Jacob Oram - more speed please?

[Richard]

i am trying to resist getting involved in this

You won't be able to resist for long - as with most things regading marc and me, there are quite a few small circles that are travelled in. That's the problem when marc can't see that he's wrong.

 

[Richard]

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?

And because there have been occasions when they have, it means they must do it all the time.
I watch cricket because, believe it or not, there are actually good batsmen and bowlers.

 

[Richard]

Without that, it is inconsistent.

No, anyone can tell what should and should not have been caught if they actually think about it, which most don't - anything that has touched fingertips (and occasionally something that hasn't) is usually labelled either a chance or a "half-chance".
If you actually apply a consistent logic to it, there will be little dispute on the matter.

 

[Richard]

Collingwood yesterday?

Nope, I've already pointed-out the case of that - he caught the ball, it just popped-out when his elbow hit the ground. It was not uncatchable, because he caught it.

 

[Richard]

Except when I say that with regards economy rate.

Totally different situations - taken individually to avoid generalisation, not taken individually to attempt to apply excuse-ridden contexts.
Yet again trying to bring irrelevant matter into things in attempts to create non-existant contradictions.

 

[Richard]

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

Well I'm very sorry if the words "in themselves" didn't cross my keyboard - at the time it wasn't possible to predict the breakdown to which this would go.

 

[Richard]

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?!

No, I didn't look at the list - I knew some of the participants, and the rest weren't significant. The significant thing was that there were only 3 still playing in the list.
Suprise, surprise, you have tried to misportray my words - I said most bowlers of today - not all.

 

[Richard]

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'

It relies on nothing of the sort - it is not a "what if he had been caught" - it is a straight, simple "he would not have scored those runs under normal circumstances" (ie catches being taken).
The whole concept of first-chance averages relies on basic fact - a chance being given. Normally it doesn't matter, because most chances are accepted, but when they aren't there is no difference as far as the batsman's ability is concerned.

 

[Richard]

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.....

He shouldn't - I've never said he should, it's just an assumption people make by not reading my posts properly. All I ever say is "if he bowled like we know he can more often in my opinion he would be far better than any other bowler".

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.

The ball didn't take a wicket - it wasn't wicket-taking. Of course it is possible to say a bowler is moving the ball too much - just by scrambling the seam a little more you'll move it less and catch rather than miss the edge.
Atherton, Vaughan and McCullum, by the looks of things, are all top quality batsmen - if they can't nick something, it's unlikely anyone else will.

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

No, it's not - his penetration is appalling. If his accuracy was appalling he'd be going for 4.5, 5-an-over in Test-cricket. Like most bowlers, when he doesn't offer any penetration he doesn't get wickets. There are a lucky few, however, who don't need to offer penetration to regularly get wickets.

 

[marc71178]

Totally different situations - taken individually to avoid generalisation, not taken individually to attempt to apply excuse-ridden contexts.

Right so you can look at individual matches to back you up, but others can't?

 

[marc71178]

No, I didn't look at the list - I knew some of the participants, and the rest weren't significant. The significant thing was that there were only 3 still playing in the list.

And the bowlers I highlighted are in the main pretty average bowlers who only have those figures because they played in the era when run rates were lower.

If they played now, you could add about 1 run or so to every one of them because run rates have gone up.

Unless of course you do think that those are the greatest ODI bowlers of all time?

 

[marc71178]

The whole concept of first-chance averages relies on basic fact - a chance being given.

It is a matter of opinion as to what is a chance and what isn't - so there must be consistency in the application, which can only come from the same person adjudicating on every ball.

 

[tooextracool]

It relies on nothing of the sort - it is not a "what if he had been caught" - it is a straight, simple "he would not have scored those runs under normal circumstances" (ie catches being taken).
The whole concept of first-chance averages relies on basic fact - a chance being given. Normally it doesn't matter, because most chances are accepted, but when they aren't there is no difference as far as the batsman's ability is concerned.

err what? to say that "if the fielder had taken that catch he wouldnt have scored that much" is about the same as "if there was a slower fielder trying to get to the ball he would not have been out and consequently would have score more"
and what about poor umpiring decisions ie batsmen being out caught behind despite not edging the ball or batsman being given out lbw when he clearly shouldnt have.......do you have 'second chance averages' too or is this just one method based solely on devaluing batsmans performances ?

 

[tooextracool]

He shouldn't - I've never said he should, it's just an assumption people make by not reading my posts properly. All I ever say is "if he bowled like we know he can more often in my opinion he would be far better than any other bowler".

so why then i ask you should he be rated as highly as mcgrath,pollock,gillespie or even harmison for that matter?

The ball didn't take a wicket - it wasn't wicket-taking. Of course it is possible to say a bowler is moving the ball too much - just by scrambling the seam a little more you'll move it less and catch rather than miss the edge.
Atherton, Vaughan and McCullum, by the looks of things, are all top quality batsmen - if they can't nick something, it's unlikely anyone else will.

err no......by top quality batsman im looking at the elite players, the laras,the steve waughs.....atherton was definetly not in that leagues, vaughan wasnt in 00 and still isnt and mccullum is not there yet.

No, it's not - his penetration is appalling. If his accuracy was appalling he'd be going for 4.5, 5-an-over in Test-cricket. Like most bowlers, when he doesn't offer any penetration he doesn't get wickets. There are a lucky few, however, who don't need to offer penetration to regularly get wickets.

and for anybody whos watched harmison bowl he does offer penetration fairly regularly....you dont beat the bat as often as he does if you dont have any penetration. and vaas' accuracy is appalling when he lacks pentration, and i can assure you that you dont have to go for 5 runs an over when you lack in accuracy and penetration

 

[Richard]

Right so you can look at individual matches to back you up, but others can't?

That comment is not relevant to what I said - of course others can use individual matches to back them up, but your particular argument has nothing to do with what mine does.
Therefore you are trying to make something out of nothing to suit your argument.