Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[tooextracool]

No, just with you it's never possible to guess what's a "joke" and what's a stupid sarcastic comment.
So I just decided to reply with a sarcastic comment of my own.

oh yes of course you couldnt tell when i said that "brearly got his captaincy skill from you" that i was joking.....

 

[tooextracool]

Oh, they can - that's why I never try to guess how a wicket will play.
I just wait and watch, and see how it's playing.

or rather you need to look at a combination of both to be the best judge of how a wicket is playing.....of course you could simply judge how well a wicket is playing by watching it, but someone who does both is far more likely to be right than you are.....

So?
It doesn't matter how it looks like it'll play - what matters is how it does play - and so me and any commentator are on equal footing.

and where have i said that predicting how a pitch plays is all that matters? its a combination of both.....

 

[tooextracool]

Good batsmen aren't any more troubled by lowish bounce than they are by highish bounce. You hardly ever see top-edged pulls and splices or gloves to short-legs in modern-day cricket.

oh you see it quite often on wickets that offer bounce or from bowlers like harmison who get bounce off wickets.....assuming of course you do have a short leg/silly point....

 

[Waughney]

Wow, 15 posts in a row in the one thread, that has to be some sort of record....

 

[tooextracool]

you're welcome

 

[luckyeddie]

you're welcome

You're an ignorant thread-hog. We seem to collect those on CricketWeb.

I should like to start a campaign here and now that 5 on the trot should be the maximum - stick them all in one by all means..

 

[Son Of Coco]

Of course they can - especially in the one-day-game, good bowlers will always control the game.
In the First-Class-game the batsmen have a bit more leeway because they don't have to score at a certain rate. And no bowler, no matter how good, can concede no runs - they all go for some eventually. If you wait long enough, you'll get runs eventually.
But in the one-day-game, there is only one option left in the end if you aren't getting balls you can score off easily - take risks. If the bowling continues to be good, the chances are you'll pay for these risks before too long.

Of course it might be - but so might anyone else's.
Are you really saying I should simply accept that people who have played must be right, even if what I see contradicts that? Because I don't really see what the point in even bothering to think about this sort of thing is if that's the case.

The problem with the theory about waiting long enough is that you actually have to be around long enough (i.e not get out) on these occasions to score runs. Personally, I think if you did a 'Geoffrey Boycott' in the modern game you wouldn't be around too long if it started costing your team victories, test cricket used to be a win, lose or draw scenario, and while it technically still is, the pressure is on now to have a bit of a go and look at trying to win instead of letting the match run to a draw.

What I'm basically saying Richard is that you're 19 now, and some of the stuff you're making comments on happened when you were about 6........even if you were 12 or 13 it wouldn't make any difference, what you know about the game either then or now wouldn't be a decent substitute for experience in that situation. So basically, you've got possibly 3-4 years experience behind you of senior level cricket (at most - which wouldn't make any difference anyway), you may have watched a lot of videos (or not - I don't know), but saying that there's no reason why a cricket buff who's possibly watched a whole catalogue of games on TV for the last 4 or 5 years couldn't know more than commentators who have played the game (and watched just as many games, if not more) sounds incredibly arrogant to me.

On the otherhand, you could be entirely correct, and in a few years we'll find out that what you said wasn't off the mark at all.......you are, after all, entitled to your opinion.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Oh, believe me, I know that some bowlers (not by any means just McGrath and Pollock) can get small amounts of movement more often than not. Neither McGrath or Pollock swing the ball all that often (not never, though, not at all).
However, while you don't need to move it a foot, moving it an inch won't cause problems very often. Three or four, yes, if you get it in just the right area ball after ball, but even that isn't easy to achieve.
And whether or not, the fact is I've watched most of the wickets both these two bowlers have taken in the last 3 years - and most of them have come from poor strokes, with the occasional exception of matches which have been played on pitches offering seam or uneven bounce (or both, in the case of Trent Bridge 2003). On those occasions, they've tended to take quite a few wickets for not very many in not that many overs.

You don't seem to realise that a poor stroke is not always just a batsmen failing badly, it can be induced by the bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

You're an ignorant thread-hog. We seem to collect those on CricketWeb.

I should like to start a campaign here and now that 5 on the trot should be the maximum - stick them all in one by all means..

and considering that i dont log on as often as someone like you does, i dont get time to wait and them come back again to post.

 

[Richard]

Just because the rest of the board can clearly see that there's a difference between watching and playing (as shown by my music example as an example of the pressure of being in front of a big crowd) - you still think you know better?

Oh, I can see very clearly that there's a difference between watching and playing in terms of music.
I don't think the difference in terms of sensing pressure is anywhere near so different in terms of cricket.

 

[Richard]

and if you are 'living dangerously', would you not be under pressure? seriously lets say that you got a death threat from a terrorist saying that you would be dead tomorrow(wouldnt be surprised if that happened too), would you then be able to focus on say your homework the same day?
seriously any batsman who nicks a few over slip or just plays and misses is bound to be extremely 'edgy' on the next delivery.....

