**Official** West Indies in England Thread

[Nate]

3.53 an over.

Define wha you call accurate?

you can bowl bloody well and get no result. cricket isnt black and white. the batsman can make a mistake and still not get out. you can bowl, watch the ball go up in the air, and a simple chance can be dropped. you can only tell when a bowler has bowled well when you are watching the match, stats can only do so much...

 

[Craig]

Bowling in the right place 6 times an over. Not going for 2 an over!

You are going to take some convincing aren't you? Bowling isn't all about statistics.

I think bowling 6 times out of 6 in the right place and going for 2 an over. Why accept one thing when you can do both?

Incidently going at 2 an over most of the time is accurate bowling (that is not negative bowling).

Anyway it will be on soon, so I will continue this tomorrow.

 

[Tom Halsey]

It was good tactics and bowling by Giles to get it there and tempt Lara. However, you're exaggerating the brilliance of the ball itself. Had Lara stayed where he was, 99.9% of the time he'd have had no difficulties defending it.

I'm not so sure about that either. I think you're being a tad unfair there too.

Yes, the pitch undoubtedly helped, but I'm not sure it is a piece of cake keeping that out.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

3.53 an over.

Define wha you call accurate?

That sums up the ridiculous nature of your argument. Statistics do not equate accuracy. Accuracy can not be quantified as such. It's not quite so simple. There have been many times in the history of the game when accurate bowlers have been expensive. Many many times. For example, Collins bowled pretty accurately in his second to last spell of the England 2nd innings. He was hit by Vaughan for 4 fours in his only over of the spell, despite getting the ball on a decent length and middle and offstump line.

Besides, the England run rate was 4.23, so Banks' economy of 3.53 wasn't that bad ey?

 

[Craig]

you can bowl bloody well and get no result. cricket isnt black and white. the batsman can make a mistake and still not get out. you can bowl, watch the ball go up in the air, and a simple chance can be dropped. you can only tell when a bowler has bowled well when you are watching the match, stats can only do so much...

That is not answering my point on what does somebody define accurate.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I think bowling 6 times out of 6 in the right place and going for 2 an over. Why accept one thing when you can do both?

Because even if you get it in the right place 6 times out of 6, if you're bowling to Freddy as a spinner, you're not going to go for under 2 an over.

You are still going to take some convincing.

 

[tooextracool]

That doesn't mean he's not bowled well. He never really had much to work with on a pitch that hasn't turned much except out of the rough.

perhaps a more suitable comment here would be that he didnt bowl badly, i dont think banks could go around telling everyone that he bowled well with figures like those on any wicket.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'm not so sure about that either. I think you're being a tad unfair there too.

Yes, the pitch undoubtedly helped, but I'm not sure it is a piece of cake keeping that out.

Brian Lara has comfortably dealt with better bowlers and better balls. I'm giving Giles credit, but not overdoing it like you seem to be.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Brian Lara has comfortably dealt with better bowlers and better balls. I'm giving Giles credit, but not overdoing it like you seem to be.

I'm not giving him all the credit, the pitch deserves some, but I still don't think that is a piece of cake keeping it out.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

perhaps a more suitable comment here would be that he didnt bowl badly, i dont think banks could go around telling everyone that he bowled well with figures like those on any wicket.

As a fingerspinner on a flat Lord's wicket and against a batsman of the class of Michael Vaughan, I think his figures could be justified somewhat. As I said, Giles' performance in this game can not be compared to Banks'.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'm not giving him all the credit, the pitch deserves some, but I still don't think that is a piece of cake keeping it out.

It's also not overly difficult for a batsman of Lara's calibre. Giles out-thought Lara, but his thinking depended on Lara contributing to his demise.

 

[Nate]

all thats important is that giles got lara out. i dont care what the hell the ball was, to get lara out means you did damn well. i have criticised giles a lot in the past (and prob will continue to do so) but giles has been bowling v well this tests with some great drift and some deciving turn. haha everytime giles gets the ball in the rough watch chanderpauls eyes!! haha hes staring it into submission

 

[tooextracool]

I'd disagree with that. It's especially different for the right-handers facing Giles on this pitch. You can apply yourself yes, but eventually you'll get a spitter and likely will fall at that point.

yes but look at the wickets.....how many of them have fallen to those 'spitters'?
if the players have a preconceived notion that they will get out when the odd ball does something different(which is what lara seemed to be thinking) then its quite likely that you'll end up getting out by playing a false shot against an ordinary ball.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Good thinking by Harmo...

 

[Nate]

Good thinking by Harmo...

now if that was indoor...
i want giles to get his 5-for. and im assuming jones is dead (injured).

 

[Tom Halsey]

No, he's just crap, so is not being used ATM.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Well bowled Harmo.

 

[Nate]

haha howd low did that stay?? banks will be forever blaming that on crap english pitches

 

[Tom Halsey]

Low, but not amazingly so.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Bye bye Tino.