Most underrated and overrated players in the world?

[Richard]

Rubbish

No, it's not - take a look at some bowlers bowling this tactic at Test-standard batsmen, and see how often it actually happens.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've watched him bowl lots, and sometimes he gets the wickets because the ball has swung a little (or a lot) in the circumstances you describe.
Often, too, you'll see the same circumstances and the ball either left or driven successfully.

He does, it's not as simple as saying a tactic works every time, but it only has to work once and the batsman is gone.

 

[Richard]

I know how good the batsman are Richard, I've bowled to some of them and they make me look very slow and straight up and down, but the bowlers they play against are also top class - and moving it a foot will often not bring you any result at all as it's too much movement.

No, it's not - three feet is too much, that'll just result in a play-and-miss.
If you want to take wickets by moving it just half a bat's width you've got to bowl very fast and very full.

 

[Richard]

He does, it's not as simple as saying a tactic works every time, but it only has to work once and the batsman is gone.

And for every time it works it'll not work maybe 50 times.

 

[Swervy]

And for every time it works it'll not work maybe 50 times.

there you go..a strike rate of a wicket every 50 balls..quite acceptable at test level I think

 

[Richard]

But you can't, you just said it wasn't possible to use statistical research with bowling.

So looking at which deliveries have taken wickets is statistical research?

 

[Richard]

there you go..a strike rate of a wicket every 50 balls..quite acceptable at test level I think

Except that the tactic isn't used every ball - maybe once every over.
Equating to... I'll let you work it out.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Half a bat?????? Have you watched much recently?
Half a bat won't even take the edge uncontrollably if there's no adjustment - given the adjustment that almost always happens, it probably won't even take the edge at all.

I actually play too Richard, and half a bat is plenty. You seem to be assuming that every time a batsman plays at the ball it's going to hit perfectly in the centre until something happens to change that. Allowing for bat angle, position of batsman etc etc half a bat is plenty to induce an edge. I'm not saying it'll happen everytime the ball moves that far by the way, but the ball will also move further than that at times, and less than that at times. Things seem to be very black and white in your world.

If batsman adjust that well, why are there so many catches behind the wicket and balls that beat the batsman? Trying to adjust will see you offer a chance more often than not as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So looking at which deliveries have taken wickets is statistical research?

If you're trying to make any sort of inference from that then yes it is.

 

[Richard]

On how many occasions have Australia been 'heavily' scored against when he's been bowling? I'd be willing to be it's not a large percentage of games played. Of course you'd have to define 'heavily'.

A batsman scoring 70 or so.
I'm not talking about teams.
Plenty of batsmen have still scored 70 and more in his time.

 

[Son Of Coco]

A batsman scoring 70 or so.
I'm not talking about teams.
Plenty of batsmen have still scored 70 and more in his time.

How many have they scored off him and how has the bowler at the other end bowled during those times?

 

[Richard]

I actually play too Richard, and half a bat is plenty. You seem to be assuming that every time a batsman plays at the ball it's going to hit perfectly in the centre until something happens to change that. Allowing for bat angle, position of batsman etc etc half a bat is plenty to induce an edge. I'm not saying it'll happen everytime the ball moves that far by the way, but the ball will also move further than that at times, and less than that at times. Things seem to be very black and white in your world.

If batsman adjust that well, why are there so many catches behind the wicket and balls that beat the batsman? Trying to adjust will see you offer a chance more often than not as far as I'm concerned.

Because yes - sometimes batsmen play the wrong line, play with an open face, etc.
Which simply means that for different instances, there are different needs of movement - but often half a bat isn't enough.
Playing, meanwhile, is about the worst place to judge it from - you can't make accurate measurements when playing, you've got to keep your eye on the game.

 

[Richard]

How many have they scored off him and how has the bowler at the other end bowled during those times?

Whatever, doesn't matter - McGrath has still bowled the same, and he's still supposedly created the same pressure.

 

[Richard]

If you're trying to make any sort of inference from that then yes it is.

How so?
How is looking at a single number statistical research?

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, it's not - three feet is too much, that'll just result in a play-and-miss.
If you want to take wickets by moving it just half a bat's width you've got to bowl very fast and very full.

I can assure you that's not true. McGrath's pace would be more than enough - and a foot is too much on a lot of occasions - you've moved it more than two bat widths.

 

[Son Of Coco]

How so?
How is looking at a single number statistical research?

Because you've employed your own interpretation of a series of events that have happened up until a certain time to come to a conclusion....in this case that McGrath has been lucky. It's not a single number, it's a series of numbers over a period of time presented as a total.

 

[Richard]

Then you've never watched cricket anywhere nearly as closely as you think you have, or your knowledge of bowling and it's strategies is non-existent.

Your example of outswinger, inswinger, outswinger, inswinger etc etc isn't likely to fool anyone as it's become a pattern. It doesn't have to follow this rule to be capable of fooling a batsman, You can bowl your stock ball for 5 overs and then do something a bit different - it's as simple as that.

If you can show me one batsman who, when constantly beaten or unable to time his shots, shrugs it off with complete disdain I'll show you a robot.

You seem to send a lot of time talking about what you think should happen instead of what does happen. I think you need to learn more about the basics before coming up with these radical ideas personally.

And I think some people need to look more closely at what does happen rather than what assumptions would suggest.
Outswinger-inswinger-outswinger-inswinger-outswinger-inswinger is predictable, but outswinger-outswinger-outswinger-inswinger-outswinger-inswinger-inswinger-outswinger, or whatever, isn't.
If you can show me some instances where McGrath has constantly beaten batsmen on inside then outside edge by using cutters (or even swing) rather than seam I'll retract everything I've ever said about him on flat pitches.

 

[Richard]

I can assure you that's not true. McGrath's pace would be more than enough - and a foot is too much on a lot of occasions - you've moved it more than two bat widths.

A foot can be too much, it can be too little.
I can assure you that you need to bowl a hell of a lot faster and a hell of a lot fuller than typial McGrath to be able to take an uncontrolled edge by moving it half a bat's width. One whole bat is the very, very least a typical McGrath-length-speed ball will have to move - and it's incredibly difficult to seam it that much on a non-seaming pitch.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Whatever, doesn't matter - McGrath has still bowled the same, and he's still supposedly created the same pressure.

Really? That's interesting...have you ever heard the saying that you 'bowl in partnerships' Richard? I think you'll find that one bowler bowling well without support (in the form of tight bowling) from the other end will generally struggle more than if two bowlers are bowling well in tandem. Racking up maidens from both end will create a lot more pressure than one bowler can achieve on his own.

I'm glad you said 'whatever' though - I didn't want to question how much you actually know about the game without some factual basis.

 

[Richard]

Because you've employed your own interpretation of a series of events that have happened up until a certain time to come to a conclusion....in this case that McGrath has been lucky. It's not a single number, it's a series of numbers over a period of time presented as a total.

Fine - maybe it would be better to say that you can't use any form of bowling-average to show how well a bowler has bowled, the way you can a first-chance average with a batsman.
And I know looking at each wicket myself brings in bias - everything does. Some people would even tell you that every wicket has to involve both good bowling and bad batting.