• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

**Official** England in The West Indies

Swervy

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
If you want to go down that route, I can just bring-up the thing with Corey again - nothing is certain. However, I have made it, I consider, as certain as it is possible to make that the fact that less missed chances were reported means less missed chances occurred.
In some cases I've used tape evidence to cross-referance, too. Wherever I can.
Click to expand...
just when i started thinking richard may have started talking some sense..he comes out with this gem
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
wow the conditions dont seem to be too good for batting....is this the pitch doing tricks, good bowling or poor batting?
Click to expand...
Pitch very good for batting, no unevenness perceptible, batting not great; Gayle plays a horrid shot, Sarwan manages to miss a straightish ball, Smith plays around a beautiful in-swinger and Daryl has another shocker in somehow managing to adjudicate n\o, Lara is done by a beauty of an away-swinger, Chanderpaul plays a nothing shot and drags on a ball he could have left easily. Some good strokes, but some Long-Hops left alone due to the innings situation. No batsman really looking in top nick - Neil mightn't be watching, but he's certainly got the drift. Early on, barely a shot hit the full face of the bat. Incredible how many innocuous shortish deliveries have made competant batsmen look like fools. Just had 2 more from Harmison to Hinds.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
just when i started thinking richard may have started talking some sense..he comes out with this gem
Click to expand...
It's far more likely you've just been reading some of the sense I'm talking rather than just dismissing it - most people end-up like that.
What "gem" has this been then? You've heard of my research into catching down the years before now, and like marc you've disputed the validity of it.
 
Neil Pickup

Neil Pickup

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richard said:
A beauty! :lol: :lol: :lol:
A straight ball which Gayle plays a horrid, ugly angled-bat chop and plays it on.
That's how I'd describe it.
Click to expand...
Blame Mark Nicholas...

And how much am I looking forward to a 20 minute walk across the city in the rain/sleet/hail/snow/wind/whatever.. :P
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
PY said:
Flintoff is looking dangerous as well now. :)
Click to expand...
:lol: :lol: :lol:
About as dangerous as he always "looks" I suppose!
And APU he's turned-out as innocuous as he normally does.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Neil Pickup said:
Blame Mark Nicholas...

And how much am I looking forward to a 20 minute walk across the city in the rain/sleet/hail/snow/wind/whatever.. :P
Click to expand...
I'll blame any bloomin' spontaneous commentator. :rolleyes: :!( :P
They're all the same - have to find something the bowler's done well whenever he gets a wicket.
And I'd offer to give you a lift - sadly my Mum needs the car to take my sister to choir practice. :( Sorry 'bout that.
 
Last edited:
Swervy

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
It's far more likely you've just been reading some of the sense I'm talking rather than just dismissing it - most people end-up like that.
What "gem" has this been then? You've heard of my research into catching down the years before now, and like marc you've disputed the validity of it.
Click to expand...
i would like to know what references you have used to come to the conclusion that batsmen give more chances these days compared to the past.....now ok..you can probably get figures like that for the last 5 years, probably not too much before then..certainly not more than 10 years off the net.

And I cannot think of a single reference book on cricket which states these figures from decades ago.

Just because it wasnt reported, doesnt mean it didnt happen.

Methods of reporting cricket may well have changed through out time....you appear to have quite a scientific mind....you should know that you cannot prove or disprove a theory by pure guess work
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
i would like to know what references you have used to come to the conclusion that batsmen give more chances these days compared to the past.....now ok..you can probably get figures like that for the last 5 years, probably not too much before then..certainly not more than 10 years off the net.

And I cannot think of a single reference book on cricket which states these figures from decades ago.

Just because it wasnt reported, doesnt mean it didnt happen.

Methods of reporting cricket may well have changed through out time....you appear to have quite a scientific mind....you should know that you cannot prove or disprove a theory by pure guess work
Click to expand...
You wouldn't believe how easy it is to get old reports of ancient games. Sometimes only possible to get 1 or 2, but it's amazing how many you can get. I'd say I've got more than enough. You don't need any single reference-books (eg my Dad's Wisden History Of Cricket by Vic Marks), though obviously they do have a part to play. Just try it (if you've the time), you'll be amazed how easy it is.
And I'd also say I've studied the important fact - why were there less reports of let-offs in those days? - to the neccesary extent too. I can't really name any referances for that, just my own judgement on writing styles, attempting to make use of my English A-level course.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
chris.hinton said:
Great overs by Giles 21 off 2 overs, Marc enjoying flat spin NOW
Click to expand...
I don't expect there to be anything in this wicket for the fingerspinners.
APO Giles is just wasting a place that would be better occupied by - well... Anderson. Or ideally Jones or Collingwood.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
'Ey, Liam, I tell you what, this Ryan Hinds isn't a bad player. OK, it's not much of an attack, but he's played nicely so far.
Devon has played beautifully from 11 onwards. Lucky to make it past that, nonetheless.
 
T

tooextracool

International Coach
Swervy said:
WI's all of a sudden on top here...with out me really noticing
Click to expand...
yes but england need just a couple of wickets to get into the tail...simon jones seems quite effective in ripping thro the tailenders and none of the players in this WI tail are worthy of batting at no 11.
england will be hoping to restrict them to under 250 and whats required right now is some good tight bowling from both ends because there appears to be a counterattack
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Anyone counted the number of rabbits in this game? AFAIK Best doesn't bat at all and is down at eight. Personally, I make it Harmison, Best, Collymore, Edwards, Sanford and, in all essence, Hoggard and Jones.
Maybe if I'd seen more of Sanford I'd rate him equal to Hoggard but Jones is really just a slogger, believe me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top