Is McGrath finished?

[marc71178]

And this says what exactly about the ability of the bowler?

He's earned a wicket with a prolonged spell of bowling.

 

[Richard]

How, by forcing the batsman to feel under pressure?
No, that's not possible.

 

[Swervy]

so how exactly has McGrath got most of his wickets then...supposedly he cant swing the ball, or seam it that much,he isnt amazingly quick...how is it then Richard that he has got so many damned test wickets

 

[Richard]

Oh, McGrath can swing the ball, he just doesn't do it very often. He certainly can seam it, about as much as anyone. And if he's not amazingly quick it doesn't matter - being amazingly quick won't in itself make you close to a Test-class bowler.
If you want to know how he's got so many Test-wickets, you'll have to do yourself some research - take some videos from anywhere you can find them, and study every delivery from which McGrath has taken a Test-wicket. And some advice; don't study anything else, or you'll likely get a misleading impression of "him building pressure".

 

[Swervy]

i know he can move the ball around dont worry (hence the 'supposedly').

And I take it that watching every single wicket MCgrath has taken in tests is something you have done then...you your self has said that you have only watched him since 2001, so thats 2 series that England have played in vs McGrath, some one dayers, and maybe some highlight footage of other games...barely a statistically significant sample i am afraid.

And my point is that you have to watch these wickets in the context of the game situation, watching 430 balls out of his long test career will not give you an accurate idea of how the guy bowls.

Sorry, am I missing something here...does anyone else see what Richard is saying on this one...?????

 

[Neil Pickup]

"To look for a plot in history means seeing history in its individuality, seeing every incident in it as an irreplacable and unique element in an irreplacable and unique whole; whereas looking in history for instances of general laws means failing to group the individuality of history and seeing every incident in it as a mere reduplication of a ready-made type, and the whole as a chaotic assemblage of such reduplications ... study the activities of the human spirit not by setting up imaginary instances of them, like the artist, nor yet by substituting them for a mechanical play of abstract types, like the psychologist, but by apprehending them in their full actuality."

RG Collingwood, Essays in the Philosophy of History, 1965

That pretty much sums up the folly of breaking things down into component parts when assessing a whole, for me.

 

[twctopcat]

Sorry, am I missing something here...does anyone else see what Richard is saying on this one...?????

Leave him, the child will learn in time:P

 

[twctopcat]

"To look for a plot in history means seeing history in its individuality, seeing every incident in it as an irreplacable and unique element in an irreplacable and unique whole; whereas looking in history for instances of general laws means failing to group the individuality of history and seeing every incident in it as a mere reduplication of a ready-made type, and the whole as a chaotic assemblage of such reduplications ... study the activities of the human spirit not by setting up imaginary instances of them, like the artist, nor yet by substituting them for a mechanical play of abstract types, like the psychologist, but by apprehending them in their full actuality."

RG Collingwood, Essays in the Philosophy of History, 1965

That pretty much sums up the folly of breaking things down into component parts when assessing a whole, for me.

As Max Power would say "and that's the end of that chapter".

 

[Swervy]

i just dont understand how Richard dismisses the psychology of the game...

as John madden once said about American Football ' half of this game is 90% mental'(!!!!)......cricket is as far as i am concerned 80% or even more played in the mind. The 'brain' side of the game cannot be underestimated. when it comes to the top players , the talent differential is slight, the difference in performance come from mental toughness and disipline...its a shame Richard doesnt appreciate this side of the game more...for me it is what makes cricket the best sport in the world

 

[marc71178]

And some advice; don't study anything else, or you'll likely get a misleading impression of "him building pressure".

Except it is not misleading since it often happens.

 

[Richard]

Except it is not misleading since it often happens.

Whether it happens or not, he deserves no credit for it.

 

[Richard]

"To look for a plot in history means seeing history in its individuality, seeing every incident in it as an irreplacable and unique element in an irreplacable and unique whole; whereas looking in history for instances of general laws means failing to group the individuality of history and seeing every incident in it as a mere reduplication of a ready-made type, and the whole as a chaotic assemblage of such reduplications ... study the activities of the human spirit not by setting up imaginary instances of them, like the artist, nor yet by substituting them for a mechanical play of abstract types, like the psychologist, but by apprehending them in their full actuality."

