Jacob Oram - more speed please?

[tooextracool]

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.

what about the dropped catch of collingwood yesterday?would you call that a 'chance'?
and it relies upon having seen every ball of the game to realise whether or not they were 'chances'....and despite the fact that you pretend to have watched every ball of every game im quite sure you dont watch half of them.
i wouldnt mind those averages being part of batsman's official records at all, but as i said it requires too much analysis into every innings.

 

[Richard]

what about the dropped catch of collingwood yesterday?would you call that a 'chance'?
and it relies upon having seen every ball of the game to realise whether or not they were 'chances'....and despite the fact that you pretend to have watched every ball of every game im quite sure you dont watch half of them.
i wouldnt mind those averages being part of batsman's official records at all, but as i said it requires too much analysis into every innings.

So you think there aren't people who watch every game? Every game is watched by thousands, all it takes is someone who's got a realistic grasp of what should and should not be caught to keep a check of it.
WRT the Collingwood drop off Smith, yes, it should have been held once he caught it. Fortunately it didn't gift too many undeserved runs to a batsman who didn't deserve them.

 

[Richard]

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?

As I have stated several times, he is perfectly capable of exploiting swinging, seaming conditions and there have been plenty of occasions where he has. It would be very stupid indeed to suggest that a bowler who can bowl all he can cannot bowl seam and swing.

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.

If a delivery deserves a wicket it'll take it (unless catches are dropped). A delivery that doesn't take a wicket doesn't deserve it (unless a catch is dropped off a wicket-taking ball).
Yes, he's bowled pretty accurately, but as I've said time and again, accuracy does not denote automatic deserving of wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

So you think there aren't people who watch every game? Every game is watched by thousands, all it takes is someone who's got a realistic grasp of what should and should not be caught to keep a check of it.

nope there isnt a person who can watch every ball of every game.....i pride myself for having watched most of the cricket that goes on, but despite all that i dont even come close to watching every ball.

WRT the Collingwood drop off Smith, yes, it should have been held once he caught it. Fortunately it didn't gift too many undeserved runs to a batsman who didn't deserve them.

so basically anything that touches the finger tip does down as a 'chance' then?

 

[Richard]

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.

All the conditions in the series were roughly the same, what rubbish. You just have to look at the amount of different conditions in this NatWest Series to see that consecutive games with comparable conditions are very rare.

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

No, I make my judgements based on these methods, and because people don't like those judgements they must label the methods "absurd".

 

[Richard]

nope there isnt a person who can watch every ball of every game.....i pride myself for having watched most of the cricket that goes on, but despite all that i dont even come close to watching every ball.

Bill Frindall, for one, has watched just about every England game for the last 20 years or so.
It's not impossible and even if it was, why on Earth does it have to be the sam person who watches every game?

so basically anything that touches the finger tip does down as a 'chance' then?

No, not at all - no-one is going to catch a cricket ball with their fingertips. That's why to label something which clipped the fingers a "chance" or "half-chance" is ludicrous. But Collingwood caught the ball, then dropped it, simple as.

 

[tooextracool]

As I have stated several times, he is perfectly capable of exploiting swinging, seaming conditions and there have been plenty of occasions where he has. It would be very stupid indeed to suggest that a bowler who can bowl all he can cannot bowl seam and swing.

that doesnt mask the fact that he hasnt being doing so, yet.....

If a delivery deserves a wicket it'll take it (unless catches are dropped). A delivery that doesn't take a wicket doesn't deserve it (unless a catch is dropped off a wicket-taking ball).

rubbish, there have been several times when bowlers have bowled brilliantly and been unable to take wickets....most recently simon jones in the first test against NZ....or to go back in time curtly ambrose on his last tour of england on several occasions bowled many 'wicket taking deliveries' but still didnt get as many wickets as he deserved to. it might even be said that on that occasion ambrose was too good to get a batsman out.

Yes, he's bowled pretty accurately, but as I've said time and again, accuracy does not denote automatic deserving of wickets.

no but the reason why mcgrath and pollock have been so successful is because they have been accurate....the fact is that if you are accurate you are more likely to get wickets even if you dont bowl too many wicket taking deliveries because you tend to frustrate the batsman......

 

[tooextracool]

All the conditions in the series were roughly the same, what rubbish. You just have to look at the amount of different conditions in this NatWest Series to see that consecutive games with comparable conditions are very rare.

i think if you had watched most of those series, they werent effected by rain, or poor weather as they are in england. the series in pakistan definetly had similar wickets throughout the tournament as did the recent series in NZ

No, I make my judgements based on these methods, and because people don't like those judgements they must label the methods "absurd".

no its quite simple for you to pluck out the few bad figures of oram's and say that these were on "non seaming" wickets and say that the good ones were all on "seaming wickets" when the fact is that that isnt the case at all.

 

[Richard]

that doesnt mask the fact that he hasnt been capable of doing so, yet.....

Yes, he has. Just because he has not done it as much as he'd like, and he's not got good figures in Test-cricket in countries which are stereotyped as being the only ones to produce these conditions, doesn't mean he cannot bowl seam and swing effectively.

rubbish, there have been several times when bowlers have bowled brilliantly and been unable to take wickets....most recently simon jones in the first test against NZ....or to go back in time curtly ambrose on his last tour of england on several occasions bowled many 'wicket taking deliveries' but still didnt get as many wickets as he deserved to. it might even be said that on that occasion ambrose was too good to get a batsman out.

