**Official** England in The West Indies

[Richard]

Maybe I took it a touch far, but it's always better with a side to support (like Porto )

Yet another one of those people who support a team for one match. :rolleyes:
See them so darned often. :P

 

[Richard]

Richard - I haven't even got a clue who he actually rates

C'mon, Rich. You can't have been reading my posts very well.
You must have noticed some players I rate? I really don't want to name any names, that would make it sound like favouritism.

 

[Richard]

Look I said England would win the Ashes and the WC, so no need to take my word literally all the time - But I think (probley because I've seen the English bolwers alot more) are the better of the two.

Well lets see take the English - Harmy, Hoggy, Jones, Anderson, Giles, Flintoff and whoever else is in the sqaud and the WI's bowlers - Best, Edwards, Sandford, Collymore etc and what would be your starting line up of BOTH sides combined? So basically pick the best 4/5 bowlers from the squads.

The reason for this is probably that you have heard all the hype surrounding the England bowlers, making us believe they are better than they actually are.
The difference isn't that this hasn't happened with West Indies, you just haven't had the misfortune to experience it. :saint:
Having said that, Edwards and Hoggard have definately bowled far better than they normally do in this game thus far.
Regarding myself and my perceived negativity - I consider myself a fan of the game of cricket before a fan of any team. Hence I like to view all things from the same angle without letting my hope for English victories get in the way of my judging of any player's ability.
And I am ultra-critical in my approach to analysis, I don't deny that. I can't stand the way most people try to find something good about everything they possibly can.

 

[Richard]

I'm not entirely convinced by this. Not the bit about finding contemporary reports of old matches: I agree that's relatively simple if you've a mind and the energy to do it.

What I think I'd question is that reporters used the same standards for judging let-offs that we do today.

Today, we have endless slo-mo replays and Hawkeyes and stuff so it is relatively simple to say for definite that someone was let off or should not have been given out lbw. Without that technology available, it was generally accepted that the umpires were usually right, and mention was made of decisions in reports only when they were egregiously bad or close but crucial. Compared to the number of appeals and general discussions following replays we have today, disputed decisions were a rarity, really.

Fielding standards were lower, and I think there was a tendency not to categorise things as a chance unless the bloke actually dropped it rather than failed to make a fairly ordinary (by today's standards) leap to a ball a few feet away.

My basic point is that I think that spectators and commentators expected less of fielders in the old days, and were far more likely to defer to an experienced umpire's judgement calls as they had no access to technology which would allow them to challenge it.

That said, examining Bradman's figures, for instance, involves analysing a lot of matches played in the 1930s when pitches varied between shirtfronts and billiard tables and batsmen were never encouraged to take risks, so pottering along slowly and carefully to a hundred attracted very little criticism - whereas a batsman who now has the temerity to take more than a day to get a ton is accused of being desperately slow and of killing the game.

And I think that's going to be the key to understanding the variations in these stats over time: styles of play are very different now, with batsmen taking many more risks than they used to, and therefore being much more likely to offer chances. But if that's the case, then the inter-era comparison are going to be hopelessly off-beam: could a 1930s plodder deal with the way Test cricket is played today? How would a 21st century dasher cope with the sedate pace of pre-WW2 cricket?

I quite agree that there's no way to say anything about lbws in those days, we can only talk about them from the time when cameras were placed correctly and live coverage happened. You don't need HawkEyes, batsman-fades or even red (or blue) mats to see whether something should or shouldn't be out most of the time. You just need a replay, not even in slo-mo.
But chances, as far as I can tell by all possible research (combining reports and footage) have always been pretty uniform. Generally, if someone said someone was dropped or missed stumped, they were. There isn't the problem with stuff that was never going to be realistically caught being called "chances" that there is nowadays.

 

[Richard]

u fail to consider my previous point....to make opinions of what happened before u were born is just ludicrous. i repeat how do u know that they had less luck?or that umpires always gave the right decision or the fact that people attempted catches that they do today.

I have in fact answered that if you look properly.
And if no-one attempted to judge what happened before they were born cricket fandom would be a most boring thing indeed. There is nothing I enjoy more than seeing footage I've never seen before.

 

[Richard]

mmmm...A-level English.......doesnt really convince me that your interpretation of these reports is that water tight to be honest.

I think we live in a time where the media is going to latch onto a players mistake a hell of a lot more than they did back then...especially as there was no slow motion replay etc back in the 30's,40's etc.

Unless you have the figures,your theory that batsman offer more chances now(which they may well do due to the more aggressive style of play these days)....or more importantly that players do not take the chances as well these days just doesnt hold that much water without leaking all over the place.

I could try to give you some figures if you want, but it would involve a hell of a lot of effort and frankly I don't know if I can be bothered. :P Even to win this argument.
Believe me, A-Level English (combined lang and lit) involves a hell of a lot of study of different language features. I flatter myself I am very good at the analysis of idiosyncratic and diasyncratic styles.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but who is to say that that tape evidence is anywhere near reflecting what actually went on?

I find it very hard to believe that the standard of catching has dropped at all with the onset of professionalism, and certainly not by as much as you have stated.