RG Collingwood, Essays in the Philosophy of History, 1965

That pretty much sums up the folly of breaking things down into component parts when assessing a whole, for me.

Y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-e-e-e-e-e-e-s-s-s-s................
IMO generalisations and stereotypes are one of the most harmful parts of analysing cricket.
That's all I say. I'm not entirely sure I fully understand Mr. Collingwood's take on the philosophy of history, but whatever it is, I'm sure it can't be taken as gospel in terms of cricket.

 

[Richard]

Leave him, the child will learn in time:P

Sorry, I'm afraid my age doesn't count against me.
Not even a very original try, either - lots of people have tried to use that one before, too.

 

[Swervy]

Sorry, I'm afraid my age doesn't count against me.
Not even a very original try, either - lots of people have tried to use that one before, too.

well, your postings do SOMETIMES smack of the arrogance and stubborness of youth...you may allow your mind to open more to new and crazy ideas, such as 'pressure causes batsmen to make errors' when you get a bit older

 

[Richard]

i know he can move the ball around dont worry (hence the 'supposedly').

And I take it that watching every single wicket MCgrath has taken in tests is something you have done then...you your self has said that you have only watched him since 2001, so thats 2 series that England have played in vs McGrath, some one dayers, and maybe some highlight footage of other games...barely a statistically significant sample i am afraid.

And my point is that you have to watch these wickets in the context of the game situation, watching 430 balls out of his long test career will not give you an accurate idea of how the guy bowls.

Sorry, am I missing something here...does anyone else see what Richard is saying on this one...?????

I am saying that watching 430 balls out of his Test career will give you an accurate idea of how his wickets have been taken (in fact, a more accurate and fairer thing to do would be to watch every chance created when he bowled the delivery - because a dropped or caught catch says nothing as to the ability of the bowler or batsman and hence when either is being discussed they are the same).
That is what matters, not a perception as to why it has happened.
Meanwhile, you mentioned the games I've seen him in. First, strike one-dayers, they're not part of this discussion, I'm talking about First-Class cricket. The two games are totally different in terms of what is required in bowling.
Anyway, the Test-matches since 2000\01 I've seen in which McGrath has played:
West Indies series 2000\01 (3 out of 5 I saw, 2 only extended highlights)
India Tests (extended highlights)
Basically the whole of The Ashes 2001
New Zealand and South Africa 2001\02 (combination of extended highlights and live play)
The Ashes 2002\03 (slightly briefer highlights)
As you can see, that's not every wicket he's taken, but I have read just about every match-report of every day during that time, and though Corey has pointed-out to me that some of these reporters don't understand the intricacies of the game as well as he and I do, I hope I have covered enough different sources to eradicate that problem.
The basic conclusion that can be reached is very rarely on a flat, grassless wicket does McGrath take a wicket with a ball that deserved it. Equally, there have been periods (like most of 2001\02) when this all but ceased, and McGrath became ineffectual.
No, I don't know at all that this pattern has been repeated throughout his career, and I have never commented on the 1999\2000 and previous seasons. But would you not say it is likely, while not by any means certain, that a pattern of 3 years is likely to have been repeated in the preceding 6?

 

[Richard]

well, your postings do SOMETIMES smack of the arrogance and stubborness of youth...you may allow your mind to open more to new and crazy ideas, such as 'pressure causes batsmen to make errors' when you get a bit older

Nope, that's nothing to do with my age, it's to do with the fact that I'm a stubborn bastard and I always have been and always will be.
I have never, meanwhile, said pressure doesn't cause batsmen to make errors - just said it doesn't say anything about the ability of the bowler that they do.

 

[marc71178]

Whether it happens or not, he deserves no credit for it.

So if McGrath builds up pressure on a batsman by accurate bowling, you're saying he doesn't deserve credit for doing so?

