Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[Richard]

Please explain to me how McGrath and Pollock have been lucky, it's something I've been dying to hear for a while....

There is no pressure if a batsmen scores runs off you at a consistent rate, we've said that before.

What exactly is your experience Richard? I have a feeling that you're not very old, I know you haven't played a high level of cricket, your experience comes down to watching a lot of cricket on TV - so you're basically an armchair expert.

You can see how old I am if you want - look at my profile.
Yes, I'd class myself as an "armchair expert" - but I'd equally argue that there's nothing you can't learn by watching closely from the chair or the stand-seat that you can learn by watching from on the field.
And with regards your leading-line question: as far as I'm concerned, Pollock and McGrath - Pollock, of late (before the Sri Lanka series) a little less so than McGrath - are lucky because they get a large amount of poor strokes played against them when their bowling is unthreatening, something I've seen very few other bowlers have the sustained fortune of. Not that I've not seen them have it over a shorter period.

 

[Richard]

...used commonly by an infinite number of people in an infinite distribution of contexts, surely?

Depends whether you're exaggerating or not!

 

[Swervy]

No, it's got to do with the fact that he could bowl off-cutters and leg-cutters to order.
Funnily enough, that's the reason why comparisons between Harmison and Ambrose, which have happened for donkey's years, since the very first time I ever saw a televised match in which Harmison was bowling (Durham, 1999, Championship, can't remember the opposition), are a huge insult to the great West Indian. Hell, Harmison's not even as good at exploiting seam-movement as Ambrose was (not that many of the Test-pitches Harmison has bowled on have offered that much seam).

i do get the feeling that you think that anyone who played in that 2000 WI vs England series can do know wrong despite ist being a series to battle it out for the wooden spoon of world cricket...why is it an insult to compare Harmison to Ambrose , they are both tall, have similar actions..only Harmison is a bit quicker.
Ambrose most definately was a great, but he did improve throughout his career... allow Harmison similar space to improve, despite the fact he has had a bigger impact on international cricket much earlier on in his career than Ambrose did

And how can you really say Harmison is not as good as exploiting seam movement as Ambrose was, when in the same sentence you even say Harmison hasnt had the chance to do so...Ambrose really peaked as a bowler around 93 94 ish time, so was aged in his early 30's....Harmison has 5 years on him

 

[Son Of Coco]

You can see how old I am if you want - look at my profile.
Yes, I'd class myself as an "armchair expert" - but I'd equally argue that there's nothing you can't learn by watching closely from the chair or the stand-seat that you can learn by watching from on the field.
And with regards your leading-line question: as far as I'm concerned, Pollock and McGrath - Pollock, of late (before the Sri Lanka series) a little less so than McGrath - are lucky because they get a large amount of poor strokes played against them when their bowling is unthreatening, something I've seen very few other bowlers have the sustained fortune of. Not that I've not seen them have it over a shorter period.

If you truly believe that McGrath and Pollock get the results they do through luck then, as i've said before, maybe you don't pick up as much as you think from the couch. You need to combine your observations with a sound knowledge of the game, and in calling two of the better players of the current era "lucky" you don't seem to be doing this. Combining accuracy with consistently good seam position pretty much guarantees you at least a small amount of movement in quite a few different conditions. Just because you're not swinging the ball a foot doesn't mean nothing is happening. Where these two guys come into their own is that when there's no reall assistance for the bowlers they have their impeccable line and length to fall back on - and even on the worst track you're going to get a bit of movement here or there on occasions. They're definately not straight up and down bowlers, you have to move it quite a bit of the wicket, at decent pace, on a good line and length to get one past batsmen the caliber of whom generally play international cricket believe me.

 

[Son Of Coco]

i do get the feeling that you think that anyone who played in that 2000 WI vs England series can do know wrong despite ist being a series to battle it out for the wooden spoon of world cricket...why is it an insult to compare Harmison to Ambrose , they are both tall, have similar actions..only Harmison is a bit quicker.
Ambrose most definately was a great, but he did improve throughout his career... allow Harmison similar space to improve, despite the fact he has had a bigger impact on international cricket much earlier on in his career than Ambrose did

And how can you really say Harmison is not as good as exploiting seam movement as Ambrose was, when in the same sentence you even say Harmison hasnt had the chance to do so...Ambrose really peaked as a bowler around 93 94 ish time, so was aged in his early 30's....Harmison has 5 years on him

Is Harmison really quicker? Gee Ambrose seemed sharp at times...........(well, nearly all the time actually! haha)

 

[Swervy]

Is Harmison really quicker? Gee Ambrose seemed sharp at times...........(well, nearly all the time actually! haha)

I would say Harmison is on average 4 or 5 mph faster than Ambrose...certainly I doubt Ambrose ever got up to 96/97 mph like harmison did the other day

 

[Son Of Coco]

I would say Harmison is on average 4 or 5 mph faster than Ambrose...certainly I doubt Ambrose ever got up to 96/97 mph like harmison did the other day

was Ambrose taller, more bounce? He just seemed to be a bit more threatening...........maybe it was the superb accuracy.

