Most underrated and overrated players in the world?

[Richard]

That also depends on where the ball is pitched to start with, again angle of bat etc.

No matter what, it has to move. Most bats will be relatively face-on.
Any ball pitched anywhere cannot trouble a good batsman if it just bounces a little more than might be expected.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but there are no batsmen who have handled him well as a general trend since 2001... see the difference? Tendulkar, Dravid, Lara, you name it, he's had the better part of the battles with all of them at some point or another on a non-seamer. Therefore by your standard they are all poor batsmen who can't handle a useless bowler who can't move it on a flat deck.

He's been played plenty of times.
Whether he's had the better of certain individuals or not.

Okay, let me try a different track... name one seamer who performs better on a flat track than McGrath.

Craig White.
See - all depends on what you call performance. I, personally, call performance bowling good deliveries, not simply ending-up with good figures.

 

[Son Of Coco]

You clearly have a different definition to me on cutters.

You have not noticed how often batsmen play inside the line? It's a leave.
How does it have anything to do with McGrath, sorry?

Playing inside the line is not a leave unless you have very poor technique. If you're playing at it and attempting to leave it at the same time then you're going to get out eventually. The fact that they end up with the bat in that position indicates that McGrath has them in a position of uncertainty.

 

[Richard]

Someone buy Richard a ticket to a game.

I don't need one - I can see better from my armchair\bed.

 

[Richard]

You've also stated that it's impossible to get good figures when bowling badly.

Rubbish.
Find that comment and I'll retract it.
The number of occasions where people bowl badly and get good figures are beyond number.

 

[Richard]

So you're saying you know more than the players who've actually faced the bowling.

How on Earth do you know more then?

By watching them face, maybe?
And like I say - I've not actually heard them contradict me.

 

[Richard]

Sorry SOC but Richard clearly knows more about what they've experienced than they do.

I think you should apologise to him for daring to suggest otherwise!

I think you should stop on this silly tack.
Doesn't mean you will, though.

 

[Richard]

GI Allott after WC 1999:

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

Looks to be a tad over what you've said it was.

Well misinterpreted.
I quite clearly meant that directly after WC99 Allott's record was what I said.
I did not mention the games played after it, because they mean little or nothing.

 

[Richard]

A mere 2 inches (!)

If you deem 2 inches to be a small amount of movement you're being about as stupid as you are in saying anything over 4.5 an over is bad in an ODI.

So - check some footage sometime.
You really, REALLY will be surprised.
2 inches is virtually nothing.

 

[Arjun]

Definately agree. He's a quality bowler that gets no recognition at all.

When Percy, Sri Lanka's official cricket cheerleader, found Zoysa, he spotted him as an all-rounder prospect. He can hit the ball a long way and has good technique. He can freely go for shots like Chris Gayle has all along, but as with his bowling, his attitude has always been his weakness.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No matter what, it has to move. Most bats will be relatively face-on.
Any ball pitched anywhere cannot trouble a good batsman if it just bounces a little more than might be expected.

Not all the time no, if you put it in an area where a batsman is attempting to drive through cover for instance it doesn't necessarily have to move - it can either be a bit quicker or a bit slower and you might still end up with a result for the bowler.

It certainly can....there aren't many batsmen (if any) who once committed to a shot can pull out of it once there's a variation in bounce. Sometimes though I think your definition of a good batsman is one who is superhuman....Most bats won't be relatively face on all the time if you're bowling in the right areas, McGrath spends a majority of his time bowling in those areas, and combined with an amount of movement this makes him dangerous.

 

[Richard]

I for one would like to know what they are based on - certainly nothing logical.

No, just nothing you deem logical.

 

[Richard]

Because his Test record alone is shocking isn't it (!)

ODIs don't come into his Test-record so I wondered why Neil posted them.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So - check some footage sometime.
You really, REALLY will be surprised.
2 inches is virtually nothing.

Check out a game sometime - I know you apparently play that's why I was initially surprised at your comments in here, now I've just put it down to a possible psychological injury causing extreme perceptual problems!

2 inches is enough to take wickets...

 

[Richard]

And how will you do that, by reading bits and bobs?

Mostly by calling on my memory - sometimes assisted by footage I've watched 100 times or so.

 

[Richard]

Check out a game sometime - I know you apparently play that's why I was initially surprised at your comments in here, now I've just put it down to a possible psychological injury causing extreme perceptual problems!

2 inches is enough to take wickets...

Why you keep going on about playing I really don't know - how on Earth are you supposed to measure with any accuracy in a game?
Maybe that's where you get YOUR misperceptions from?

 

[Richard]

There's no supposedly about it.

Really?
Because you know that every single batsman has to feel pressure.
Even when his body-language clearly demonstrates otherwise, whatever he may or may not (mostly not) say afterwards.

 

[Richard]

4.5 an over is probably the average RPO for a good bowler. I think anything under 4.5 an over and you are looking at a great ODI bowler.

I've heard some definitions of great, but that takes the biscuit.

 

[Richard]

No, in Richard's world, 4.5 is a fairly poor ODI bowler.

Apparently any more than that and the bowler is useless, even though the conditions for modern day ODI's mean most games are well in excess of 5 an over.

Added to that he thinks that that number hasn't changed in 20 years, thus meaning that Vic Marks is a better ODI bowler than Shane Warne...

Keep going on about that 20 years - you might be right one day!
No, the game has not changed much in the last 10 years - except that the bowling's been very poor in the last 3 or 4.

 

[Richard]

So please explain how McGrath is so successful?

And while you're at it, Pollock is a similar style bowler (who also incidentally is very successful)

I assume they must both be anomalies?

Well do you see many other bowlers who bowl so few good deliveries on flat pitches and get the number of wickets?
Well done in taking so long to cotton-on to the fact that Pollock is exactly the same.