Jacob Oram - more speed please?

[Richard]

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,

The economy-rates of top bowlers have not changed significantly in either form of the game.
So whatever changes have happened in ODIs it hasn't affected the bowlers who were established as good beforehand.
Oh, and the pitches these days are far more batsmen-friendly in Test-cricket, whereas the change in ODIs is slightly less pronounced.

 

[Richard]

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...

What, so there's a difference between a dropped catch and a caught catch as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, then?
And bowlers have to deserve credit for every chance that occurs when they are bowling?
Sure, everything I say is baseless. Because you say so.

 

[Richard]

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

So, instead of detailing the contradiction you state again, simply "it exists. Because I say it does".

 

[marc71178]

So, instead of detailing the contradiction you state again, simply "it exists. Because I say it does".

I wasn't even the first person to point it out - you said the argument about slowing it down was wrong by talking about how a wicket slows the run rate down

 

[marc71178]

The economy-rates of top bowlers have not changed significantly in either form of the game.

Spot the modern bowler, first one is Pollock in 27th place of all time.

No, of course not, I mean of the top 50 economy rates of all time, a massive 3 are eld by current players.

 

[Richard]

Exactly, because there are few current players with the ability of the like of these top 50.
However, that is largely insignificant - the important thing is, players who have played in this fast era have also played in the slower era of 5 and more years ago. The like of Vaas, McGrath, Pollock, Muralitharan, Warne and such should therefore see an increase in their economy-rates over such a period, given that the batsmen have decided to score faster rather than the bowlers have gotten more wayward.
Given that this is not the case we can logically come to other conclusions.

 

[Richard]

I wasn't even the first person to point it out - you said the argument about slowing it down was wrong by talking about how a wicket slows the run rate down

Wrong - what I have been trying to disprove is that established batsmen find accurate bowling easier to hit than batsmen new to the crease.
Nothing to do with whether a wicket has the potential to slow the run-rate - because it does, but not unless the bowling becomes more accurate. It is the improvement in accuracy, not the wicket, that has caused the slowing of the rate.
Neil may have thought he spotted a contradiction, but as far as I can tell I've explained what I meant as far as that was concerned.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

oh so when chaminda vaas bowls poorly the batsmen just suddenly start playing all good strokes dont they?
its quite ridiculous how you bring up 'intimidation' here.....i cant imagine any WI batsman being intimidated by harmison after his 1.5 years of rubbish bowling. what you fail to understand is that when vaas bowls poorly, he bowls rubbish, and when he bowls well he still bowls more bad balls than mcgrath. ive said it earlier, more often than not batsmen get out to bad balls, but you cannot expect to bowl all bad balls and still get wickets...oh no , its the number of good balls you bowl in between those bad balls that effectively determines how many wickets you get. chaminda vaas bowls more bad balls than either harmison or mcgrath and thus isnt as successful as either of them.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

well lets take a look at all his figures over the last 2 years shall we?
best avg E/R
2002-2003 ICC Champions Trophy 2/32 23.00 5.75
2002-2003 NZL v IND 5/26 15.75 3.48
2002-2003 ICC World Cup 4/52 21.07 4.21
2002-2003 Bank Alfalah Cup 3/12 8.25 2.34
2003-2004 TVS Cup 1/31 309.0 6.20
2003-2004 PAK v NZL 2/33 47.00 4.09
2003-2004 NZL v PAK 2/24 20.63 3.37
2003-2004 NZL v SAF 3/24 28.00 4.31
2004 Natwest Series 2/27 22.50 3.97

so im assuming that the only non-seaming wickets hes played on were in the tvs cup then?

 

[Richard]

oh so when chaminda vaas bowls poorly the batsmen just suddenly start playing all good strokes dont they?
its quite ridiculous how you bring up 'intimidation' here.....i cant imagine any WI batsman being intimidated by harmison after his 1.5 years of rubbish bowling. what you fail to understand is that when vaas bowls poorly, he bowls rubbish, and when he bowls well he still bowls more bad balls than mcgrath. ive said it earlier, more often than not batsmen get out to bad balls, but you cannot expect to bowl all bad balls and still get wickets...oh no , its the number of good balls you bowl in between those bad balls that effectively determines how many wickets you get. chaminda vaas bowls more bad balls than either harmison or mcgrath and thus isnt as successful as either of them.

No, Chaminda Vaas has spells where he bowls stacks of good balls and gets lots of wickets with not many bad balls in between, and spells where he bowls a few more bad balls and a lot less wicket-taking balls.
Consistency is not something that comes into Chaminda's Test-career.
If wickets are being taken with bad or average balls in between good ones, that's fine as far as I'm concnerned - what irritates me is when batsmen get 20 or so consecutive wickets without bowling a single wicket-taking delivery.

