most talented young player!

[Richard]

Very true , but I hardly consider the points you have chosen to be obvious.

Look, wouldn't you consider a time when runs are being scored and a time when runs aren't being scored a fairly obvious division?
Just because people don't notice it doesn't make it any less obvious.

 

[Richard]

I don't see any how those 2 theories can be bracketed together, they contradict to a great extent.

No, they might do in the Ramprakash case if you want to make them, but they don't neccesarily.
If a series has been played in conditions that have allowed lots of RUDs to be bowled, an average of 30 is pretty good. Or if someone has been dismissed by an RUD without scoring a single run in 6 innings, I hardly see how you can fault them.
That is totally different to saying that you have 4 bowlers, none of whom can exploit certain conditions, and a series is played in these conditions, that the one averaging 50 deserves more credit than the three averaging 60, because these are all substandard and there are bowlers who can exploit any conditions and average under 30.

 

[marc71178]

So a batsman who doesn't score many runs in difficult conditions is OK, but a bowler who doesn't take many wickets in adverse conditons isn't?

 

[Richard]

Not totally correct to the terms we were discussing, but anyway:
No, for an outstanding bowler there is no such thing as adverse conditions. There are conditions that are more demanding than others, but there are no conditions that offer nothing, where you have no realistic chance of success.
If a bowler can't exploit certain conditions that's more his fault than anyone else's.
If a batsman gets 6 RUDs before scoring in 6 innings there's absolutely nothing he can do about that!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not totally correct to the terms we were discussing, but anyway:
No, for an outstanding bowler there is no such thing as adverse conditions. There are conditions that are more demanding than others, but there are no conditions that offer nothing, where you have no realistic chance of success.
If a bowler can't exploit certain conditions that's more his fault than anyone else's.

That is ridiculous! A bowler is only human and no matter how good he/she is, if the conditions are favouring batsmen you can't expect just expect wickets to come.

That's why bowling line and length is important. In tough conditions you try to build pressure to get your wickets. If the only wickets that were counted were those where batsmen did not give away their innings, teams would only be drawing games. There would be no victories and there would be no losses. Like bowlers, batsmen are human too. They crack under pressure all the time... even the best of them.

Sometimes exploiting conditions means that you have to bowl tight and see what happens.

Open your eyes Richard.

 

[Shane Warne]

graeme smith

 

[Richard]

That is ridiculous! A bowler is only human and no matter how good he/she is, if the conditions are favouring batsmen you can't expect just expect wickets to come.

That's why bowling line and length is important. In tough conditions you try to build pressure to get your wickets. If the only wickets that were counted were those where batsmen did not give away their innings, teams would only be drawing games. There would be no victories and there would be no losses. Like bowlers, batsmen are human too. They crack under pressure all the time... even the best of them.

Sometimes exploiting conditions means that you have to bowl tight and see what happens.

Open your eyes Richard.

Believe it or not, Liam, there are players (too few of them, nowadays, but there are still some) who don't feel under pressure just because they're only scoring at 2.5-an-over.
Good batsmen recognise line and length, and they take the very wise view "slow runs are better than no runs".
I have never thought that extremely good line and length alone is something that merits wickets - not that there are exactly a profusion of bowlers who can bowl it ATM.
As far as I'm concerned if Wasim, Waqar, Curtley, Courtney, Goughie, Chalky, Srinath and Chaminda can exploit all conditions there's no reason everyone shouldn't be able to. If they can't, we shouldn't expect them to, but nor can we just say "they were good batting conditions and the batsmen didn't make the mistakes they should have made".
You don't have to be inhuman to be able to cut and reverse-swing the ball. But most bowlers can't do it. And some can't even seam or conventionally swing it, worse. Accuracy is something that you are born with - you can't be more accurate than you can be, but you can learn the movement techniques, and you need to if you want to get batsmen out in conditions that don't offer uneven bounce.
I repeat; for an outstanding bowler there is no such thing as batsman-friendly conditions. However, no matter how good a batsman, there are always going to be unplayable conditions and bowling.
Of course seam and conventional-swing is easier to bowl than cut and reverse-swing, but it doesn't mean one is possible and the other isn't.

