Jacob Oram - more speed please?

[marc71178]

No, because it's all on the bottom line, and the bottom line is Richard doesn't like him, so he's not any good.

 

[MoxPearl]

nz is so lucky to have found oram...

As Chris Cairns leaves.. oram will be in his prime...

And they are VERY much alike...

 

[Richard]

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?

I hate it when good cricketers look bad.
No, it isn't, because bowlers these days for the most part aren't good enough to keep it to 200-230.

 

[Richard]

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

I wouldn't bother holding opinions if I didn't.

 

[Richard]

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

I did, and I still say it - Harmison is not a swing bowler, though he does swing the ball on occasions.

 

[Richard]

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?

Nope, not when sandwiched by poor performances aplenty. WC2003, as I have stated many times, was a very very poor competition.

 

[tooextracool]

I did, and I still say it - Harmison is not a swing bowler, though he does swing the ball on occasions.

which quite contradicts your point that bowlers that rely on bounce cant take wickets....oh and harmison doesnt swing the ball at all

 

[Richard]

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.

Maybe I have said that you cannot possibly be considered a good one-day bowler with an ER over 4.5. But I have not said that by having one of 4.45-an-over you're especially good.
I couldn't really care less where Oram or anyone else is ranked in the PwCs.
And of course, because not many people talk about first-chance averages, they are "imaginary". And because past great players take stuff for granted without thinking about it, it automatically makes it right ahead of someone who does think about it.

 

[Richard]

which quite contradicts your point that bowlers that rely on bounce cant take wickets....oh and harmison doesnt swing the ball at all

I have never said Harmison doesn't swing the ball at all, because anyone who has watched him bowl will notice that he does occasionally.
Bowlers who rely on bounce can't take wickets with the neccessary regularity. Harmison doesn't rely on bounce, he relies, like a few others, on poor strokes.

 

[marc71178]

Nope, not when sandwiched by poor performances aplenty. WC2003, as I have stated many times, was a very very poor competition.

Why was it?

Because you said so?

A lot of people enjjoyed it, but it was poor because your favourites didn't perform?

 

[marc71178]

I hate it when good cricketers look bad.

Why, because it makes you look stupid for saying that they're good?

No, it isn't, because bowlers these days for the most part aren't good enough to keep it to 200-230.

Nothing to do with the game being tilted towards batsmen then - flat tracks, artificial field restrictions.

 

[Richard]

Why was it?

Because you said so?

A lot of people enjjoyed it, but it was poor because your favourites didn't perform?

Or weren't selected, or played poorly and allowed poor players to get good figures, or because there was God-knows-how-much interference from extra-cricket matters?

 

[marc71178]

Maybe I have said that you cannot possibly be considered a good one-day bowler with an ER over 4.5.

Read it in context.

In the sub-continent scores regularly top 300 (ie 6 an over)

A bowler who goes for 5 in those conditions has done a very good job.

 

[tooextracool]

Nope, not when sandwiched by poor performances aplenty. WC2003, as I have stated many times, was a very very poor competition.

oh really?
his figures in the wc were as follows

0/37(10) vs SL,2/26(10) vs WI,2/52(10) vs SA,1/28(10) vs zim,2/48(7) vs aus,0/20(5) vs india

so the only real bad performance i see was against australia....

and i notice that you ignore the series against pak or was that also a poor series?

 

[Richard]

Why, because it makes you look stupid for saying that they're good?

No, because it makes statistics less valuable. Durr.
Of course because it makes me look wrong for saying they're good. Why the hell else?

Nothing to do with the game being tilted towards batsmen then - flat tracks, artificial field restrictions.

Fielding restrictions have been in place for God-knows-how-long, tracks got flatter round about the 2001 mark, and it hasn't troubled the economy-rates of good bowlers like Vaas, McGrath, Gillespie, Pollock, Akram and the like.

 

[Richard]

Read it in context.

In the sub-continent scores regularly top 300 (ie 6 an over)

A bowler who goes for 5 in those conditions has done a very good job.

No, he's just been the best of a bad bunch.

 

[Richard]

oh really?
his figures in the wc were as follows

0/37(10) vs SL,2/26(10) vs WI,2/52(10) vs SA,1/28(10) vs zim,2/48(7) vs aus,0/20(5) vs india

so the only real bad performance i see was against australia....

and i notice that you ignore the series against pak or was that also a poor series?

No, you just haven't read what I said properly. I said that these good sets of figures were sandwiched by some very, very poor ones.

 

[Swervy]

And because past great players take stuff for granted without thinking about it, it automatically makes it right ahead of someone who does think about it.

its not that people take these things for granted it because people dont think these things are important...a great player from the past knows what is important,and that is the result...nothing more nothing less

 

[marc71178]

No, he's just been the best of a bad bunch.

No, it is all relative.

If batsmen are scoring in excess of 6 an over and he restricts them to 5, he has done a good job.

The way the game is going, there won't be many bowlers with eco below 5.

 

[tooextracool]

I have never said Harmison doesn't swing the ball at all, because anyone who has watched him bowl will notice that he does occasionally.
Bowlers who rely on bounce can't take wickets with the neccessary regularity. Harmison doesn't rely on bounce, he relies, like a few others, on poor strokes.

oh b/s.......cant you just give it up? you dont go on to take 44 wickets in half a year based on poor strokes. harmison has been fast,accurate and penetrating(i know you love the word). the fact is that harmison is a very good fast bowler and if it were all about poor shots then howcome your beloved chaminda vaas doesnt seem to be able to do the same?