Jacob Oram - more speed please?

[Mingster]

A **** replica of McGrath....

 

[Nate]

hes currently in the middle of a blinder...

 

[Mingster]

Having double the average of McGrath doesn't do Fintoff's case any good does it now?

 

[Richard]

Speaking of Flintoff, has he always been able to reach 90mph?

I seem to remember him during Astle's 222 as being pretty gentle, so maybe there's hope for Oram yet. Perhaps Braces could get a big ute behind him and chase him to the crease a bit faster!

Flintoff bowled several deliveries in the 90s during the Astle innings. Like most of the other bowlers, plenty were despatched to the boundary or over it.

 

[Richard]

Well you should have rephrased your comment then shouldn't you?

When the conditions suit Oram, he can swing the ball. But it's not his action, it's his style. He's more of a "bounce" bowler.

His "style", eh? Well apart from anything else, being a bowler mostly reliant on bounce is not going to get you much success.
And what is style defined by? Action, amongst other things.

 

[Mingster]

Mr Dickinson,

Do you still not rate Jacob Oram as an international-class ODI bowler?


Regards,


Ray

 

[Mingster]

His "style", eh? Well apart from anything else, being a bowler mostly reliant on bounce is not going to get you much success.
And what is style defined by? Action, amongst other things.

Difference between Oram and Franklin - one bowls mainly a back of a good length and one attempts to bowl full trying to swing the ball.

Different between Cairns and Martin - Cairns bowls shorter on the whole than Martin who pitches it up to try and get swing.

The actions didn't dictate what they bowl. Perhaps if you play some cricket you might understand.

 

[Richard]

An international-class one-day-international bowler, eh? Interesting turn of phrase there.
No, I don't think this lot of bowler-friendly conditions prove any more than the Bank-Alfalah Cup did. I do think the TVS Cup was more revealing.

 

[marc71178]

Because that only made players look bad, and let's face it, that is all you watch Cricket for, the chance to criticise players for perceived injustices.

 

[Richard]

Difference between Oram and Franklin - one bowls mainly a back of a good length and one attempts to bowl full trying to swing the ball.

Different between Cairns and Martin - Cairns bowls shorter on the whole than Martin who pitches it up to try and get swing.

The actions didn't dictate what they bowl. Perhaps if you play some cricket you might understand.

I play cricket, and I watch a hell of a lot of it, at a hell of a lot of different levels.
There's nothing wrong with Martin's action, but he's not exactly what you'd call a consistent swing bowler. There have been 2 or 3 occasions which he has struggled to swing the ball and hence proved innocuous.
Franklin's action is about perfect for outswing-to-the-left-hander. He wouldn't swing it as much as he does if it were different.
But basically what you are saying is style is defined by length that comes naturally. Yes, that is another contributory factor.

 

[Mingster]

An international-class one-day-international bowler, eh? Interesting turn of phrase there.
No, I don't think this lot of bowler-friendly conditions prove any more than the Bank-Alfalah Cup did. I do think the TVS Cup was more revealing.

Because a few months ago you said Oram was not "a class ODI bowler" and totally said that he world ranking of 7th in the world was not deserved.

Under your "criteria", any bowler who has a RPO under 4.5 is a good ODI bowler. Or is there exceptions in this case because it's Jacob Oram?

 

[Richard]

Because that only made players look bad, and let's face it, that is all you watch Cricket for, the chance to criticise players for perceived injustices.

Rubbish.
And if you think about it if some players look bad others must look good.
I like it when cricketers I believe are good get stats that make them look good. And vice-versa with bad cricketers.

 

[Mingster]

So Dickinson, what you are trying to say is that a bowler bowls short is because his action only allows it to do so. And a bowler who bowls full, only bowls full because it's action can't allow it to bowl short?

What nonsense.

 

[Richard]

Because a few months ago you said Oram was not "a class ODI bowler" and totally said that he world ranking of 7th in the world was not deserved.

Under your "criteria", any bowler who has a RPO under 4.5 is a good ODI bowler. Or is there exceptions in this case because it's Jacob Oram?

I have never said anythiing of the sort. 4.4-an-over is still a pretty poor ER. You've got to get your ER under 4.3-an-over to be considered reasonable and under 4.1 to be considered very good.
Oram's ranking will presumably be boosted by this tournament (though with those insane rankings you never know) but I can certify that his ranking I took umbrage with was 9th.

 

[Richard]

So Dickinson, what you are trying to say is that a bowler bowls short is because his action only allows it to do so. And a bowler who bowls full, only bowls full because it's action can't allow it to bowl short?

What nonsense.

What the devil are you trying to twist stuff into now?

 

[Mingster]

I have never said anythiing of the sort. 4.4-an-over is still a pretty poor ER. You've got to get your ER under 4.3-an-over to be considered reasonable and under 4.1 to be considered very good.
Oram's ranking will presumably be boosted by this tournament (though with those insane rankings you never know) but I can certify that his ranking I took umbrage with was 9th.

Umm you have said these things. You said that you can only be considered a good ODI bowler if you are under an RPO of 4.5. And you also said that having a ODI bowling average of say 21 is the same as say 40 because wickets don't mean anything in ODI cricket.

Oram is actually 7th in teh world now.

And Dickinson, aren't you also the one who says wickets don't slow the run rate down even thought many of the world's past great cricketers say it does? But of course, only Richard's imaginary statistics matter.

 

[marc71178]

I like it when cricketers I believe are good get stats that make them look good. And vice-versa with bad cricketers.

So still trust your own opinion better than that of the general public...

 

[marc71178]

I have never said anythiing of the sort. 4.4-an-over is still a pretty poor ER. You've got to get your ER under 4.3-an-over to be considered reasonable and under 4.1 to be considered very good.

Yes because the average score in an ODI is around 200 isn't it?

Oh I forgot it isn't, and almost nobody by your reckoning is even reasonable.

And you still say you don't like it when people look bad?

 

[tooextracool]

His "style", eh? Well apart from anything else, being a bowler mostly reliant on bounce is not going to get you much success.
And what is style defined by? Action, amongst other things.

if i remember correctly didnt you say the same about steve-wayward-harmison?
sry but i had to bring that up

 

[tooextracool]

An international-class one-day-international bowler, eh? Interesting turn of phrase there.
No, I don't think this lot of bowler-friendly conditions prove any more than the Bank-Alfalah Cup did. I do think the TVS Cup was more revealing.

so an E/R of 4.21(at an average of 21) in the wc and an E/R of 4.09 in pakistan doesnt mean much either?