Personal Cricket Statutes

[marc71178]

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?

"The game is the best judge"

Since the umpire is part of the game, then it's all part of the game, so the scorebook tells us the individual scores.

He scored a double hundred. End of.

 

[Mr. P]

"The game is the best judge"

Since the umpire is part of the game, then it's all part of the game, so the scorebook tells us the individual scores.

He scored a double hundred. End of.

Don't tell me hes trying to fault Pontings 242. You're kidding.:rolleyes:

He made 242!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Nope, 17 :duh:

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Don't tell me hes trying to fault Pontings 242. You're kidding.:rolleyes:

He made 242!

What part of Marc's statement gave you that impression? I gather that Marc was actually giving Ponting more credit than other people who shall remainless clueless...er.. nameless.

 

[Richard]

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

Because they cost more and some care only about themselves and not about the English game.

 

[Richard]

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?

Second-innings, not really an ideal description. In the second-innings he scored a chanceless 85 (off about 70 balls). After the let-off in his first-innings he scored another 150, which was again a thoroughly good piece of play. Though it was one innings, he gave 2 chances. 127, 150 and 85 (off about 70 balls) in one match is pretty good. Just need to remember he caused his dimsissal three times, not twice.

 

[Richard]

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.

No need for heavy sarcasm.
I have never claimed I know as much about Collymore, Drakes or probably any recent West Indian cricketer than you.
However I have studied some relevant facts, and both Bichel and Drakes have First-Class economy-rates over 3-an-over, and Bichel especially has a very poor Test economy-rate.
Collymore might be a wicket-taker in seaming conditions, I haven't actually disputed that, I'll wait until I can watch him bowl in First-Class cricket in the appropriate situation.
However, something presumably not in dispute is that Collymore bowled very poorly in this first-innings? And I have said I won't try to make any certain judgement on one innings.

 

[Richard]

What part of Marc's statement gave you that impression? I gather that Marc was actually giving Ponting more credit than other people who shall remainless clueless...er.. nameless.

Maybe you were taking the p*** out of me but for some reason I actually found that rather funny.
Rather like "I drink, therefore I am" and the one that preceded it.

 

[Richard]

"The game is the best judge"

Since the umpire is part of the game, then it's all part of the game, so the scorebook tells us the individual scores.

He scored a double hundred. End of.

Yes, and the scorebook is not the be-all-and-end-all.
Chances are part of the game. As far as I'm concerned they're no different to dismissals that go down in the 'book.
He had a double-hundred in the 'book, end of. He scored 127, got himself trapped lbw, then got another chance and scored another 150.
It's your choice if you wish to place any value on that chance or not.

 

[Richard]

Don't tell me hes trying to fault Pontings 242. You're kidding.
He made 242!

No, he made 17, did something that would normally result in his dismissal, then played a thoroughly good 225.
I'm not in the least trying to fault the 225 (nor the 17, for that matter, it was as good a 17 as you'll see); in fact I'm not trying to fault anything. Just point-out that it's more important that he should have made 17 than some people like to think.

 

[marc71178]

Just point-out that it's more important that he should have made 17 than some people like to think.

If it's more important, how come the score that counts in the match result (which is surely the end target of the game) is 242?

 

[The Argonaut]

I would urge people to not even bother responding to Richard's wayward beliefs when it comes to this first chance average. I don't believe that he has got anyone to agree with him on this. Therefore getting fired up about it is a waste of time and energy.

Just don't respond and we'll hear less about it.

 

[age_master]

I would urge people to not even bother responding to Richard's wayward beliefs when it comes to this first chance average. I don't believe that he has got anyone to agree with him on this. Therefore getting fired up about it is a waste of time and energy.

Just don't respond and we'll hear less about it.

a good idea

 

[PY]

Just don't respond

*watches as posting rate drops dramatically*

 

[Craig]

If it's more important, how come the score that counts in the match result (which is surely the end target of the game) is 242?

Because you are going on about the scorebook result.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

However, something presumably not in dispute is that Collymore bowled very poorly in this first-innings? And I have said I won't try to make any certain judgement on one innings.

Actually I think he bowled well on day 2. On day 1 hes was poor though.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Maybe you were taking the p*** out of me but for some reason I actually found that rather funny.
Rather like "I drink, therefore I am" and the one that preceded it.

It's good to see that you're not easily offended and that you take these things in stride.

This is a genuine comment... no sarcasm here.

 

[Mr. P]

It's good to see that you're not easily offended and that you take these things in stride.

This is a genuine comment... no sarcasm here.

It's good to see you're off the drugs Liam.

This is a genuine comment... no sarcasm here.







:saint:

 

[Richard]

It's good to see that you're not easily offended and that you take these things in stride.

This is a genuine comment... no sarcasm here.

If I got as easily offended and responded as some do, I'd almost certainly have been banned after about 3 days.:duh:

 

[Richard]

If it's more important, how come the score that counts in the match result (which is surely the end target of the game) is 242?

Because you can't judge players on the match, you can only judge them on something that reflects their ability.