Personal Cricket Statutes

[Neil Pickup]

Neil is right.

Phew

 

[Richard]

Blame it on county cricket.

Better to blame it on the players in county cricket (or at least the larger percentage of them - obviously not all of them).
It's rather hard to blame a non-human, non-living... thing... for some shortcomings. As Swanny recently pointed-out, the forum can hardly be blamed for whatever it was, just those that made the controversial comments.

 

[Richard]

I don't think that Brian Lara was unprepared for this Test match, the bowlers weren't fully prepared. Also, I have a strong suspicion that the West Indies team does not watch video and statistics (wagon wheels etc.) of their opponents before hand. If they do, I can't believe that bowlers with such apparent talent could be so incredibly (for lack of a better word) stupid.

IMO Lara tried his best as a captain today, but it's just one of those days when things just didn't go to plan. The commentators were suggesting that, had the West Indies batted first, it would have been a much better start to the series in that it may have given them the spark to play with confidence.

This pitch is as flat as any and if the West Indies are to collapse on it and be bowled out twice in this game, it will be their fault, not the pitches (unless massive cracks appear).

Lara certainly cannot be blamed - I always think people are far too quick to blame a captain. A captain can't improve his bowlers' accuracy.
I saw much of the days' play and I have never rated Collymore or Drakes as Test bowlers so that didn't surprise me. Edwards, the first time I have seen him, seems to basically be a combination of Lillee and Thomson. A great action, round-arm or not, but his accuracy today left something to be desired. Naturally Graeme, Herschelle, Jacques and Mr. Van Jaarsveld punished him. I'll wait and see some more as you can't make much of a judgement on one day.
However, I can't believe they didn't know to aim away from Graeme's pads. It's exactly the same as England - people noticed it immidiately, and blamed the bowlers' "inexperience" for apparently not noticing it.
Honestly, how stupid can somoeone be? Are Gus Logie and Duncan inobservant men, and are all the bowlers so insubordinate that they ignore any advice given them? Somehow I think not. If you could hit the spot you were aiming at every time no-one would ever score any runs if they played properly. The bowlers, simply, weren't good enough to bowl with the accuracy required. Whether it was just one off-day or a summing-up of the bowlers' ability (and in Collymore and Drakes' case I think it is) we can't, of course, say for certain, but I personally think to blame it on inexperience, naivity, poor thinking etc. is quite without thinking realistically.

 

[Richard]

Fed short balls and ones on the pads? Suited him somewhat.

And there are plenty of tales of people whose techniques suited lower levels but couldn't cope with the step up in the long term.

As David Gower noted today, Graeme Smith seems to have been around for far longer than he perhaps has, especially for those who have had to bowl at him. It's in fact only 21 months and 14 serious Tests (ie excluding Bangladesh games).
He got plenty of short and leg-side balls, but he also played more than normal in the way of cover-drives. He barely looked troubled, even when Edwards was cranking it up to the mid 90s at the start.
For me, however, the fact that he's not the strongest through the off-side: 1, can quite easily change and for me there was evidence in this innings that it is; and 2, doesn't really matter, as it's not number of shots but consistency of shot-selection that make the ability of a batsman. If you can select the right shot 39 times out of 40 it doesn't matter if you only have 5 or 6 shots that regularly earn you runs (as Smith did in England).

Originally posted by Swanny
I thought this about Smith, he didn't look that good once England worked out were to bowl at him.

Once Bicknell worked it out, you mean.
Seriously, look at him in the England series:
127, lbw to a well-disguised quicker-ball from Giles; 150, lofted Giles to deep-square-leg, when basically going for boundaries and not much else. (same innings, of course)
85 off about 80 balls, may have been less - amazing innings, gave it away almost inevitably in the end.
8, dropped at cover (off Anderson), poor stroke, as a catch in the outfield almost always is. 251, again basically stopped playing properly, bowled by Anderson.
35, trod on his stumps. Just careless, no real fault in technique, just an ill-thought-out stance position.
5, given lbw incorrectly.
2, chased a wide one from Kirtley. Basically one of two really poor shots that he gave chances off all series.
14, lbw to a good in-swinger from Bicknell. Could have played it better, but not an appalling shot.
18, run out, nothing reflected, and almost entirely Gibbs' fault anyway.
19, lbw to Bicknell again, almost an action-replay of Headingley second-innings.
I don't really think this proves much except that he can occasionally play a poor drive early on (like almost anyone, bar possibly Bradman, and even he must have played the odd one) and it will occasionally get him out, and that Bicknell troubled him twice. Possibly he has a slight weakness against a 75mph-inswinger? Inswing can be a curiously dangerous weapon at medium-fast as at as-fast-as-they-come.
And I can't comment on anything before that except the two second-innings 50s against Australia where he showed good composure if less of the hunger of his next period.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Look at the bottom hand dominance of the grip allied to the fact that it means he rarely gets the full face of the bat on shots outside of the off stump.

Do you have any idea how childish you sound making up "innings", by the way. It's like people claiming Damon Hill won two world titles.

 

[Richard]

"Making-up innings"?
I actually mentioned "same innings, of course".
I was simply making what I consider to be a more relevant comparison - I was talking about the occasions he had been unlucky or when his dismissal said nothing about the standard of his play. Hence it is only fair to include also the occasions he was lucky.
I was naming all the chances and all the scores that preceded them. Not once did the intimation that these were different innings cross my keyboard.