 

[Richard]

well lets take a look at all his figures over the last 2 years shall we?
best avg E/R
2002-2003 ICC Champions Trophy 2/32 23.00 5.75
2002-2003 NZL v IND 5/26 15.75 3.48
2002-2003 ICC World Cup 4/52 21.07 4.21
2002-2003 Bank Alfalah Cup 3/12 8.25 2.34
2003-2004 TVS Cup 1/31 309.0 6.20
2003-2004 PAK v NZL 2/33 47.00 4.09
2003-2004 NZL v PAK 2/24 20.63 3.37
2003-2004 NZL v SAF 3/24 28.00 4.31
2004 Natwest Series 2/27 22.50 3.97

so im assuming that the only non-seaming wickets hes played on were in the tvs cup then?

You can't generalise like that, there were game-to-game variations.
Each game must be examined individually, I'm afraid.

 

[tooextracool]

No, Chaminda Vaas has spells where he bowls stacks of good balls and gets lots of wickets with not many bad balls in between

and on most occasions that happens at home......

and spells where he bowls a few more bad balls and a lot less wicket-taking balls.

no on other occasions he bowls no wicket taking deliveries whatsoever.....as he did on both of his tours to england

Consistency is not something that comes into Chaminda's Test-career.
If wickets are being taken with bad or average balls in between good ones, that's fine as far as I'm concnerned - what irritates me is when batsmen get 20 or so consecutive wickets without bowling a single wicket-taking delivery.

so are you trying to say that harmison hasnt bowled any wicket taking deliveries?thats rubbish, its clear to anybody who has watched him bowl that he has....i might agree with you that more often the wickets that he has taken havent come of wicket taking deliveries but the fact is in the last 6 months he has bowled far more wicket taking deliveries than chaminda vaas or any other bowler for that matter.

 

[Tim]

He bowled exceptionally well in all of those series except the TVS Cup where he was injured.
And thats coming from someone who's actually seen him bowl in all of those series..unlike you Richard.

 

[tooextracool]

You can't generalise like that, there were game-to-game variations.
Each game must be examined individually, I'm afraid.

dont be ridiculous......if ever you get proved wrong, as you have been here, you seem to come up with absurd methods to try and save yourself......
so now you expect bowlers to have bowled well in every game that they play?

 

[Richard]

and on most occasions that happens at home......

Yes, mostly, but not always. And as I've already pointed-out, it is not realistic to suggest he cannot exploit seaming, swinging conditions.

no on other occasions he bowls no wicket taking deliveries whatsoever.....as he did on both of his tours to england

No, not always none, just sometimes none, like on the 2002 England and 2000\01 South Africa tours.

so are you trying to say that harmison hasnt bowled any wicket taking deliveries?thats rubbish, its clear to anybody who has watched him bowl that he has....i might agree with you that more often the wickets that he has taken havent come of wicket taking deliveries but the fact is in the last 6 months he has bowled far more wicket taking deliveries than chaminda vaas or any other bowler for that matter.

Look at them, make a realistic judgement on "wicket-taking delivery", and realise that Harmison has indeed bowled very few of them in the last 7 Tests.

 

[tooextracool]

What, so there's a difference between a dropped catch and a caught catch as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, then?
And bowlers have to deserve credit for every chance that occurs when they are bowling?
Sure, everything I say is baseless. Because you say so.

i might agree with you on your 'first chance' averages, but the fact is that they arent at all accurate and it is very difficult to say what goes down as a chance and what doesnt.....

 

[Richard]

dont be ridiculous......if ever you get proved wrong, as you have been here, you seem to come up with absurd methods to try and save yourself......
so now you expect bowlers to have bowled well in every game that they play?

Nope, I expect patterns with bowling well or not to coincide roughly with conditions.
And if you look, that's what you'll find.
My methods are only absurd because they are attempted to be labelled as such by those who have got no other defence.

 

[Richard]

i might agree with you on your 'first chance' averages, but the fact is that they arent at all accurate and it is very difficult to say what goes down as a chance and what doesnt.....

It is not difficult at all: very, very rarely does something occur that it is not possible to say should or should not have been caught.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, mostly, but not always. And as I've already pointed-out, it is not realistic to suggest he cannot exploit seaming, swinging conditions.

No, not always none, just sometimes none, like on the 2002 England and 2000\01 South Africa tours...

the times when he does though includes zimbabwe
and you call this player a great bowler?if he cant exploit seaming/swinging conditions and has struggled in most places outside of home then why should he be considered better than someone who has?

Look at them, make a realistic judgement on "wicket-taking delivery", and realise that Harmison has indeed bowled very few of them in the last 7 Tests.

no i have watched the larger part of all those 7 games and i can assure you that while several of his wickets have come off 'non-wicket taking' deliveries, on many other occasions he has been unlucky to not get wickets of the 'wicket taking' deliveries. and the fact remains that in those 7 games, he very rarely bowled any bad balls as opposed to vaas.

 

[tooextracool]

Nope, I expect patterns with bowling well or not to coincide roughly with conditions.
And if you look, that's what you'll find.

no the fact is that in most of those series the conditions were roughly the same and the fact is he hasnt bowled badly at all.

My methods are only absurd because they are attempted to be labelled as such by those who have got no other defence.

on the contrary, you have no defence and thus you jump to absurd methods.....