Not if they're putting it out of their mind like they should be.
And I hardly think getting a death threat is a comparable - that is someone threatening to do about the worst possible thing. As supposed to having had a close shave in the past.

 

[Richard]

no you've simply said that every finger spinner in the history of the game has only managed to take wickets on spinner friendly wickets....given that you've probably only watched half oh those games, that is the biggest generalization ive ever seen.

No, I've not.
I might've said they've only managed to get them through good bowling on spin-friendly wickets, but poor batting can have as much of a say on that as it can for seam-bowlers.

because now you have to bowl well on every flat pitch now to be a good bowler dont you? every bowler has good days and bad days, and even your beloved chaminda vaas bowled poorly in one match of that series, so maybe he should also not be considered 'good' then?

When have I said that?
The important thing is, out of Bond's Test-career, he's now bowled reasonably on one flat pitch out of four.

yet people like mcgrath and pollock can be lucky for infinite periods of time then?

Not infinate - there have been times that their luck has dried-up.
But yes, I said "tend to", not "invariably are". McGrath and Pollock have been sustainedly lucky for a period - 3 years - that not many have.

so yet again you have been proved wrong then? so lets just add that to the list of 'non flat' wickets that richardson has played well on.....

Let's add it to a short list, yes.
And there's no "yet again" about it - yes, I wasn't right in guessing that the pitch wasn't a turner. But it's not like that's something that's happened many times.

 

[Richard]

err you are the only one who believes that richardson can only score on flat wickets, so if you are going to make a stupid claim like that you are going to have to back it up. ive already shown you instances where he has scored on non flat wickets, id like to see times that he has failed....

OK, let's look at his matches, in reverse order:
Trent Bridge 2004: 128 runs on pitch that turned for much of the game; refutes the case.
Headingley 2004: 53 on a seaming pitch; backs the case.
Lord's 2004: flat pitch, no influence on the case.
Basin Reserve 2003\04: turning pitch, 51 in match; backs the case.
Eden Park 2003\04: flat pitch, no influence on case.
WPT Park 2003\04: flat pitch, no influence on case.
Basin Reserve 2003\04: flat pitch, no influence on case.
WPT Park 2003\04: flat pitch, no influence on case.
Mohali 2003\04: flat pitch, no influence on case.
Motera 2003\04: flat pitch, no influence on case.
Kandy 2003: turning pitch, 110 in match; refutes the case.
PSS 2003: flat pitch, no influence on case.
WPT Park 2002\03: seaming pitch, 41 in match, backs the case.
Basin Reserve 2002\03: seaming pitch, 91 for once out, refutes the case.
St.George's 2001\02: flat pitch, no influence on case.
Kensington Oval 2001\02: seaming and turning pitch, 41 in the match, backs the case.
Gaddafi Stadium 2001\02: turning pitch, 40; backs the case.
Eden Park 2001\02: seaming pitch, 30; backs the case.
Basin Reserve 2001\02: pitch offered seam early on but only for a day or so, was mostly flat; in any case, he only scored 64 in the match (in which he was dropped twice); no influence on case.
Jade Stadium 2001\02: pitch that seamed for 2-and-a-half days, on which he scored 2, and turned very, very flat indeed; he then scored 76, though not without the help of a very poor lbw not-out on 44; backs the case.
Eden Park and Basin Reserve, 2001\02: vs Bangladesh, on flat wickets, no influence on case.
WACA 2001\02: we're never going to agree on this one, fortunately he was dismissed by Gillespie and a run-out, so the fact that it was a turner doesn't actually matter.
Bellerive 2001\02: flat pitch, no influence on case.
The 'Gabba 2001\02: flat pitch, no influence on case.
WPT Park 2000\01: certainly started as a blatant seamer, whether it was when New Zealand were scoring 407 for 4 has to be doubtful. If, amazingly, it was, he scored 106 and this refutes the case.
Jade Stadium 2000\01: flat pitch, no influence on case.
Eden Park 2000\01: one of those Kiwi pitches that seams then crumbles, 60 in the match; backs the case, just.
Basin Reserve 2000\01: flat pitch, no influence on case. Good job, too - the match was against Zimbabwe, and you'd say it didn't count whatever.
Wanderers 2000\01: seaming pitch (when he batted, anyway), 46; refutes the case, just.
St.George's Park 2000\01: seaming pitch, 86 in match; refutes, the case, just.
Bloemfontein 2000\01: flat pitch, no influence on case.
Harare SC 2000\01: flat pitch, no influence on case. Good job, too - the match was against Zimbabwe, and you'd say it didn't count whatever.
Queens Sports Club 2000\01: turning pitch, 19 in match, backs the case - even though it was against Zimbabwe (which I don't think matters anyway, they were still Test-class then) you say failures against substandard sides count if you're not established - and given that this was his Test-debut, we can fairly say he wasn't; backs the case.
So we have 3 instances that refute the case well, one that might do (I really cannot even guess at the pitch) and two that just do. We have 8 instances that back the case well, and 1 that does just.
That's where I get my idea that Richardson is a flat-track bully, given my previous display of when Richardson has scored most of his good scores.

