Kent said:
Another call from your broker, Richard... SELL!! SELL!!
I genuinely like the way you play this forum's balcony Muppet, but really. Sometimes it's obvious you're just fishing for attention.
Richardson will give you everything he has to lay a foundation, regardless of the circumstances. He has a world-leading lowest 0-10 percentage of current test openers.
Perhaps his only fault is that he puts so much mental effort into not failing, he hits a wall after a few hours with his score still under 100.
He is the absolute antithesis of my definition of a flat-track bully. "I'm more of a bad smell than a batsman."
Perhaps, then, you have misdefined it.
Just because someone is a blocker, doesn't mean they can't be a flat-track bully.
A flat-track bully is someone who scores well on flat tracks and fails when the ball is nipping around or up and down. Eg. Hayden, Richardson.
Richardson's record, game by game:
TaDa
The last 6 Tests were all on wickets that offered about as little to bowlers as it's possible to do. It goes without saying that there was very little exploitation of these conditions; only 3 bowlers played in these games who can do so (Vaas, Murali and Akhtar). Two of these bowled very poorly. He averaged 55.50 in those games.
The previous series was played on very green wickets and, for once, he lasted and got a good average (48).
In the previous game he got 95 and 71, on yet another deck offering nothing to the seamers or fingerspinners. None of the West Indian bowlers were capable of exploiting the conditions.
In the previous 7 innings he averaged 16.43, on wickets offering seam, uneven bounce and spin (not all in every game, but some at all times).
In the previous 2 innings he got 60 and 76; he had at least 3 let-offs (though 1 unlucky dismissal).
2 the innings before that. That was the first time I had seen him bat and his vulnerability to the inswinger was palpable.
2 innings before that yielded 226. Against Bangladesh. Apparently the wickets were flat but that barely matters as Bangladesh's bowlers, even more so back then, would struggle to exploit the most bowler-friendly of conditions.
30.4 in the previous 5 innings; not especially impressive, but again in conditions that offered basically nothing to any of the opposition bowlers, aside from Warne.
In the previous series, on tracks as dead as you'll see, 71.25. Pakistan had few bowlers who bowled very well that series, except Waqar on occasions.
In 4 innings against Zimbabwe, he has averaged 48.25; again, an attack that can barely exploit good seaming\spinner's conditions, but in none of the games did the wickets offer anything anyway. All were very slow and grassless.
Finally, in a series in South Africa he averaged 46.4. Reasonably impressive again, but only one game was played on a pitch that really offered anything to the bowlers.
So, this is how I've come to the conclusion that he's a flat-track bully. I have not allowed matters of style of play to cloud the issue.
Mingster said:
Richardson has played 13 matches at home and 15 away.
And at least 9 of the away matches offer assistance to the bowlers.
His average at home is 54 and away is 44 which suggests he isn't a flat track bully.
Please Richard, you are really becoming a pain in the arse with you lame excuses for the NZ players.
Again, this ludicrousy is completely reliant on stereotypes. The above removes the need for these and, sadly for it's perpetrator, explodes the argument.
