Is McGrath finished?

[Tom Halsey]

He can't bowl good deliveries.

No, he can't bowl wicket taking deliveries. A ball on a good line and length is a good delivery.

 

[Rik]

No, he can't bowl wicket taking deliveries. A ball on a good line and length is a good delivery.

He speaks the truth...

 

[Swervy]

Quoted by all sorts of people, proven untrue by people who have played the Test (and indeed domestic First-Class) game - and faced spells of accurate bowling, and got a Long-Hop, and smashed it to the fence...
... and outweighed those few who were poor enough to get one and whack it in the air to a fielder.
Eventually tight bowling will win in the end ... well, from the point of view that poor strokes will always be played in the end, if you bowl 30 overs the chances are you'll have two or three played resulting in chances in that time. If you only concede 50 runs in those overs, then you'll end-up with good figures.
Yes.
But if the poor strokes aren't played against you, you won't get any wickets.

those who were poor enough...it happens to the best of them. One that sticks out in my mind was Tendulkar in the World Cup final...do to the pressure of having to score quickly,and proably the thought that Mcgrath wasnt going to give him too many run scoring balls to have a go at...he hit one ball for 4..then he hit that shot to a good tight ball..a poor shot..he was out..bye bye world cup.(not an example to prove the above points, but goes to show that all batsmen do play poor shots,and good bowling will always exploit that)

I am sure lara,kallis,whoever have been got out by loose ball and bad shots..the reason being...they are human, it is very rare that you get a long inning where no poor shot has been played...now you wouldnt suggest that tendulkar,lara etc are poor batsmen would you?

 

[Richard]

No, he can't bowl wicket taking deliveries. A ball on a good line and length is a good delivery.

True. Now corrected.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Were cricket a game played by automatons, then Richard's point would be valid.

However, psychology and the mental side of sports science (commitment, control, confidence and concentration - see, I can revise for my Level II exam and post at the same time) have a huge impact on cricket - which is why McGrath's style of bowling is effective. Until coaches can effect a perfect mental control amongst players (i.e. never, most likely) it will continue to work.

 

[Richard]

those who were poor enough...it happens to the best of them. One that sticks out in my mind was Tendulkar in the World Cup final...do to the pressure of having to score quickly,and proably the thought that Mcgrath wasnt going to give him too many run scoring balls to have a go at...he hit one ball for 4..then he hit that shot to a good tight ball..a poor shot..he was out..bye bye world cup.(not an example to prove the above points, but goes to show that all batsmen do play poor shots,and good bowling will always exploit that)

This example is in a one-day game and hence has absolutely no relevance to the argument whatsoever.

I am sure lara,kallis,whoever have been got out by loose ball and bad shots..the reason being...they are human, it is very rare that you get a long inning where no poor shot has been played...now you wouldnt suggest that tendulkar,lara etc are poor batsmen would you?

Good batsmen play poor strokes, that's an obvious fact of cricket. The difference is they play then with less regularity than good ones. In fact it's something I've been at pains to point-out to people who say "he got Tendulkar out" as if it were something special. If Tendulkar played a poor stroke, it's nothing more to your credit than as if you'd got Ashish Nehra out with a similar shot.
However, you expect good batsmen to tally some runs next to McGrath's name, sufficient enough so as to create an average of more than 22, before playing these poor strokes.
And it is not rare that you get a long innings with no poor strokes, it is almost unheard of. In fact, I'd be surprised if it's happened more than the legendary once.

 

[Swervy]

but you have to question the reasons why a poor shot is played surely.

one of the main reasons that a poor shot is played(by top class batsmen) is due to frustration and pressure..the ball taking the wicket might not have really the one that was the batsmans undoing, the 20 balls that made the batsman have to think 'jeez, this is tough going' are the ones that did the work to get the batsman out...that 21st ball may be the slackest ball you will see, the batsmans eyes widen, and he tries to smack the ball, coz in that split second he thinks 'here is my opportunity to make my mark'..catches an outside edge..he is out ...and it may not be the bowler who did all the hard work that gets the wicket..this is one of the reasons why sometimes putting on an occasional bowler does the trick.

mcGrath is perfect at keeping that pressure on at all times,and not only has that given him 430 odd test wickets..it has probably given his colleagues a fair few wickets as well.

