***Official*** South Africa v West Indies

[Pratters]

They did not bowl almost every delivery short and on the legs on Gayle. How much simpler can I make this?

When the bowling is as poor as it was, you do. Well, perhaps YOU don't but, that's an entirely different issue.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can state this.

A simple thing in cricket I would like to explain to you like you explained to me how a player is tested when facing better bowling :

The better batsmen can make the bowlers bowl to them and make the bowling look weak, crap. And you dont make the runs he did just because the bowling is crap. You have to have technical ability to make that large a number of runs.

How many times do I have to state that.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

A simple thing in cricket I would like to explain to you like you explained to me how a player is tested when facing better bowling :

The better batsmen can make the bowlers bowl to them and make the bowling look weak, crap. And you dont make the runs he did just because the bowling is crap. You have to have technical ability to make that large a number of runs.

How many times do I have to state that.

The man can play shots on the legside. As long as they kept bowling it there, it was hardly going to trouble him. His technique is sufficient to do that much. No one has denied that.

Also, any specialist batsman can put away longhops Pratyush.

Graeme Smith did not make the bowling look poor. Any educated cricket spectator could have seen just how poor the bowling was. If it was due to the "greatness" of the man, he would have continued scoring double hundreds throughout the series and in most matches of his career for that matter. The fact that he was practically shut down after those first two Tests shows just how poor the bowling was.

Just continue stating it. It won't make it any more logical.

 

[Pratters]

If it was due to the "greatness" of the man, he would have continued scoring double hundreds throughout the series and in most matches of his career for that matter.

I have never said Smith is great. The fact that G Smith has scored runs in New Zealand in good conditions, vs Pakistan in 2002/03 do show that it is far from a one inning thing you are speaking about.

England saw a weakness and made the most of it. Does not mean the player is not as talented as he has shown himself to be.

 

[tooextracool]

I never said it's been a hallmark of his career. I stated that he did it twice in the last Test and it got him out. If he can eliminate that from his technical approach, he'll be better off. Also, as someone who has watched Gayle extensively, he does leave many balls alone outside the offstump and did so in England too.

Mefinks that Matthew Hoggard over has disturbed your memory..

yes he does leaves balls alone outside the offstump, seriously who doesnt?
my point was that he doesnt leave them in a any manner that is remotely similar to trescothick, he lets the ball go like most orthodox players do.

The fact that Trescothick playing inside the line has saved him only reflects terribly on other aspects of his technique. My original point - if he left the ball alone in an orthodox manner, it wouldn't be "rare" dismissals in that fashion. It would be "no" dismissals in that fashion.

how the hell can the occasions where playing the inside line has saved him reflect on his poor technique??
and no, playing the inside line saves him, just like it would save any normal player who could use it effectively. because playing the inside line means that if you arent sure which way the ball is going(especially against bowlers like mcgrath and pollock), you can prevent yourself from being disgracefully caught in front of the wickets without playing a shot.

 

[tooextracool]

The logic you gave was for Gayle has technical ability cos he made runs in England. And Smith di the similar thing if I am not mistaken. So what applies for one should apply for the other. The crap bowling you are speaking about, well a good batsman can even make a good attack look crap.

i dont know about you, but surely any bowling attack spearheaded by anderson cant be anything other than garbage?

 

[tooextracool]

I have never said Smith is great. The fact that G Smith has scored runs in New Zealand in good conditions, vs Pakistan in 2002/03 do show that it is far from a one inning thing you are speaking about.

pakistan 02/03 was largely a rubbish pace bowling outfit.
in NZ he got flat conditions, and really other than chris martin, everyone else was exceedingly poor..

 

[aussie]

even though the wickets in england surprised everyone when they were the slowest flattest wickets we've seen in a while?
the only wicket that was actually seamer friendly to any extent was old trafford, no surprise though that gayle didnt do anything of significance there.

very, very true i was at the OLD TRAFFORD TEST last year & i got to see thr pitch close up, the day before the test & it had a bit of grass on it

 

[aussie]

but going back to sqaure one with reagrds to Tresco & Gayle has i said before both are similar technically which is a very poor technique has we all know, so when they are out of form those technical flaws inhibits them from making runs, but when they are in form its all helllll.... bowling to them.

But one major difference is temperament, Tres has played a lot of test cricket and bats like a man who has test matches, Gayle on the other hand doesn;t, the lad constantly throws away it wicket via poor shot selection. When both are put under pressure by the opposition by tight bowling Tresco would more play on merrit & try to survive while Gayle would try to create some shot which in due case would be a poor one and get himself out

 

[marc71178]

No you didnt. The relevence is you didnt think much into Smithy being a good enough when the scored the runs in England and now you bring that arguement for Gayle!

Look at the relative merits of the attacks he scored the runs in (and consider that since those 2 innings England have pretty much had the better of him for 8 Tests)

Gayle faced a much more difficult attack for his 400 @ 50 and performed throughout the series, rather than being worked out.

Smith vs Kirsten. You people went head over heels saying Kirsten is better. Which is clearly not the case.

