it swung throughout the test match actually, however the fact that simon jones missed out in the 2nd innings made it appear as though batting seemed easier. hoggard got the ball to swing consistently during the test match, while flintoff didnt swing it at all in either of the 2 innings.wpdavid said:
Never miss an opportunity to say 'Clarke sucks', eh? I think your dislike of him is almost pathological. Get help. Really.
'Almost a miracle'? Give me a break. Play some cricket at a decent level and tell me that someone so obviously flawed could actually make it without a heck of a lot of hard work honing good technique. You can only get so far with natural ability, FC cricket at best. Test cricket is a test of a combination of raw ability, temperament AND technique. Saying Ponting, averaging 50+, has gotten by because of his temperament and good eye alone is stretching the bounds of credulity. Seriously. It's about as believable as Richard's assertion that McGrath had a successful two years with the ball entirely due to a succession of terrible strokes by batsmen he played against.
What utter rubish!!tooextracool said:
What's your problem with him saying it? He's making a comparison - why Ponting has succeeded and Clarke IMO won't.Top_Cat said:
Is that why people with such bad techniques do occasionally succeed? Is that why Jeff Thomson played for Australia despite not even knowing what way the ball swung when the shiny side was on the left?Top_Cat said:
No-one brought up Clarke until he did. Just wasn't relevant. I guess I get tired of people who's only way to form any sort of argument is to bag the crap out of players. Y'know, real people, not athletic robots who never make mistakes, show vulnerability, etc.
He did. Him not knowing where the ball was going and not knowing how to bowl the technical stuff is the stuff of legend, not fact from whom I've spoken to. It was all part of his image. When Thommo kicked-back and tried to bowl line-and-length, he could. He was just more interested in being the quickest.
is that why chris gayle is currently playing test cricket for the WI then? my point was not to say that pontings technique is completely useless, but to point out the fact that it is very ordinary and it couldnt be any more obvious that it is.Top_Cat said:
his straight drives on the up are good technique? come off it. yes so he can play attacking shots with a good technique but you cant attack all the time, and really its not like i said that his attacking strokes arent played with a good technique. my point is that his technique is susceptible to all forms of bowling, and ive already explained why.Eclipse said:
It is susceptible but no more than alot of very good players.. And you do need to be a good bowler to trouble him (unless the pitch sucks)tooextracool said:
no its not, its good enough to succeed in test match cricket along with a combination of other factors. on its own most other players would struggle a fair bit to average as much as he has.Eclipse said:
which is exactly my point. you can have an absolute joke of a technique(like chris gayles) and still succeed on flat wickets.Eclipse said:
which is exactly the point im trying to make here. his technique against pace is most certainly not 'very good' or anywhere near that simply because hes succeeded brilliantly against pace bowlers in the past. it is ordinary, but with his combination of a very good eye, nimble footwork and a decent temperament, he has managed to achieve more than almost any other player with the same technique would.Eclipse said:
anything looks good on a flat wicket. trescothick could play one of the most ridiculous cover drives away from his body and make it look brilliant. similarly chris gayle could slog a 6 over long leg with a pull shot and make it look good. point of it all is that technique is vital when we look at performances in bowler friendly or even marginally bowler friendly conditions, not when the conditions are so obviously in the batters favor.Eclipse said:
What is wrong with his techneque apart from the obvious things we all know about? What shot does he look valnerable playing? I think he has improved against spin bowling quite a bit as well or though he needs to prove himself in India, but look at his play of Murili for example.tooextracool said:
True but Ponting plays his shots with alot better techneque than those two and he can play on seaming wickets which he has proven.. something that those two havn't done.
Exactly. So explain Ponting's success in bowler-friendly conditions other than in India. Luck and miracles don't count.
So now it's 'very ordinary'............ Really, this is getting crazy. All of the things you're talking about (hard hands, shuffling across, etc.) only happen early in Ponting's innings'. Once he's set, he plays with excellent soft-hands. In all of his dismissals in India in 2001 (and trust me, I watched every tortured moment), they got him early because he really isn't a great starter much like Dean Jones wasn't. But as he showed in a losing Test series in SL previous to that one and in just about every other country in the world, once he's in, he's fine. The shuffle across disappears, the hands get softer.
Exactly. And another point to note is that most people play with techniques that suit them. For instance, Sehwag doesn't move his feet as much as, say Sunil Gavaskar had to, because he knows that because of his great eye, good hand eye co-ordination and gift of timing, he can still make it work without moving his feet too much. Same with Lara. He actually jumps around the crease when facing fast bowlers, even guys as quick as Lee, and trust me, anyone else who does what Lara does to Lee, would have to take a few hard blows. But he hardly takes any. Each and every international player have their own personal strong points and most of the time, they simply work out a technique according to their strengths so that it gives them maximum chances of doing well. Good technique actually varies from player to player simply because what works for player A does not necessarily have to work for player B.Top_Cat said:
1) Well Lillee said it was true, so I believe it.Top_Cat said:
And when exactly did anyone say that? What we're saying is that he has an average technique but more than makes up for it with a brilliant eye, etc.age_master said:
