Katich call up

[Mister Wright]

First of all, no, by something resembling my theory they'd be 160\4 after 40 overs. However, I never actually said "each 10 overs of the innings have 40 runs scored and 1 wicket lost.
There are different places at which to aim if you want to bowl economically at various stages of the innings. For most of the first 40 overs, that's the top of off stump. In the last 10, it's the Yorker length, varying in line depending on if you see the batsman giving himself room.
Even if batsmen don't give their wickets away, there are lines and lengths, especially with the wicketkeeper standing-up, that it's simply not possible to score that quickly from, with a decent field.
If you can't contain batsmen in the last 10 overs, it's not just because they're "set", it's also because your bowling is not good enough.
OK, it's not the easiest task aiming in the blockhole ball after ball, but it's certainly possible. West Indies have been doing it surprisingly well in the present series.

I don't understand this post at all. How is this backing up your theory that it is more important to be economical than it is to take wickets? No matter how well a bowler is bowling at the 'death' a batsman that is set is going to play the bowling better than a batsman who is isn't.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Witness today's game.

223/3 after 40... 8-9 an over thereafter

 

[age_master]

my thanks to players in both teams for proving the collective (pretty much everyone except richard) point

WI - 2/212 after 41.3 overs ended up with 304 (92 runs from about 51 balls)

RSA - 3/223 after 40 overs, 87 off 60 balls

dont think either side would have been able to do that 6, 7 or 8 wickets down

 

[Richard]

50 runs more in an innings is a big difference, wickets lost is not.

Exactly.

 

[Richard]

which team will score more runs in a match 9 times out of 10

team A who is 8/250 after 40 overs with 2 tail enders in

or team B who is 1/210 after 40 overs with 2 batsmen set - one has passed a hundred, the other passed 70

there may be a 40 run diffference in the scores, but team B could score upwards of 100 with a good last 10 overs, while team A will struggle along and mauybe make another 15-20

And if the bowlers hit the spot and the fielding and field-placing is good there is little difference.

 

[Richard]

40 overs of the ball in exactly the same spot would not be economical.

In the last 10, batsmen would use their feet.

Cricket is nowhere near as simple a game as you make out.

If the wicketkeeper stands up to the stumps to a seamer, a batsman using his feet will pay for it sooner rather than later.
That's fairly simple, but cricket is nowhere near as complicated a game as you make-out.

 

[Richard]

that is unless you are currently bowling to Razzaq!!!!!:O :wow:

Even Abdur can't do the impossible!

 

[Richard]

You confuse me. Why is it that when it is convenient for your argument you "don't base everything on statistics", whereas when it is, statistics tell the full story? You would be the last person on this forum to play down the importance of statistics.

Statistics very, very rarely tell the fully story.
However, where selection is concerned, it's not realistic to say "you just scored a century, but you didn't deserve it, so we're going to drop you".
Selection can be done on nothing but statistics; judgement can use them only as a guide.
There is only one statistic that can be used (and even then not on it's own), the first-chance average.

 

[Richard]

my thanks to players in both teams for proving the collective (pretty much everyone except richard) point

WI - 2/212 after 41.3 overs ended up with 304 (92 runs from about 51 balls)

RSA - 3/223 after 40 overs, 87 off 60 balls

dont think either side would have been able to do that 6, 7 or 8 wickets down

Poor bowling in both cases cannot be avoided.
Wickets in hand help, obviously, but good bowling will stop it no matter how many wickets are in hand.

 

[Richard]

I don't understand this post at all. How is this backing up your theory that it is more important to be economical than it is to take wickets? No matter how well a bowler is bowling at the 'death' a batsman that is set is going to play the bowling better than a batsman who is isn't.

Yes, I never denied that.
But good bowling cannot be got away without lots of luck, full-stop.

 

[marc71178]

And if the bowlers hit the spot and the fielding and field-placing is good there is little difference.

If wickets are in hand, a team will score big runs in the last 10 overs irrespective of the bowling.

 

[marc71178]

There is only one statistic that can be used (and even then not on it's own), the first-chance average.

If it existed, you'd have an argument.

 

[Eclipse]

Richard you dont seem to accept that good bowling can be counterd by even better batting.

If Adam Gilchrist and Ricky Ponting are set and at the wicket in the 40th over of an ODI then beleive me the bowlers are going to pay big time wether they bowl well or not.

For a start good length balls are a compleat waste of time ether it's a perfect yorker or they will get atleast 1 run every ball.

good length balls will just disapear.

 

[age_master]

Cricket is nowhere near as simple a game as you make out.

i think Marc has found the solution to Richards stupid theories that are completeley irrelevant casue its whats in the scorebook that counts in the end. and no richard you cant argue with that.



PS Australia bowled exceptionally for the whole indian innings but it didn't stop Agarkar and Badani making runs quickly did it


eclipse also makes a good point

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If wickets are in hand, a team will score big runs in the last 10 overs irrespective of the bowling.

I wouldn't back Sri Lanka to, unless Jayasuriya is still around. They tend to get stuck somehwhat in the second half of the innings.

 

[Eclipse]

I wouldn't back Sri Lanka to, unless Jayasuriya is still around. They tend to get stuck somehwhat in the second half of the innings.

Yeah I agree.

Everytime I see a Sri Lankan match coverd on T.V the commentators allways go on about "how explosive the Sri lankan batsman are etc.."

That may have been the case back in 1996 but It's simplily not true these days there middle order seem to find's it very hard if the top order does not get them away to a flyer.

 

[Richard]

If wickets are in hand, a team will score big runs in the last 10 overs irrespective of the bowling.

Rubbish.
There are some deliveries that it is not possible to score off, no matter how long you've been batting for.

 

[Richard]

If it existed, you'd have an argument.

It does exist.
You just don't recognise it.
But the fact remains, if let-offs and unfair dismissals occur, a first-chance average will differ from a scorebook average.

 

[Richard]

Richard you dont seem to accept that good bowling can be counterd by even better batting.

If Adam Gilchrist and Ricky Ponting are set and at the wicket in the 40th over of an ODI then beleive me the bowlers are going to pay big time wether they bowl well or not.

For a start good length balls are a compleat waste of time ether it's a perfect yorker or they will get atleast 1 run every ball.

good length balls will just disapear.

In the last 10 overs a good length is not what would normally be a good length.
A conventional good length is in fact a very poor length.
A reasonable Yorker (it doesn't have to be right on the creaseline every ball) will stop anyone, no matter how heavy a bat and big a swing, from scoring boundaries. And if the field is set well singles won't come every ball either.

 

[Richard]

i think Marc has found the solution to Richards stupid theories that are completeley irrelevant casue its whats in the scorebook that counts in the end. and no richard you cant argue with that.

So, are you saying marc is right or wrong? If you're saying he's right (and cricket isn't simple) then you're contradicting yourself saying the scorebook's all that matters.
If you're saying he's wrong you're contradicting yourself saying he's "found the solution".
And by the way, you're wrong about the scorebook being all that mattered. If it was, no-one would watch the actual play.

PS Australia bowled exceptionally for the whole indian innings but it didn't stop Agarkar and Badani making runs quickly did it

If Agarkar and Badani scored runs the bowling was poor!
No two ways about that!