Exactly - he moved the ball too much. However, though he didn't get as many wickets as some said he deserved, he still kept putting the ball there and as such attained an average of just over 18, because he invariably hit the edge at the 10th or 11th attempt.
A play-and-miss is not a wicket-taking delivery.
And likewise with Jones, he kept putting the ball there and eventually he hit McCullum's edge. It was only a matter of time.
Just because you've bowled well and been unable to take a stack of wickets doesn't mean you should have got wickets.

no but the reason why mcgrath and pollock have been so successful is because they have been accurate....the fact is that if you are accurate you are more likely to get wickets even if you dont bowl too many wicket taking deliveries because you tend to frustrate the batsman......

And how many times to I have to say it - good batsmen don't get frustrated in First-Class-cricket, because they realise a slow scoring-rate is irrelevant.

 

[tooextracool]

Bill Frindall, for one, has watched just about every England game for the last 20 years or so.
It's not impossible and even if it was, why on Earth does it have to be the sam person who watches every game?.

for the simple fact that you are the only person who seems to be coming up with first chance averages when its quite clear that you havent watched every game....

No, not at all - no-one is going to catch a cricket ball with their fingertips. That's why to label something which clipped the fingers a "chance" or "half-chance" is ludicrous. But Collingwood caught the ball, then dropped it, simple as.

so what about if some other fielder was in that position....who was a lot slower and only managed a get a finger tip onto it.....does it still go down as a chance then? or what if someone didnt attempt to go for the catch at all....how would you know if it was a chance or not?

 

[Richard]

for the simple fact that you are the only person who seems to be coming up with first chance averages when its quite clear that you havent watched every game....

Just because I am the only person on here who places value on them does not mean they could not be kept track of very easily.

so what about if some other fielder was in that position....who was a lot slower and only managed a get a finger tip onto it.....does it still go down as a chance then? or what if someone didnt attempt to go for the catch at all....how would you know if it was a chance or not?

What-ifs, what-ifs - they have no place in the discussion. You can only allow for their being the fielder that there is in the position. Exactly the same as if a tall fielder takes a high catch, you can't say "he was unlucky, that should have been a smaller fielder, then it would have gone over his head".
If someone was there and got sufficient hand to a ball to catch it, then dismissal, as far as an assessment of the batsman's ability is concerned, has occurred.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, he has. Just because he has not done it as much as he'd like, and he's not got good figures in Test-cricket in countries which are stereotyped as being the only ones to produce these conditions, doesn't mean he cannot bowl seam and swing effectively..

well AFAIC if he hasnt been able to produce the goods effectively in these conditions against the better teams then why should he be considered as good as some of the other bowlers?
let him do it first and then we'll rate him.....

Exactly - he moved the ball too much. However, though he didn't get as many wickets as some said he deserved, he still kept putting the ball there and as such attained an average of just over 18, because he invariably hit the edge at the 10th or 11th attempt.
A play-and-miss is not a wicket-taking delivery.
And likewise with Jones, he kept putting the ball there and eventually he hit McCullum's edge. It was only a matter of time.
Just because you've bowled well and been unable to take a stack of wickets doesn't mean you should have got wickets.

so if a bowler beats the bat consistently then it isnt a wicket taking delivery? no its quite stupid to say that "he moved the ball too much" because the fact is many of those deliveries were really wicket taking delivies and would have got the top quality batsman out....the fact that both of them were bowling to decent batsman who weren't good enough to knick the ball doesnt mean that the ball wasnt wicket taking.

And how many times to I have to say it - good batsmen don't get frustrated in First-Class-cricket, because they realise a slow scoring-rate is irrelevant.

yes and how many times have i said it...not every batsman in a side happens to be "good" by your classification. the fact is that there are times when a bowler isnt bowling wicket taking deliveries but at least if you are accurate you are still likely to take wickets or assist the bowler at the other end. thats what chaminda vaas lacks....when hes bad his accuracy is appalling

 

[tooextracool]

What-ifs, what-ifs - they have no place in the discussion. You can only allow for their being the fielder that there is in the position. Exactly the same as if a tall fielder takes a high catch, you can't say "he was unlucky, that should have been a smaller fielder, then it would have gone over his head".
If someone was there and got sufficient hand to a ball to catch it, then dismissal, as far as an assessment of the batsman's ability is concerned, has occurred.

and these same 'what ifs' can also be mentioned when you look at catches been taken and catches being dropped. you tourself have said what if all those catches of vaughan had been taken in australia......he wouldnt have averaged half as much....in other words the whole concept of 'first chance' averages relies on 'what if'

 

[marc71178]

Exactly, because there are few current players with the ability of the like of these top 50.

Did you even look at that list?

SP Davis
Chris Old
Mike(?) Whitney
Ewan Chatfield
Geoff Lawson
Adam Dale
Vic Marks
John Lever
Phil Edmonds
Geoff Miller
John Traicos
Rashid Khan
Rodney Hogg
Maninder Singh
Phil DeFreitas
Roger Harper.

Are you telling me that the likes of Glenn McGrath don't have as much ability as that list?!

 

[marc71178]

Wrong - what I have been trying to disprove is that established batsmen find accurate bowling easier to hit than batsmen new to the crease.

No, you started out by denying that wickets slow down the run rate, then started saying that they did.

 

[marc71178]

Each game must be examined individually, I'm afraid.

Except when I say that with regards economy rate.

 

[marc71178]

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.

Collingwood yesterday?

 

[marc71178]

It's not impossible and even if it was, why on Earth does it have to be the sam person who watches every game?

Without that, it is inconsistent.

 

[marc71178]

And how many times to I have to say it - good batsmen don't get frustrated in First-Class-cricket, because they realise a slow scoring-rate is irrelevant.

Oh really - so there is actually no good batsmen in the World then, seeing as every one of them has at some point or other done just that.

No good batsmen and no good bowlers.

So what do you watch Cricket for then?

 

[Swervy]

i am trying to resist getting involved in this