Maybe I just recall him with the other great West Indian fast bowlers when they all seemed 10 feet tall and bullet-proof! haha

 

[Swervy]

was Ambrose taller, more bounce? He just seemed to be a bit more threatening...........maybe it was the superb accuracy.

Maybe I just recall him with the other great West Indian fast bowlers when they all seemed 10 feet tall and bullet-proof! haha

yeah Ambrose was a couple of inches taller...

Ambrose was a bit like Garner with the bounce and accuracy, but neither one of them was express pace, its just the steep angle of delivery made them both so difficult to play

 

[Son Of Coco]

yeah Ambrose was a couple of inches taller...

Ambrose was a bit like Garner with the bounce and accuracy, but neither one of them was express pace, its just the steep angle of delivery made them both so difficult to play

ahhh....................*a moment to reminisce*.........those were the days. Even though they flogged us time and time again, it was great to watch brilliant fast bowlers in action.

 

[Swervy]

ahhh....................*a moment to reminisce*.........those were the days. Even though they flogged us time and time again, it was great to watch brilliant fast bowlers in action.

I used to love seeing Garner lolopping in,and then with that great big swirly arm action spear one right into the toes of some poor batsman

 

[Son Of Coco]

I used to love seeing Garner lolopping in,and then with that great big swirly arm action spear one right into the toes of some poor batsman

yeah, and Marshall running in with that front on action - he could actually bowl an outswinger despite being front on at release, which is pretty impressive really.

 

[luckyeddie]

I used to love seeing Garner lolopping in,and then with that great big swirly arm action spear one right into the toes of some poor batsman

And Mikey just drifting up to the wicket with his oh-so-smooth action, so classical, so beautifully natural, graceful even as he caressed the ball towards Boycott's throat.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Pollock and McGrath, on the other hand, just tend to be rather lucky.

How can you prove that? The fact that they take wickets through poor shots occasionally is surely down to starving the batter of runs in the preceeding overs.

 

[Son Of Coco]

How can you prove that? The fact that they take wickets through poor shots occasionally is surely down to starving the batter of runs in the preceeding overs.

ahhh yes, welcome to the debate Tom! haha That's something we've been trying to convince Richard of for some time now...........I wish you the best.

 

[marc71178]

Except that it's a totally different type of performance.

Yes, but the concept is still more accurate than you just thinking things.

The sheer weight of numbers watching add pressure even when they all want you to perform well, when they want you to fail, it will only magnify the pressure.

How come you know differently despite never having even experienceda crowd all willing you to succeed?

 

[marc71178]

You can see how old I am if you want - look at my profile.
Yes, I'd class myself as an "armchair expert" - but I'd equally argue that there's nothing you can't learn by watching closely from the chair or the stand-seat that you can learn by watching from on the field.

So you know how much pressure the players are under?

You know what it's like to have 5000 people all wanting you to fail?

You can tell all that from sitting watching the game?

 

[marc71178]

ahhh yes, welcome to the debate Tom! haha That's something we've been trying to convince Richard of for some time now...........I wish you the best.

Another one he still denies is the fact that taking a wicket in an ODI will slow the run rate.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Another one he still denies is the fact that taking a wicket in an ODI will slow the run rate.

hahahahaha - ahhh yes, each idea should be mounted in gold and presented to him in ten years time.

 

[marc71178]

Would it make a difference.

In 10 years, Harmison could have 700 Test wickets, Flintoff 7000 runs and 300 wickets and Graeme Smith a career acerage of 35.

He'd still claim he's right.

 

[a massive zebra]

Would it make a difference.

In 10 years, Harmison could have 700 Test wickets, Flintoff 7000 runs and 300 wickets and Graeme Smith a career acerage of 35.

He'd still claim he's right.

Sorry to be pedantic, but considering they play about 16 Tests a year these days, thats 160 in 10 years, and 7000 runs + 300 wickets in that amount of time is not very impressive.

It all depends how long they play for.