So it's just coincidence that since Kirsten retired, the SA batting line-up looks a lot more fragile?

 

[marc71178]

Explain how the bowling was crap when Smith faced an English attack and it could test the technical abilitiy of a player when Gayle played.

Because there's a 2 year gap between the series?

When some one makes as many runs as Smith did in England, you just dont discount it to poor bowling.

Well explain how he only made runs in the first 2 games, when the bowling was rubbish, but when the bowling impreved, he scored next to nothing.

 

[Pratters]

Because there's a 2 year gap between the series?

If any other batsman had scored the runs Smith did against England, he would have been lauded. Smith is a much disliked man.

Well explain how he only made runs in the first 2 games, when the bowling was rubbish, but when the bowling impreved, he scored next to nothing.

It is due to technical problems, lack of form which come to the greatest of batsmen, and is understandable in the case of a young G.Smith.

 

[Langeveldt]

So it's just coincidence that since Kirsten retired, the SA batting line-up looks a lot more fragile?

Not really, Gazza was a factor, yes, but we've lost most of our middle order (Cullinan, Rhodes, Cronje) as well as GK.. Trying to replace that is whats made our order fragile..

I see everywhere people trying to convince themselves that Smith will fade out and he isn't the genuine article.. I guess its because he comes over as a bit of a tosser.. I'm happy with him opening the innings, I don't care how he gets out as long as he's averaging plenty.. I'm glad he's winding a lot of cricket fans up as he does it..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

how the hell can the occasions where playing the inside line has saved him reflect on his poor technique??

Because he was looking to leave the ball, not play at it, when he should obviously have been playing at it. If he does that continually then I thinks it more than just poor shot selection.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not really, Gazza was a factor, yes, but we've lost most of our middle order (Cullinan, Rhodes, Cronje) as well as GK.. Trying to replace that is whats made our order fragile..

And all of them retired at the same time right? The suggestion is that Smith is superior to Kirsten, yet the South African batting lineup was considered stronger when Kirsten was there.

 

[marc71178]

If any other batsman had scored the runs Smith did against England, he would have been lauded. Smith is a much disliked man.

Which runs?

His record against England is decidedly poor when you consider that start he had.

It is due to technical problems, lack of form which come to the greatest of batsmen, and is understandable in the case of a young G.Smith.

Lack of form - 600odd runs in 2 Tests is hardly lack of form.

 

[Pratters]

Which runs?

His record against England is decidedly poor when you consider that start he had.

The start was where he did score RUNS dont you think.

Lack of form - 600odd runs in 2 Tests is hardly lack of form.

A player go into poor form only after a phase of good form. Lack of form is one of the two reasons, the other being a technical flaw likely to crop up, specially in a young player which did in Smith's case in this scenario.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I've never seen poorer test match bowling at any player than i did in the first 2 tests by England vs Smith. They just continued to bowl at his strength, and rightly so he completely dominated them. Still even vs Poor bowling it showed great concentration (and a little bit of luck) to get the 2 big scores
But since then his average vs England is very poor.
Hoggard made Smith his bunny in the latest series, and made him totally rethink his technique (cant get more owned than that!).

Heres Smiths scores vs England from the 10 tests of the 2 series he played

1st Test in England
277
85

2nd Test
259

3rd Test
35
5

4th Test
2
14

5th Test
18
19

1st Test in South Africa
0
55

2nd Test
9
5

3rd Test
74
2

4th Test
29
67*

5th Test
25
3

(last 3 innings he came in down the order).

That makes his total average a healthy 54.61 from the 10 tests (19 innings with 1 not out).
But if you discount the first 2 tests (3 innings) his average becomes just 24.13 from 8 tests (16 innings 1 not out).

point proven i think!

 

[tooextracool]

Because he was looking to leave the ball, not play at it, when he should obviously have been playing at it. If he does that continually then I thinks it more than just poor shot selection.

err if he did that, since hes playing the inside line, hes either going to miss the ball completely or hes going to get it off the bat. either way its less likely to get him out than if he left the ball completely and it came back. seriously, how many times have we seen players like lara and tendulkar leave the ball alone completely, only to find it move in and then get caught plumb lbw in front of the wickets?
trescos 'leave' is what saves himself from that ignominy.

 

[marc71178]

Lack of form is one of the two reasons, the other being a technical flaw likely to crop up, specially in a young player which did in Smith's case in this scenario.

But the fact is that since those 1st 2 games when it was never tested owing, he's not corrected it, and continues to be rolled over cheaply by England.

 

[Pratters]

But the fact is that since those 1st 2 games when it was never tested owing, he's not corrected it, and continues to be rolled over cheaply by England.

Even Sampras had his nemesis in the Clay court and Richard Krajicek. Smith is no where as great as a Sampras but when great players can have a problem certainly good players may have it too.

The two series vs England Smth failed after a good start. Shane Warne failed in his earlier series versus India in India. No one started calling him NOT great.

Smith has a lot of cricket ahead of him. One technical problem he faced in his career should not be made so huge the way you are doing it.