Personal Cricket Statutes

[Richard]

1, batsmen should be judged on first-chance averages, runs always taken in context of conditions relative to the ability of the bowling.
2, bowlers should be judged on whether they take wickets with good deliveries in the First-Class form of the game, economy-rates can be judged on economy-rates only.
3, teams should be judged exclusively on the quality of their players, not because they get good results in their time.
4, there have been many better Test teams than the current Australian Test side: Australians of the 1900s, 1930-34, 1975; West Indies 1957, 1978-9; England 1950s\60s; most of all South Africa 1969\70.
5, NSW are the best domestic side in The World atm but nowhere near as good as some would clearly like to believe.
6, the taking for granted of Brett Lee as a World-class bowler by most English cricket-associates is one of the most infuriating things ever.
7, the PCB are surely 50 times the worst Govorning Body around.
8, the fuss over the supposed "immorality" of England playing in Zimbabwe was hopelessly illogical spot-spotting.
9, taking wickets doesn't matter much in the one-day game as far as bowlers' value is concerned.
10, no-one is as clued-up about cricket as me.

 

[Mr. P]

1, batsmen should be judged on first-chance averages, runs always taken in context of conditions relative to the ability of the bowling.
2, bowlers should be judged on whether they take wickets with good deliveries in the First-Class form of the game, economy-rates can be judged on economy-rates only.
3, teams should be judged exclusively on the quality of their players, not because they get good results in their time.
4, there have been many better Test teams than the current Australian Test side: Australians of the 1900s, 1930-34, 1975; West Indies 1957, 1978-9; England 1950s\60s; most of all South Africa 1969\70.
5, NSW are the best domestic side in The World atm but nowhere near as good as some would clearly like to believe.
6, the taking for granted of Brett Lee as a World-class bowler by most English cricket-associates is one of the most infuriating things ever.
7, the PCB are surely 50 times the worst Govorning Body around.
8, the fuss over the supposed "immorality" of England playing in Zimbabwe was hopelessly illogical spot-spotting.
9, taking wickets doesn't matter much in the one-day game as far as bowlers' value is concerned.
10, no-one is as clued-up about cricket as me.

1) No, you still need skill
2) NO!!!! I think I have said this before, a bad delivery or a 'bad' delivery can be the best ball if the bowler wants a dismissal. There are many examples. If anyone has the world cup dvd, they will see how brett lee dismissed sehwag in the group game. he sized him up and got him on the back foot with a couple of short balls, then bowled a very wide one. sehwag was pinned to the crease and lee got the wicket.
3) Erm...pretty sure they are. What, you think the Aussis arent quality?
4) You would have seen all these team play, of course? (The current oufit are better stats wise then most of them)
5) Yes, but I think they are that good. Especially if you add all the test players. Take them away, they're still brilliant.
6) He has improved out of sight in the last year.
7) Yep
8) I suppose it can be viewed from two sides
9) Hell no. It is harder to bowl at a set batsman then a new batsman. Wickets concede mostly less runs. It is much easier to bowl at a tail ender. You would prefer to bowl out a side for 120 inside 30 overs then to let them bat and make 160/0 after 50.

There are so many reasons this is wrong.
10) Riiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[PY]

What, you think the Aussis arent quality?

FINALLY, he begins to understand :P

Richard's 10) If that's tongue in cheek it ain't funny and if it isn't tongue in cheek that smacks of arrogance :P

 

[Mr. P]

FINALLY, he begins to understand :P

10) If that's tongue in cheek it ain't funny and if it isn't tongue in cheek that smacks of arrogance :P

Ill be as arrogant as I like.:ticking:

Actually to be honest I'm not being arrogant, but we must not fail to remember that nobody can be as arrogant as Richard.:P

 

[PY]

Ill be as arrogant as I like.:ticking:

Wasn't saying you were arrogant, did you have a no 10 of note in your post? :rolleyes: :P :duh:

 

[Rik]

5/ its not the official record though, haydens is and thats the one that counts

Never said it was the official record, I just said morally it is. Any performance against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe, in their current state, shouldn't mean anything, unless it's failure.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Never said it was the official record, I just said morally it is. Any performance against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe, in their current state, shouldn't mean anything, unless it's failure.

Anyone will tell you that the way Edwards bowled on Saturday, he would have taken 6 against Australia.

The way Lara batted in that series, he would possibly have scored even more runs as he got himself out trying to force the pace a couple of times.

The way Gayle performed allround was superb. He deserved every run and every wicket. That said, this Zimbabwe team is different from the one that played Australia, more so in terms of mental frame of mind than anything else.

