NZ's bowling without Bond

[Richard]

Does it matter - at the end of the day a wicket is a wicket, and if a bad ball gets a wicket after a string of great balls, by your definition he doesn't deserve the wicket.

He doesn't!:rolleyes:
What on Earth is the difference, as far as the bowler's ability is concerned, between a wide Long-Hop that's cut for four to an identical one that's cut straight to point in the air and caught?
How on Earth is there a difference?

 

[Richard]

Actually if you had seen the match, Dravid did the same thing in the first innings to Butler.

Well...
If he can do it to Butler, he can do it to anyone.
Butler's surely about the worst bowler to play for NZ in the last 10 years.

 

[Tim]

how many times have you seen Butler bowl SINCE he made his debut 2 years ago against England?

 

[Tim]

You obviously never saw bowlers like Richard De Groen, Murphy Su'a, Michael Owens & Chris Drum I take it?

 

[PY]

What on Earth is the difference, as far as the bowler's ability is concerned, between a wide Long-Hop that's cut for four to an identical one that's cut straight to point in the air and caught?
How on Earth is there a difference?

The bowler is clever enough to put a fielder at point....

 

[marc71178]

He doesn't!:rolleyes:
What on Earth is the difference, as far as the bowler's ability is concerned, between a wide Long-Hop that's cut for four to an identical one that's cut straight to point in the air and caught?
How on Earth is there a difference?

Be interesting to see how many others agree with you.

A bowler who keeps things tight then bowls one loose ball deserves a wicket that comes off it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

A bowler who keeps things tight then bowls one loose ball deserves a wicket that comes off it.

That's not very well stated, but I see your point and I agree. These things happen in cricket - inside edges, outside edges, dropped catches, missed runouts, false shots. It's teams that know how to win consistently no matter what occurence (and to what extent) who will be on top in the world of cricket. It's not the bowler's fault if the one bad ball he bowled in his spell produces a wicket. He bowled well and worked the batsman out, but not in the typical sense of the phrase. However, if a bowler gets a wicket with one of six crap balls in an over, then Richard can gripe.

 

[Top_Cat]

However, if a bowler gets a wicket with one of six crap balls in an over, then Richard can gripe.

And even then, that's mitigated against by the myriad of times a bowler will bowl superbly and take no wickets at all. There have been so many times where I felt like a million dollars with the ball, beat the bat a few times and think I'm in for a good day. Then I bowl 20 overs for 0/50 or something..........no other sport comes close for that sort of frustration in my view. I mean, in basketball, if you feel good, you'll generally play well; if you're hitting the ball well in cricket, you'll generally score runs; if you play well in soccer, you'll generally do well.

With that in mind, you'll excuse me if I don't feel guilty for taking 4/80 off 12 overs where I've bowled absolute rubbish, had three of those wickets to catches on the fence (and one dodgy LBW) and could certainly feel that I deserved every one of those wickets.

 

[Richard]

That's a fine theory, but for one thing: getting batsmen to play-and-miss all the time, while good bowling and better than getting them to block and leave all day long (and certainly better than spraying it all over the place), is still not wicket-taking bowling. Hence, only if you bowl wicket-taking balls that take wickets do you deserve wickets. IMO, anyway - and things will happen the way they happen, and all we can do is consider it how we wish to consider it.

 

[Richard]

You obviously never saw bowlers like Richard De Groen, Murphy Su'a, Michael Owens & Chris Drum I take it?

Saw Chris Drum bowl a few times - in his ultimate series before retirement being the most notable and the time I took most notice - and I never thought much of him. A quite phenominal domestic record, but possibly for the same reason that Indian batsmen average 50 quite often.

 

[Richard]

how many times have you seen Butler bowl SINCE he made his debut 2 years ago against England?

I saw him bowl several times (in Pakistan and West Indies) and it was clear that he was (and I would say still is) the same wayward, no-ball-ridden excuse for a bowler he was in the England series. I have never seen such a bad player have so much through of him.

 

[marc71178]

getting batsmen to play-and-miss all the time is still not wicket-taking bowling.

(commas removed to ask why not)

Is it because the bowling is too good for the batsman?

 

[Richard]

Is it because the bowling is too good for the batsman?

In a word - yes. If it's too good for the batsmen in that they haven't got a chance of hitting it it's no use to the bowler or the fielding side.

 

[marc71178]

So if he bowls a string of balls that beat the bat then a loose one that's chopped onto the stumps, or slashed to a fielder, he doesn't deserve a wicket?

 

[Richard]

So if he bowls a string of balls that beat the bat then a loose one that's chopped onto the stumps, or slashed to a fielder, he doesn't deserve a wicket?

No - because he got the wicket with a poor delivery.
Well, not neccesarily. If the delivery was a straightish, swinging just-short-of-Half-Volley length delivery and the fielder it was slashed to was a slipper, then that's good bowling, especially if the batsman is prone to driving on the up. Or if the ball that is chopped into the stumps was one that swung back viciously on a similar length and induced the drive from another unwisely strokeplaying batsman.
But if a wide Long-Hop gets a wicket, regardless of what's preceded it, that ball didn't deserve the wicket - it deserved to go for four (and three times out of five it probably would).
Simple as.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Can you find anyone else to agree with that?

 

[Richard]

Can you find anyone else to agree with that?

Proabably - I've never discussed anything as silly as whether or not balls deserve wickets with anyone.
Most people agree on which deliveries do and don't deserve wickets.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Nice try with the old Straw Man - the argument is whether the bowler deserves the wicket rather than the ball.

 

[Richard]

Nice try with the old Straw Man - the argument is whether the bowler deserves the wicket rather than the ball.

The bowler deserves a wicket if he has bowled a ball that deserves a wicket.
If he bowls a ball that doesn't deserve a wicket and it gets one, he is lucky.

 

[marc71178]

The bowler deserves a wicket if he has bowled a ball that deserves a wicket.
If he bowls a ball that doesn't deserve a wicket and it gets one, he is lucky.

For crying out loud, GIVE IT UP!!!!!!!

If a bowler bowls some great balls, and then a loose one gets a wicket from a rash shot, he deserves the wicket for the work overall that he's done.