramprakash failed against was certainly far better than the West Indies one earlier this year; it was also as good as the South African and Sri Lankan one, including as it did Srinath, Kumble and Harbhajan who all, like it or not, got conditions to their favour in the series.

once again you try to conveniently distort facts to suit yourself.....if indeed you had watched the series in india you would have seen that in the first test srinath didnt even play and the pitch was completely flat.so ramprakash got to play 2 debutants,both of whom struggled to make it into the side after that and yet managed to fail. in the 2nd test when england managed to score 407 and even foster cashed in ramprakash failed again. in SL however vaughan had to play time and time again in spinner friendly conditions against the best spin bowler in the world and he still came out with the best average from the english side and averaged 5 runs more than what ramprakash did in india....but of course in ramprakash's case it is OK but in vaughans case it is failure!
incidentally the attack that vaughan played in the WI was just about as good as the attack that vaughan played in NZ so i see how you've conveniently ignore that as well.

Yes, Vaughan didn't do badly overall, but there was a century in the first, last and middle innings of the sequence. If you take it from the 2nd South Africa innings to the penultimate West Indies innings, he in fact passed 50 twice (in the same game), which is not very impressive.

oh yes 2 can play at this game.....
if you look at ramprakash from the first ashes test match to the end of his career, you will see that he passed 50 only twice as well....incidentally in the same number of tests as vaughan

 

[tooextracool]

Not better than I expected. The minute I saw Banks turning the ball in the Lord's first-innings - off the pitch, of course, disproving any silly theories that it was only turning out of the footholds - I was almost certain that Giles would be a big threat. Similar thing in the Second Test.
Any fool could see how incredibly slow the First Test wicket was, and the Second was every bit as slow as a routine subcontinent wicket.
But Giles, like any decent fingerspinner, proved that turn is all you need - however slow and low the surface, you can still be a threat.

this is total rubbish. anyone who watched the first test would have seen that the only 'considerable turn' came from the footholds rather than from the pitch and the 2nd test pitch was actually a lot quicker than the first test pitch.

 

[tooextracool]

Oh, yes, they were dangerous - well, Vettori was, but that was no surprise to me, given how much the pitch was turning.

this is starting to get really annoying now. im about as certain as certain can be about the perth wicket and it didnt offer any turn at all. as i have shown earlier the cricinfo match report came up with this "The bowling of Daniel Vettori (6/87) was of an electrically high standard, his flight and guile impeccable in relatively unhelpful conditions. "
for you to come here and make false claims like this to suit yourself is just plain ridiculous let alone insulting the finest performance of daniel vettori. ask anyone else who watched that match on here and they'll tell you the same.

 

[tooextracool]

Ramprakash's dismissal was the last seaming ball of the match, believe me, I watched every ball with attention-to-detail.

no it was not,it was a short ball that was easily negotiable.....

 

[Richard]

and how many times must it be said.....the attacks that chopra faced were far better than the attacks that das and ramesh faced.

Rubbish - the averages of the bowlers Chopra's faced are, sometimes with a little internal examination, very, very poor indeed, not purely not quite Test-standard.

 

[marc71178]

You mean a little removing of good performances to suit your argument?

 

[Richard]

Nope, not at all, otherwise I'd just take away every ball that had a wicket against it's name. That would be selective.
As it is, I've taken away things that aren't comparable - for instance, if things only happened at the start, on extremely seamer-friendly wickets (Oram), or if there is an extremely obvious difference in a figures when wickets suit seam and when they don't, or if the series was against a team palpably nowhere near the standard of Test-cricket.

 

[Richard]

So it wasn't pressure, it was frustration

So, translated, this basically is intended to mean "pressure and frustration are the same thing".
Which is very much not true. Sometimes frustration can cause a person to feel under pressure, but not in this case.
It was very obvious that Tendulkar was getting fed-up of someone bowling somewhere where he had no chance whatsoever of scoring in an orthodox manner, and watching someone at the other end play extraordinarily dangerous shots and watch them come-off.
So he tried to emulate Sehwag and failed.

 

[Richard]

no it was not,it was a short ball that was easily negotiable.....

It was a shortish ball, yes, but it was no more than stomach height and it seamed back.
While he wouldn't have got into trouble if he hadn't tried to force it, the fact is if it hadn't seamed it would probably have shot through the covers for four, and judging by what followed there'd probably have been plenty more to add to that, Ramprakash would probably have scored about 110-120 and he'd probably still be in the side now.