 

[Neil Pickup]

1, batsmen should be judged on first-chance averages, runs always taken in context of conditions relative to the ability of the bowling.
2, bowlers should be judged on whether they take wickets with good deliveries in the First-Class form of the game, economy-rates can be judged on economy-rates only.
3, teams should be judged exclusively on the quality of their players, not because they get good results in their time.
4, there have been many better Test teams than the current Australian Test side: Australians of the 1900s, 1930-34, 1975; West Indies 1957, 1978-9; England 1950s\60s; most of all South Africa 1969\70.
5, NSW are the best domestic side in The World atm but nowhere near as good as some would clearly like to believe.
6, the taking for granted of Brett Lee as a World-class bowler by most English cricket-associates is one of the most infuriating things ever.
7, the PCB are surely 50 times the worst Govorning Body around.
8, the fuss over the supposed "immorality" of England playing in Zimbabwe was hopelessly illogical spot-spotting.
9, taking wickets doesn't matter much in the one-day game as far as bowlers' value is concerned.
10, no-one is as clued-up about cricket as me.

10/ You are one incredibly arrogant man
11/ Some people overanalyse

 

[age_master]

richards first point doesn't make sense, eg Australians in general averages alot better in england than Australia usually, so does his skill change between seasons? or are english averages inflated a little due to the overall quality of the competition??


and on point 10) well i could name alot of people that i would say alot of people around here are more clues up about cricket than you, even going back through this thread i can see Neil, Liam, rik, PY, Mr ponting, and off the top of my head i would say Marc, Rich (x2), James, Andre,top cat, Blewy, LE and the list goes on... than again most people around here are pretty clued up on cricket and saying something like that well you will just end up looking well, a little silly

 

[Rik]

rik

Thank you kindly

James, Andre

Bribery will get you nowhere

 

[deeps]

5, NSW are the best domestic side in The World atm but nowhere near as good as some would clearly like to believe.

let me run through the FULL strength NSW team for u..

M.Slater
M.Waugh
S.Katich
S.Waugh
M.Clarke
M.Bevan
B.Haddin
B.Lee
N.Bracken
S.Macgill
G.Mcgrath

Players like Matthew Nicholson, Stuart Clarke, Don Nash, Dom Thornley, and probably a few other class players as well

Look at that team,... Every single player is brilliant and has at some stage played for australia...Except for brad haddin i think..

Now look at that team,and tell me wat international team they couldn't beat (i'm not saying they will win 100pcnt of their games...i'm saying that they will beat more often than not)

 

[Mister Wright]

Look at that team,... Every single player is brilliant and has at some stage played for australia...Except for brad haddin i think..

Haddin has played a ODI for Australia.

 

[Gaijin-san]

You know... You're right. Looking at that team it's hard to imagine it's the subject of so much conjecture. That's a classy team. They certainly would win their share of games.

 

[Richard]

let me run through the FULL strength NSW team for u..

M.Slater
M.Waugh
S.Katich
S.Waugh
M.Clarke
M.Bevan
B.Haddin
B.Lee
N.Bracken
S.Macgill
G.Mcgrath

Players like Matthew Nicholson, Stuart Clarke, Don Nash, Dom Thornley, and probably a few other class players as well

Look at that team,... Every single player is brilliant and has at some stage played for australia...Except for brad haddin i think..

Now look at that team,and tell me wat international team they couldn't beat (i'm not saying they will win 100pcnt of their games...i'm saying that they will beat more often than not)

There are, in my view, three ODI-class players in that team and not (Mark Waugh, McGrath and Bevan - you might possibly be able to add Clarke as his List-A average is very good). I don't rate Lee or Bracken and I doubt I ever will do, I certainly don't rate MacGill, Slater's a half-decent one-day player at most, and Katich, Stephen Waugh, Clarke and Haddin are all either unproven or proven OK-but-not-brilliant in ODIs.
They would beat, if you ask me, a full-strength Zimbabwean side. No-one else. They would, I hope, comfortably beat the current New Zealand, Pakistan, England and West Indies sides. But not my best XIs for them.

 

[Richard]

richards first point doesn't make sense, eg Australians in general averages alot better in england than Australia usually, so does his skill change between seasons? or are english averages inflated a little due to the overall quality of the competition??

No, that doesn't make sense. Any batsman, from any nationality, doesn't neccesarily play in the same conditions week-in-week-out. It is not possible to stereotype "England". Wantage Road in 2003 is almost incomparable to, say, plenty of places in 2002. 2002 was one of the worst summers on record, 2003 one of the best. See the point? Pitches in 2002 and 2003 were nowhere near as "English" as those in 2001 and 2000 (and 1999, and 1998...). Scoring-rates were very fast in both seasons. The stereotype of green seamers went out of the window.
Stereotyping conditions is a very dangerous thing indeed. It will more often than not give a false impression. You've simply got to take each case as it comes.

