tooextracool said:
rubbish, ambrose was just about as capable of swinging and seaming the ball as mcgrath is.....stop making up crap just because you liked him more than you like mcgrath, ive seen plenty of ambrose wickets that came of poor shots rather than good balls, maybe i should say that he was lucky too then?
Not if they came in the middle of spells where wickets were taken with good balls.
Look, lots of wickets (probably more than not) will come off poor balls for just about every bowler, ever.
The fact is, in the period 2001-2004 McGrath has played on an occasional seaming pitch and has bowled plenty of wicket-taking balls; he has played on lots and lots of non-seaming, consistent-in-bounce pitches, and has taken barely a single wicket with a wicket-taking ball. Yes, I've seen most of the wickets.
I know perfectly well that McGrath and Ambrose's ability with seam are similar (personally I'd say McGrath is a better swinger than Ambrose was), but the difference is Ambrose was a far better cutter of the ball.
okay so he didnt bowl every ball on the same spot but he could on his day bowl 9/10 balls on the same spot. and no just because you bowl accurately it doesnt mean that you cant score off him on flat wickets....
Mostly it does, though.
And I'd say it was significantly more than 9\10 - maybe 19\20.
will you ever stop with the b/s? how many times do i have to tell you that accuracy and ER dont go hand in hand in test matches??
Many as you want - you're not going to change the fact that inaccurate will almost always be more expensive than accurte.
and if you are going to use stats at least use them right instead of making them up, vaas has had 7 series where he has gone for more than 3.24, of course a match by match analysis would prove a lot more given that his performances often vary every game.
Yes, they do - must have made a mistake with the figures, too.
which does not call for this statement.....
'Curtley Ambrose was every bit as accurate. So, believe it or not, is Chaminda Vaas.'
All right, then "he's had spells where he's bowled every bit as accurately as Curtley and McGrath's best spells".
And he hasn't had nearly the amount of poor strokes played as McGrath typically has.
or rather his inablity to be able to penetrate on most occasions outside of the sub continent......
Who needs penetration when you get loads of poor strokes? If Chaminda had had as many poor strokes played to him as McGrath, he'd be considered every bit as good.
no hes never been pinpoint accurate has lee, and even if he did it was on a very rare occasion, and its quite conceivable that he wasnt bowling to lara and that he wasnt tring to bounce lara out in the way that flintoff did.
He looked like he was doing pretty well in the last series.
and this coming from someone who claims that mcgrath and pollock can be lucky for all of their careers
No, just for the last 3 years.
its a combination of pace, accuracy and the short stuff, and as ive said earlier there have been very few bowlers capable of doing all of the 3. the ones that were just didnt try it....
What a coincidence
that is.
D'you think there might be a reason
why they didn't try it? Because they had better options, maybe?
3 things
1) the bowling wasnt brilliant, most of the time they bowled too short,certainly wasnt anywhere near good ball after good ball.
2) there were plenty of edges and chances going through slip etc
3) it was on a flat wicket
Certainly it was a flat wicket - it almost never happens on seaming, turning or uneven wickets.
There were indeed a few edges - no chances, though. I'd have mentioned them if there were, and I'd not rate the innings anywhere near so highly. Edges happen in any innings.
The bowling very often consisted of good-line balls being thrashed through the covers, and middle-stump balls being forced down the ground. It was a bit short at times, but there was nothing wrong with the lines and certainly that sort of bowling would almost never be anywhere near that expensive normally.
it is if the batsman ends up getting runs through the slips or by taking risks....
Really? What use is that to the fielding side? It's only use if it's followed by an edge to hand.
no that is what you keep inferring for no apparent reason, economy often results from bowling things in the right places, but it doesnt mean that bowlers are striving for economy, you could bowl economically by bowling ball after ball wide of off stump too. bowling in the right places has the added advantage of frustrating the batsman....
Bowling where you've got no chance of
hitting the ball is, believe me,
far more frustrating than bowling at the top of off all the time!
Anyone who watched the Giles-Tendulkar innings can tell that! Or Harmison in Australia.