 

[Swervy]

Botham was a player who capitalised on sucha thing...in his early days, he had pace and great ability to swing the ball...sometimes the guy was unplayable, so much so, he couldnt find the edge...but Botham would always throw in a rank long hop, and so many times that would be the ball to take the wicket, coz the batsman tried to seize the initiative for a split second...but was too keen to force the issue and got out

 

[Richard]

The basic point of these posts appears to be one I've already answered to:

Quoted by all sorts of people, proven untrue by people who have played the Test (and indeed domestic First-Class) game - and faced spells of accurate bowling, and got a Long-Hop, and smashed it to the fence...
... and outweighed those few who were poor enough to get one and whack it in the air to a fielder.

Basically, if you've been bowling accurately for ages, the chances are if you bowl a bad delivery (whether deliberately or accidentally) it will in fact simply let the pressure off, rather than capitalise on it.
Yes, it doesn't always work like that, but mostly it does.
Again, it's a real problem here with the anomalies being treated like they were the trend and vice versa.

 

[Swervy]

but i am sure it was you who said that McGrath's wickets often came from ball that barely deserved the wicket. I am saying that you cannot judge a wicket taking ball soley on just that ball you have to see it in the right context, how the deliveries previous to that have effected the batsman

 

[Richard]

And I am saying that good batsmen rarely let the previous deliveries bother them - hence a poor stroke can have no credit attached to the bowler.

 

[Swervy]

i think we may have reached a dead end on this one

 

[Richard]

Good, good - marc never did.

 

[marc71178]

Mainly because I still disagree.

The huiman element is such that pressure does get to people, and they get out to loose balls.

 

[Swervy]

oh i still disagree wholeheartedly...and I dont think Richard has said one little thing that has made me think 'wait up, he has a good point there'...however this thread could go on forever and neither one of us would backdown, so I will call it quits, safe in the knowledge that probably deep down he agrees with what we are saying

 

[PY]

However, psychology and the mental side of sports science (commitment, control, confidence and concentration have a huge impact on cricket.

Which is why people can do degrees in Sport Science and Sports Psychology (not too sure on the latter :rolleyes: ).

It is pretty much agreed by every expert in the game but Richard is allowed to say that. I just choose to disagree.

 

[Richard]

oh i still disagree wholeheartedly...and I dont think Richard has said one little thing that has made me think 'wait up, he has a good point there'...however this thread could go on forever and neither one of us would backdown, so I will call it quits, safe in the knowledge that probably deep down he agrees with what we are saying

I don't agree and never will - all right, most people in the game agree on it, but AFAIAC they're just not thinking about the matter.
If we weren't to call it quits Neil would, needless to say, heavy-handedly and quite rightly, close the thing because it wastes our bandwidth.

 

[Swervy]

ok..agree to disagree on this matter..however I do think its a sahme that you see thae game in such a way, coz i think you are missing out on a wonderful part of the game

 

[twctopcat]

And I am saying that good batsmen rarely let the previous deliveries bother them - hence a poor stroke can have no credit attached to the bowler.

But surely you mentioned one earlier when sachin was caught off mcgrath in the WC '03 final. He decided to play off a ball that blatantly shouldn't have been played off, because of its line and length. He shouldn't have tried to play this yet did, and mcgrath reaped the benefits. Good bowling from the bowler if you ask me, and this is tendulkar you're talking about.

 

[Richard]

Once again this is brought up. I repeat what I said earlier:

This example is in a one-day game and hence has absolutely no relevance to the argument whatsoever.

And it stands true here. I am not talking about the one-day game - in the one-day game the scoring-rate does matter, so hence a batsman cannot be discredited for worrying about the run-rate.