 

[Richard]

1) No, you still need skill
2) NO!!!! I think I have said this before, a bad delivery or a 'bad' delivery can be the best ball if the bowler wants a dismissal. There are many examples. If anyone has the world cup dvd, they will see how brett lee dismissed sehwag in the group game. he sized him up and got him on the back foot with a couple of short balls, then bowled a very wide one. sehwag was pinned to the crease and lee got the wicket.
3) Erm...pretty sure they are. What, you think the Aussis arent quality?
4) You would have seen all these team play, of course? (The current oufit are better stats wise then most of them)
5) Yes, but I think they are that good. Especially if you add all the test players. Take them away, they're still brilliant.
6) He has improved out of sight in the last year.
7) Yep
8) I suppose it can be viewed from two sides
9) Hell no. It is harder to bowl at a set batsman then a new batsman. Wickets concede mostly less runs. It is much easier to bowl at a tail ender. You would prefer to bowl out a side for 120 inside 30 overs then to let them bat and make 160/0 after 50.

There are so many reasons this is wrong.
10) Riiiiiiiiiiight.

In the unlikely event of any doubt, I would like to assure anyone wanting some, I was not being serious in any way about 10.
1, yes, skill is assesed in this way.
2, a bowler doesn't deserve credit for a batsman's inhibitedness. If he has got himself stuck on the back foot, it's his fault in exactly the way it is if he gets out to a bad ball at any other time.
3, no, I have never said the Waughs, Ponting, Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and Gilchrist are not quality. The latter 3 I have said I don't consider them as good as some in the Test game, and Hayden I have said I consider to be massively overrated, in both game forms.
4, you don't have to have seen Don Bradman (or even WG Grace) play to have known they were something out of the ordinary. Nor Garfield Sobers, for instance. If you look at someone's stats you get a reasonable assessment of their ability. If you ask me, there were better players in all the teams I named, and more of them.
6, maybe, but he still managed to average over 30 against the might of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
9, I'd prefer see an opposition of mine make 160\0 off 50 anyday, as it probably means batting conditions are easier and it almost certainly means your bowlers have bowled better. As far as I'm concerned you can always say "this would be better than that" - it doesn't prove anything as to the "wickets v. economy" debate.

 

[marc71178]

They would, I hope, comfortably beat the current New Zealand, Pakistan, England and West Indies sides. But not my best XIs for them.

OK then, money where your mouth is.

Name your XIs for each of those 4 nations.

 

[marc71178]

You've simply got to take each case as it comes.

Looks to me like he was talking about the standard of competition, and that fact is undeniable.

 

[marc71178]

a bowler doesn't deserve credit for a batsman's inhibitedness. If he has got himself stuck on the back foot, it's his fault in exactly the way it is if he gets out to a bad ball at any other time.

And what if he's on the back foot because of good bowling?

You've never satisfactorily answered how a bowler doesn't deserve a wicket for a superb spell where the batsman survives, then gets out to a planned wider ball or similar.

 

[Mr. P]

In the unlikely event of any doubt, I would like to assure anyone wanting some, I was not being serious in any way about 10.
1, yes, skill is assesed in this way.
2, a bowler doesn't deserve credit for a batsman's inhibitedness. If he has got himself stuck on the back foot, it's his fault in exactly the way it is if he gets out to a bad ball at any other time.
3, no, I have never said the Waughs, Ponting, Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and Gilchrist are not quality. The latter 3 I have said I don't consider them as good as some in the Test game, and Hayden I have said I consider to be massively overrated, in both game forms.
4, you don't have to have seen Don Bradman (or even WG Grace) play to have known they were something out of the ordinary. Nor Garfield Sobers, for instance. If you look at someone's stats you get a reasonable assessment of their ability. If you ask me, there were better players in all the teams I named, and more of them.
6, maybe, but he still managed to average over 30 against the might of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
9, I'd prefer see an opposition of mine make 160\0 off 50 anyday, as it probably means batting conditions are easier and it almost certainly means your bowlers have bowled better. As far as I'm concerned you can always say "this would be better than that" - it doesn't prove anything as to the "wickets v. economy" debate.

1) ok whatever
2) Did you read what I wrote at all? Read marcs post below mine.
3) Can't be stuffed arguing this. How is Hayden overated in Tests?
4) OK, you're assessing by stats. I would like you to go back and revise that list, taking away all the teams whose stats weren't as good as the current Aus team. NOW look.
6) Righto but he performed against the better teams.
9) O...K....:rolleyes:

So you would prefer to be chasing 161 then 121? Also it can mean bowling conditions are easier, but it doesnt always say that. And how does it show that your bowlers have bowled better? 10 wickets compared to none is surely in favour of the bowlers who took all ten?