Jacob Oram - more speed please?

[tooextracool]

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.

no the thing is that you just completely ignored half of good sets of figures,dismissing them as being on bowler friendly wickets and dismiss the others as being few and far between.

 

[Mingster]

Richard, Vaas is the only good bowler in your little imaginary world.

 

[Richard]

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

Yes, and I've never denied wickets can influence the result by causing a lower total, I've simply said that they don't slow the run-rate because new batsmen can't hit inaccurate bowling when established batsmen can.
The whole debate has been rather overhyped, as some tend to be in the determined effort to show that I cannot possibly be right about anything.

 

[Richard]

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.

Because there are so many substandard bowlers entering the international game. How do you know this trend won't be reversed?
This attitude of acceptance of mediocrity is a smaller contributory factor. Someone being congratulated for going for 5-an-over.

 

[Richard]

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?

I've been saying for most of the last 3 years that McGrath has taken wickets though poor strokes. And the fact is, he has. Some, in fact many, have attempted to attach credit to McGrath for these poor strokes, the same way they have with Harmison, for supposed "intimidation".
How poor does a batsman have to be to be scared of a bowler? Especially if he's actually watched him bowl.
My "beloved" Chaminda doesn't get stacks of wickets due to poor strokes because he's like most of us - when he bowls poorly (and it does happen) he gets poor sets of figures... often very poor.

 

[Richard]

no the thing is that you just completely ignored half of good sets of figures,dismissing them as being on bowler friendly wickets and dismiss the others as being few and far between.

No, I did not.
Most of Oram's good sets of bowling-figures have come on seaming pitches. Generally, when he's been put on non-seaming pitches, he's been hammered and gifted hardly any wickets.

 

[Richard]

Richard, Vaas is the only good bowler in your little imaginary world.

Rubbish.
There are many good bowlers, though less than there were 5 years ago.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yes, and I've never denied wickets can influence the result by causing a lower total, I've simply said that they don't slow the run-rate because new batsmen can't hit inaccurate bowling when established batsmen can.
The whole debate has been rather overhyped, as some tend to be in the determined effort to show that I cannot possibly be right about anything.

Contradiction in terms!

If causing a lower total isn't slowing the run-rate, then what the smeg is?

 

[marc71178]

This attitude of acceptance of mediocrity is a smaller contributory factor. Someone being congratulated for going for 5-an-over.

It's not mediocre if the scores are so high though?

Any fool can see that if scores average in excess of 300, then 5 an over is a reasonable performance.

It is impossible to pick one benchmark and say that those above it are good and those below it bad - you have to take it in context.

 

[marc71178]

My "beloved" Chaminda doesn't get stacks of wickets due to poor strokes because he's like most of us - when he bowls poorly (and it does happen) he gets poor sets of figures... often very poor.

So what are you trying to say, Harmison has been bowling poorly?

I for one find it very strange that you disappeared when you did (after slaggin off a bowler who then went on to take 7-12 and continue in that vein for 2 whole series against opposition that certainly isn't the worst in World Cricket) very convenient.

Perhaps it's because your theories aren't worth the paper they're written on, and you had been made to look very very silly indeed?

 

[Richard]

Contradiction in terms!

If causing a lower total isn't slowing the run-rate, then what the smeg is?

Example - team is bowled-out for 225 in 45 overs, run-rate of 5-an-over; team makes 230 for 6 off 50 overs, run-rate of 4.6-an-over.
In spite of a higher run-rate, the total to chase is lower because wickets have been taken.
Wickets can cause a lower total, and that is why I have never said "they are totally irrelevant in one-day-cricket". But they do not in themselves slow the run-rate, as many claim.

 

[Richard]

It's not mediocre if the scores are so high though?

Any fool can see that if scores average in excess of 300, then 5 an over is a reasonable performance.

It is impossible to pick one benchmark and say that those above it are good and those below it bad - you have to take it in context.