 

[Swervy]

I am saying that watching 430 balls out of his Test career will give you an accurate idea of how his wickets have been taken (in fact, a more accurate and fairer thing to do would be to watch every chance created when he bowled the delivery - because a dropped or caught catch says nothing as to the ability of the bowler or batsman and hence when either is being discussed they are the same).
That is what matters, not a perception as to why it has happened.
Meanwhile, you mentioned the games I've seen him in. First, strike one-dayers, they're not part of this discussion, I'm talking about First-Class cricket. The two games are totally different in terms of what is required in bowling.
Anyway, the Test-matches since 2000\01 I've seen in which McGrath has played:
West Indies series 2000\01 (3 out of 5 I saw, 2 only extended highlights)
India Tests (extended highlights)
Basically the whole of The Ashes 2001
New Zealand and South Africa 2001\02 (combination of extended highlights and live play)
The Ashes 2002\03 (slightly briefer highlights)
As you can see, that's not every wicket he's taken, but I have read just about every match-report of every day during that time, and though Corey has pointed-out to me that some of these reporters don't understand the intricacies of the game as well as he and I do, I hope I have covered enough different sources to eradicate that problem.
The basic conclusion that can be reached is very rarely on a flat, grassless wicket does McGrath take a wicket with a ball that deserved it. Equally, there have been periods (like most of 2001\02) when this all but ceased, and McGrath became ineffectual.
No, I don't know at all that this pattern has been repeated throughout his career, and I have never commented on the 1999\2000 and previous seasons. But would you not say it is likely, while not by any means certain, that a pattern of 3 years is likely to have been repeated in the preceding 6?

i still dont think you get it......

I think I have acknowledged that maybe Mcgrath (like all bowlers) take wickets with balls that dont, on the surface of things, deserve a wicket. But, you need to see the wicket in the correct context.

For example..if a bowler were to bowl 120 balls in a day...his figures are say 20-10-30-5...pretty good figures i am sure even you would agree with me on that one. Now say, 3 of those wickets were catches deep in the outfield, and 2 were blinding catches in the covers,and all wickets were taken by average balls....but the remaining 115 balls were all great pieces of bowling.

Now do you say that bowler deserves his figures or not?

now you say that Mcgrath became ineffectual in 2001/02..i am not too sure whether you mean in the years of 2001 and 2002 or the test season in Australia of 01/02, but to cover all bets on this....

In 2001 he played 14 tests, took 68 wickets at an average of 21.66 an economy rate of 2.51 and a SR of 51.5

In 2002 he played 11 tests, took 49 wickets at 18.14 with a econ rate of 2.26 and a SR of 48.1.

that looks to me a pretty fine record for someone who was ineffectual.

The one series around then where he wasnt as effective was vs NZ (3 tests only) (the kiwis played McGrath pretty well I seem to recall). Look , he was going to have a rough series eventually wasnt he. (that might seem like a cop out, but all of the top bowlers in the world have had bad series)

Now most bowlers performances will drop slightly when conditions dont suit their type of bowling....but McGrath's accuracy ensures that he is still in there with a shout even when the pitch is a batters dream.

For what you are saying, McGrath has in effect been the luckiest bowler ever to walk the earth..i am sorry I cannot accept the fact that he is a lucky bowler....he earns his wickets for himself, he earns his team wickets, he has been the premier pace bowler on the world greatest team for the last 10 years...you do not get to that position by sheer luck, or just taking wickets on green tops.

 

[Richard]

So if McGrath builds up pressure on a batsman by accurate bowling, you're saying he doesn't deserve credit for doing so?

Yes, he doesn't deserve credit, because he doesn't do it, pressure happens in the batsman's minds.
If they don't exhibit flawed thinking, they don't feel under any undue pressure.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, he doesn't deserve credit, because he doesn't do it, pressure happens in the batsman's minds.
If they don't exhibit flawed thinking, they don't feel under any undue pressure.

And if the bowling isn't restricting them, then there's no chance of the pressure in the first place.