By common consent (and even some statistical evidence) Walter Hammond was the greatest catcher ever - and he was an amateur for nearly half his career.
Professional cricket doesn't neccesarily mean more ability. And catching is every bit as much about ability as about practice.
Tape evidence, meanwhile, I am not simply referring to accounts of certain games, I am referring to cross-referancing written reports of various incidents. It shows the exact events, so I'd say it reflects what went on pretty well.

 

[Langeveldt]

Believe me, A-Level English (combined lang and lit) involves a hell of a lot of study of different language features. I flatter myself I am very good at the analysis of idiosyncratic and diasyncratic styles.

I really wanted to do English A-Level, but the course my college offered was about 90% Shakespeare and Dickens... Both i really detest...

SO im stuck doing tinpot stuff like Business Studies

 

[Richard]

Giles' figures are a lot better looking than they should have been.

Yes, but they're still not good enough to make much of an impression on anyone, or give the misleading impression that he may have bowled well.
All the bowlers were flattered by their figures, Giles didn't bowl massively worse than anyone else.

 

[Langeveldt]

And I am ultra-critical in my approach to analysis, I don't deny that. I can't stand the way most people try to find something good about everything they possibly can.

Nothing wrong with that... And you have just described Mark Nicholas :!( :!( :!(

 

[Tom Halsey]

Best bowled better than he normally seems to, but he certainly was not brilliant. He might have made Butcher and Hussain look uncomfortable, but he was innocuous enough really. He didn't move the ball that much.

So bruising a batsman black and blue, and hitting them on the hlmet is innocuos, is it?:rolleyes:

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yes, but they're still not good enough to make much of an impression on anyone, or give the misleading impression that he may have bowled well.
All the bowlers were flattered by their figures, Giles didn't bowl massively worse than anyone else.

Agreed, I thought he actually bowled fairly well.

 

[Swervy]

By common consent (and even some statistical evidence) Walter Hammond was the greatest catcher ever - and he was an amateur for nearly half his career.
Professional cricket doesn't neccesarily mean more ability. And catching is every bit as much about ability as about practice.
Tape evidence, meanwhile, I am not simply referring to accounts of certain games, I am referring to cross-referancing written reports of various incidents. It shows the exact events, so I'd say it reflects what went on pretty well.

sounds to me you have more film archive than probably the BBC even have hold off...interesting...so where does one get hold of all this footage.

sounds to me that you are making assumptions based on probably not that much footage of maybe 50years worth of cricket.

Even if you had hours and hours of footage of one years worth of cricket, what you are saying still wouldnt be proven because it wouldnt be a statistically significantly large sample of what actually happened

 

[a massive zebra]

By common consent (and even some statistical evidence) Walter Hammond was the greatest catcher ever - and he was an amateur for nearly half his career.
Professional cricket doesn't neccesarily mean more ability. And catching is every bit as much about ability as about practice.
Tape evidence, meanwhile, I am not simply referring to accounts of certain games, I am referring to cross-referancing written reports of various incidents. It shows the exact events, so I'd say it reflects what went on pretty well.

I thought Bob Simpson was by common consent the finest catcher ever. Don Bradman and Richie Benaud certainly thought so.

 

[Swervy]

I thought Bob Simpson was by common consent the finest catcher ever. Don Bradman and Richie Benaud certainly thought so.

what do they know, they only captained Australia to huge sucess,one was only the greatest batsman that has and will ever live and a respected selector etc, the other was one of the great all-rounders of all time and for quite a while Australias leading wicket taker,and now is the most respected cricket commentator in the world...their opinion counts for nothing...well not compared to Richard and his A-level English

 

[a massive zebra]

what do they know, they only captained Australia to huge sucess,one was only the greatest batsman that has and will ever live and a respected selector etc, the other was one of the great all-rounders of all time and for quite a while Australias leading wicket taker,and now is the most respected cricket commentator in the world...their opinion counts for nothing...well not compared to Richard and his A-level English

hehehehehehe.........thats great

 

[PY]

What do people reckon the little barney between Lara and Bowden was about?

Lara was getting irate and waving his arms about like a windmill and Bowden pulled him back gave him a talking to from what I could see on Sky.

 

[Rich2001]

What do people reckon the little barney between Lara and Bowden was about?

Lara was getting irate and waving his arms about like a windmill and Bowden pulled him back gave him a talking to from what I could see on Sky.

I think it was something alone the lines of....

Oh commom Billy give us a break and raise your finger otherwise we will never break this pair up, it's easy your just have to do this (explains the mad waving of fingers and pointing anyway )

 

[marc71178]

No, there are times he's been perceived to have bowled well

Everything is perception then...

Why can't you accpet that other people's views are not rubbish?

 

[marc71178]

Complete bull - there are millions, yourself and myself included, whose views are every bit as valid and based as those on the radio.

I think respected views have more validity than those that aren't respected.

Selection for commentary and journalism is just luck of the draw, and some dedication to persistance in going for the job.

You certainly seem to believe in luck a lot.