So where does the figure of a Test-match average of 40 come from, then?
The fact is, for the last 30 years there have been benchmarks, picked out-of-the-blue.
5-an-over is a reasonable performance in a score of 300, but a good bowler should still be disappointed, not proud.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, and I've never denied wickets can influence the result by causing a lower total, I've simply said that they don't slow the run-rate because new batsmen can't hit inaccurate bowling when established batsmen can.

In which case the run rate is automatically going to be slower since the batsmen aren't hitting the ball for runs

How come you keep sayng one thing on this then posting things that completely contradict what you say?

 

[marc71178]

Wickets can cause a lower total, and that is why I have never said "they are totally irrelevant in one-day-cricket". But they do not in themselves slow the run-rate, as many claim.

Yet whenever a wicket falls, the batting team run rate seems to slow down?

So it's all coincidence is it?

Heck, even Collingwood (who was going at over 6 an over today) bowled an over for just 2 runs IMMEDIATELY after a wicket today.

So what's your answer to that then?

Is it:
a) He suddenly became accurate having been buoyed by the wicket (and thus was harder to score off and thus decreased the scoring rate)
or,
b) He was as inaccurate as previously, but because the new batsman didn't have his eye in, he was unable to to hit the ball (thus decreasing the scoring rate)

 

[Richard]

So what are you trying to say, Harmison has been bowling poorly?

I for one find it very strange that you disappeared when you did (after slaggin off a bowler who then went on to take 7-12 and continue in that vein for 2 whole series against opposition that certainly isn't the worst in World Cricket) very convenient.

Perhaps it's because your theories aren't worth the paper they're written on, and you had been made to look very very silly indeed?

So, how many players have I labelled incapable of doing something and have gone-on to do what I have labelled them incapable of then?
If I had disappeared for the reason you suggest why on Earth would I bother coming back when nothing has changed?
I have not said Harmison has bowled poorly, beyond all question he bowled far better in Tests in 2004 thus far than he did in 2002 and the Tests before Trent Bridge in 2003.
But there is no denying, I'm afraid, that most of Harmison's Test-wickets have come from poor strokes not good deliveries. Take a look at them and you'll see.

 

[Richard]

In which case the run rate is automatically going to be slower since the batsmen aren't hitting the ball for runs

How come you keep sayng one thing on this then posting things that completely contradict what you say?

No, you've simply tried to concoct a contradiction when none exists.

 

[marc71178]

So where does the figure of a Test-match average of 40 come from, then?

Sorry, but have the conditions in Test Cricket changed significantly in favour of the batsman?

No, they haven't.

Have the conditions in ODI?

Yes they have.

The number of runs scored in ODI's has increased so where 300 was once a pipe-dream, it's now an adequate score.

To apply one economy rate to cover all games is inaccurate,

 

[marc71178]

No, you've simply tried to concoct a contradiction when none exists.

If you can't even see the contradiction here then there is clearly no hope...

 

[marc71178]

If I had disappeared for the reason you suggest why on Earth would I bother coming back when nothing has changed?

I don't know, and I wonder why you did, seeing as just about everything you say has about as much base as a pyramid balanced on it's point...

 

[Richard]

Yet whenever a wicket falls, the batting team run rate seems to slow down?

So it's all coincidence is it?

Heck, even Collingwood (who was going at over 6 an over today) bowled an over for just 2 runs IMMEDIATELY after a wicket today.

So what's your answer to that then?

Is it:
a) He suddenly became accurate having been buoyed by the wicket (and thus was harder to score off and thus decreased the scoring rate)
or,
b) He was as inaccurate as previously, but because the new batsman didn't have his eye in, he was unable to to hit the ball (thus decreasing the scoring rate)

No, he just happened to bowl one of his few accurate overs then.
The same way as his 1st over, which went for 3, when no wicket had fallen recently.
You are simply trying to turn a coincidence to your advantage.