 

[Richard]

of course not, you only state that you dont think something will happen, in other words whatever you say can never be 'proved' wrong as such, but it can be said that what you thought turned out to be incorrect, which is precisely what harmison and several other have done.

Yes, and in Katich's case I'm simply withholding even a guess, and waiting for further evidence.

 

[Richard]

hold on a second here....you might not learn to get a good eye but thats not what you desperately need to be a good batsman in any case(there have been several batsman who dont). obviously you can improve your concentration level, and indeed if you actually watch every ball as closely as you say you do then surely you must have good concentration. surely you can learn a lot about technique if you watch a lot of cricket and analyze ever dismissal and considering you dont believe in 'pressure' and will probably never be led into a poor shot, i dont see any reason why you should be failing as a batsman.....

Because my eye is nowhere near good enough.
Neither is my concentration. Yes, I could improve it with practice, but I don't have the chance to practice. Anyway, I'm too scared of being injured in some cases, so I'd prefer avoid the risk of injury than maybe make a tiny improvement in my concentration.

 

[marc71178]

Oh, I can see very clearly that there's a difference between watching and playing in terms of music.
I don't think the difference in terms of sensing pressure is anywhere near so different in terms of cricket.

Why on Earth not?

For a start you don't have the whole crowd supporting you.

 

[marc71178]

Is it me LE, or are the comments not getting through?...

 

[Richard]

are you seriously out of your mind? chaminda vaas is as accurate as curtly ambrose? have you watched anything of curtly ambrose bowling? sure vaas has had times when hes been extremely accurate but hes had many more periods when hes been absolutely wayward. even in the spells in which hes been extremely accurate he hasnt been anywhere near as accurate as ambrose who could infact bowl every ball in the same spot.
and i know ambrose can take wickets in any conditions, just like mcgrath can and has done so consistently. again the reason why ambrose got more than 400 wickets was because he too was deadly accurate.

No, it's because he could move the ball in all conditions.
And no-one, even the great Curtley, could bowl every ball in the same spot, otherwise he'd never have gone for any runs except off edges.
Yes, though, he was accurate like that which has rarely been seen, and he's very very tall too so he had a large margin-for-error.
Unlike someone like Chaminda Vaas or Mark Ealham who are every bit as accurate but have a much smaller margin-for-error.
Chaminda Vaas has had very few spells - in Test-cricket, at least - where he's been "absolutely" wayward - only twice in something like 20 Test-series has he gone for more than 3.24-an-over.
No, he's not been as consistently accurate as Curtley or McGrath or Pollock, but there have been many spells where he's bowled extremely accurately, every bit as accurate as them, and not been gifted anywhere near as many poor strokes that they tend to be.

rubbish, brett lee and accurate? he couldnt bowl 3 balls in the same spot if he tried to.

Quite often true, which is why he's such a terrible bowler.
But there have been spells in which he's bowled very accurately (and short), as there is for almost any bowler.

its quite likely that they didnt try it, and im not talking about bouncing it towards their head, its quite easy to get out of the way of those, im talking about bowling into the body at considerable pace and then following it up with a well pitched up ball....no its quite conceivable that they didnt try it to the extent that flintoff did, just like bowlers havent exploited haydens weakness?

No, not at all - Hayden's weakness was exploited for all his early career, until the 2001\02 season and the New Zealand series, and the plethora of flat wickets.
Lara has played the same for, what, 13 years, something like that. It's impossible to conceive that in all that time no-one has ever managed to exploit a weakness.

err no, because no batsman, no matter how good he is can consistently smash good balls for 4(unless they include edges thro slip etc, and even thats unlikely), not gayle, not anyone else.

You really think that?
Did you take much notice of Gayle's century against South Africa earlier this year?
Accurate bowling is no use to anyone unless it results in bowling economically.

OMG how many times do i have to say it?can you please show me where i have said that slow scoring rates leades to pressure in tests? i've consistently said that you need to bowl every ball in the right areas at the right pace.....

In order to bowl economically...

nope, ive never needed to twist them for you, you are already twisted.....

Haha, yeah!
That's a good one!
How many times have you said "you said blah-blah-blah" and I've had to correct you "actually I said duh-duh-duh"? Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots.

 

[Richard]

Is it me LE, or are the comments not getting through?...

Look, if James, Andre, Rich or someone has a word with me or tooextracool maybe we'll think about changing our ways.
However, what harm are we actually doing to anyone?

 

[Richard]

Why on Earth not?

For a start you don't have the whole crowd supporting you.

Yes, exactly - an orchestra is just "that lot", very rarely is it a case of individuals.
In cricket the spectator knows far more about each of the individuals, and has far more of a rapport with them.
In a musical performance, it is simply a case of you want everyone to do well equally. Even when you know someone personally, if they make a mistake it's not likely to be anywhere near as noticable as in a cricket match.