 

[marc71178]

As far as I'm concerned if Wasim, Waqar, Curtley, Courtney, Goughie, Chalky, Srinath and Chaminda can exploit all conditions

I would be very interested to know how you came up with this list and what it represents exactly.

If it's a list of players who can exploit all conditions, i question how Craig White (59 wickets @ 37.62 in 30 Tests) gets in there.

The White Rose perchance?

 

[Richard]

Nope - simply a personal judgement. I say exactly the same about Matthew Inness, and he's never played for us.
Plenty of people would say that about McGrath and Gillespie. I wouldn't.

 

[luckyeddie]

Craig White was a useful all-rounder at best - he had the ability to 'shock' batsmen out with the occasional very rapid delivery which could rear alarmingly.

To mention him in the same breath as Wasim Akram, Courtney Walsh, Waqar, Curtley, even Darren Gough is one thing. To compound that by excluding McGrath and Gillespie from the list (which I too take to be 'bowlers capable of exploiting all consitions') is, frankly, baffling.

But then again, you've baffled me before.

 

[marc71178]

Nope - simply a personal judgement.

Explain the reasoning then...

 

[iamdavid]

Note the movement gained by McGrath & in particular Gillespie during the 2001 Indian series , some of the most unhelpful conditions one will come across.

 

[Craig]

I've been a bit disappointed in Yasir Hammed actually in this series. Some of the shots he played, Javed would be going nuts.

 

[Armadillo]

What about the pakistanis

I dont no why many pakistanis havent been mentioned in this thread, there are loads of really good pakistanis youngsters commin through rite now. e.g. Taufeeq Umar, brilliant opener, Imran Farhat is really aggressive and another really good opener, yasir hameeed is argubly 1 of da best 1 downs in da world ATM, dont forget sami and Kaneria.

 

[Rik]

Explain the reasoning then...

Marc vs Richard:

Round 2

 

[Tom Halsey]

Re: What about the pakistanis

I dont no why many pakistanis havent been mentioned in this thread, there are loads of really good pakistanis youngsters commin through rite now. e.g. Taufeeq Umar, brilliant opener, Imran Farhat is really aggressive and another really good opener, yasir hameeed is argubly 1 of da best 1 downs in da world ATM, dont forget sami and Kaneria.

Adil, you are almost as biased as me...unfortunately not towards Essex.

 

[marc71178]

Marc vs Richard:

Round 2

Come on Rik, surely you can see the absurdity of bracketing White in that class?

 

[Richard]

Craig White was a useful all-rounder at best - he had the ability to 'shock' batsmen out with the occasional very rapid delivery which could rear alarmingly.

To mention him in the same breath as Wasim Akram, Courtney Walsh, Waqar, Curtley, even Darren Gough is one thing. To compound that by excluding McGrath and Gillespie from the list (which I too take to be 'bowlers capable of exploiting all consitions') is, frankly, baffling.

But then again, you've baffled me before.

I think White could do what McGrath and Gillespie cannot - reverse-swing and cut the ball, and hence threaten batsmen in all conditions.
It wasn't just people thinking he was slower than he was. White had something most bowlers don't. Just a shame he only really got into Test-cricket at 30 and suffered injury and inconsistency problems like almost everyone else.

 

[Richard]

Note the movement gained by McGrath & in particular Gillespie during the 2001 Indian series , some of the most unhelpful conditions one will come across.

I would - if I had seen it.
Given that I haven't, all I can judge upon is the wickets themselves, very few of which came off really good deliveries.

 

[Richard]

Explain the reasoning then...

White has taken wickets with all sorts of different bowling techniques. McGrath and Gillespie have taken them with two - seam on responsive wickets, and poor batting on wickets not responsive to seam.