 

[Richard]

Look at the bottom hand dominance of the grip allied to the fact that it means he rarely gets the full face of the bat on shots outside of the off stump.

Like I said in a thread about Imran Farhat, identifying technical and set-up related faults is fine, but if a player's scoring runs they frankly don't matter a jot. Faults are no slight unless someone can exploit them. Like I also said, at a different time, Martin Bicknell did, to an extent, exploit Graeme Smith's, but still he has a Test average very close to 60.
If that starts going down because of this fault, then you can start carping, but while he's scoring stacks of runs, you ain't got nothing a leg to stand on.

 

[marc71178]

Better to blame it on the players in county cricket (or at least the larger percentage of them - obviously not all of them).

Which players exactly? That seems like a bit of a generalisation to me, and that's a bad thing.

 

[marc71178]

I was naming all the chances and all the scores that preceded them. Not once did the intimation that these were different innings cross my keyboard.

Well you said "look at him in England"

Looking at him in England he scored 2 BIG double centuries - yet you only list one.

"The game is the greatest judge" and the game judged he scored 2 big big scores.

 

[Richard]

Yes - and the game judged that he was lbw on 127. You Giles-is-a-good-bowler-in-England-too merchants should remember that. After that he made a further 150. However he did not score 200 runs in that innings while giving no chances. He did in the next, but not before giving a chance on 8.
He had 2 big double-centuries to his name - but gave more than one chance in both (including, of course, the chance which did result in the dismissal).

 

[Richard]

Which players exactly? That seems like a bit of a generalisation to me, and that's a bad thing.

Yes - and I did mention that it's very unfair on the players who try their best game in game out.
However there is no denying that there are plenty of county players who don't treat the game with the respect it, as far as I'm concerned, deserves.
The task is to, instead of using generalisations - "county cricket" - be more specific and weed-out these individuals and change their attitudes.

 

[marc71178]

Yes - and the game judged that he was lbw on 127.

Which is why he was given out for 127 and his score was recorded as such?

 

[marc71178]

Yes - and I did mention that it's very unfair on the players who try their best game in game out.

I asked for players who make CC such a bad place - seeing as the overseas players you've said shouldn't be allowed to play are much better than the English players, I'd like to see who you're blaming for making it so bad?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

and in Collymore and Drakes' case I think it is

How many Tests have you seen Collymore and Drakes play?

 

[Richard]

One each - the current one.
I've seen both bowl in domestic-one-day competitions, Drakes in 4 different seasons, Collymore just in 2 or 3 games.
Both actually have always seemed decent enough bowlers by domestic-one-day standards.
But honestly, I have read on them. And now I've seen them bowl.
And surely you can't say that someone can be unlucky not to take wickets (or score runs) for a sustained period? Unless Drakes has had countless catches dropped off good balls I fail to see how he can be unlucky for, what, 8 Test-matches?
Neither appear to me to have the accuracy neccesary for international cricket (though there are worse - hell yes) nor do they appear to move the ball on surfaces unresponsive to seam.

 

[Richard]

I asked for players who make CC such a bad place - seeing as the overseas players you've said shouldn't be allowed to play are much better than the English players, I'd like to see who you're blaming for making it so bad?

Believe it or not I don't actually know a single specific name. But surely you have heard that many people have complained that so many county players don't care at all about the game? Because I have heard it many times.

 

[Richard]

Which is why he was given out for 127 and his score was recorded as such?

No, that was due to the Umpiring error.
Are you seriously saying you think that ball was going anywhere but to hit middle-and-leg?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

One each - the current one.
I've seen both bowl in domestic-one-day competitions, Drakes in 4 different seasons, Collymore just in 2 or 3 games.
Both actually have always seemed decent enough bowlers by domestic-one-day standards.
But honestly, I have read on them. And now I've seen them bowl.
And surely you can't say that someone can be unlucky not to take wickets (or score runs) for a sustained period? Unless Drakes has had countless catches dropped off good balls I fail to see how he can be unlucky for, what, 8 Test-matches?
Neither appear to me to have the accuracy neccesary for international cricket (though there are worse - hell yes) nor do they appear to move the ball on surfaces unresponsive to seam.

Well my mistake. Clearly you are the authority on Collymore and Drakes having seen them play 1.5 days of Test cricket.

Drakes is a Bichel. He's not a strike bolwer, he's a stock bowler. He's there to be consistent and put the ball down on a spot. A wicket is reward, but he's not going to blast out teams.

Collymore is wicket-taker. Had you seen him against Sri Lanka and against Zimbabwe (after day 1), you would realize that. You've seen Collymore bowl in 1.5 days of Test cricket on one of the flattest pitches and you can accurately judge whether he can move the ball or not.

I salute you oh great one.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No, that was due to the Umpiring error.
Are you seriously saying you think that ball was going anywhere but to hit middle-and-leg?

Ok, so he was out there. How many did he score after that let-off? ie How many did he score in his second innings?

 

[marc71178]

But surely you have heard that many people have complained that so many county players don't care at all about the game?

So why do you criticise the number of overseas players replacing this sort of player?