Personal Cricket Statutes

[Neil Pickup]

And how's that team supposed to take wickets? Two proper bowlers, Ealham, Alleyne and Hick?!

Also I note the string of failure in the Top Order.

As for previous balls not having any effect on dismissals, well that's about as relevant as it not mattering if you take wickets in ODIs. People stay in, get more settled, bat better... no, wait, they can't, there's no stats for it.

 

[Craig]

I cant be bothered going back and quoting posts left right and centre. But Richard you put Ramps in there despite him averaging only 18 in the ODIs he has played.

Ok that was only a handful.

And Mr Ged, one thing I remember about Lara's 375, is that on 365 he hooked a ball from Chris Lewis, went back to far, hit the stump and lucky not to knock the bail off.

That ball went to the square leg boundary and all the WI fans at St Johns ran out onto the ground to mob him and so did the police to protect him and play was held up.

Ok this part isnt realy relevant I know

 

[Gaijin-san]

Why did you address that to me? What did I say?

 

[iamdavid]

what has gone before is irrelevant. It is the ball that takes the wicket that matters, not the last 50.

Generally I agree with most of the things you say , apart from that first chance bull$hit , however this is incredibly ignorant.
Surely as an opening bowler you would see the importance of building up the pressure , working a batsman out.

Dennis Lillee used to do it aswell , he'd tie a guy up & them throw them a wide half volley that went away a bit & they would be so keen to hit it they would often get a snick , it worked famously on many occasions.

I would personally rather bowl well for 4 overs & then bowl a wide one or a half tracker which gets a wicket than bowl absolute $hit & then bowl a jaffa which gets one.

The poor shot which results from the poor delivery is usually the result of the pressure which is built up by the bowler over a number of overs , then when the batsman see's a long hop or half volley his eyes light up & he is so keen to hit it for four & under such pressure to score that he often misjudges or tries to hit the ball to hard , and a wicket results.

IMO bowlers certainly deserve credit for such dismissals & if they didnt then few really deserve credit for anything.

 

[Mr. P]

Line up please guys! We'll ALL get a chance to argue against Richard.

Whos next? Wheres TC?

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Marc has argued or rather proven him oh so wrong, MUCH better than i could ever do.

 

[Craig]

Why did you address that to me? What did I say?

Mentioned something about Lara giving a chance in his 375.

 

[Gaijin-san]

I didn't say that - I never even saw Brian Lara's 375.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

about Lara's 375, is that on 365 he hooked a ball from Chris Lewis, went back to far, hit the stump and lucky not to knock the bail off.[/SIZE]

This is true. I have the photograph of him willing the bail to stay on.

 

[Craig]

Do accept my apologies Mr Ged.

It should of been refered to Mr deeps.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

West Indies:
Campbell
Gayle
W. Hinds
Lara
Chanderpaul
Sarwan
Jacobs
Nagamootoo, for the simple fact that there is no-one better
Dillon
Lawson (quite a decent one-day bowler by the looks of things)

Campbell - crap technique
Gayle - agreed
Hinds - agreed
Lara - agreed, but he should bat at 3.
Chanders - agreed
Sarwan - agreed, but 6 is a bit too low IMO.
Jacobs - agreed.
Nagamootoo - what???? Edwards??? Collymore???
Dillon - agreed.
Lawson - I'd have to see how he recovers before I comment.

From some information King and McLean are nothing like the bowlers they were 2 years ago, so I haven't included them. Who the other bowler is I'm not sure.

McLean was never much of an international bowler. King was ruined by injury . Furthermore, Nagamootoo (your team spinner) was never much of an international bowler either!

 

[Richard]

Yeah,Waugh has an ODI avg of less than 35...But you see, waugh comes in at number 5,and sometimes at 6 or so...Very often during the last 10 overs or so... Or else he comes in very early,and has to do a rescue mission... Either way,he doesn't have time to play a proper innings... You say that the 120* was because of gibbs' premature celebration... Well,in the case, Abdul Razzaq dropped Tendulkar in the World cup... I'm sure Lara was dropped somewhere in his 375* and MOST big innings would have had a chance,or a turned down LBW appeal or watever... The fact of the matter is that the catch was dropped,and waugh was able to capitalise...

And Waugh deserves credit for the catch being dropped because...?
Lara's 375 (not 375*) was chanceless - there was some incident where he almost dragged-on, but he did well enough to avoid dragging-on, so that's not a chance. Abdul Razzaq certainly dropped Tendulkar in WC2003, and hence that innings was nowhere near as good as people said it was. Faultless? How the **** could it be faultless? He should have been out on 40-odd!
I'm not denying Stephen Waugh was a good ODI player, but not an all-time great.
And the notion that most big innings' have a let-off is complete garbage. About 1 in 2 70s are chanceless. About.

 

[Richard]

So a bowler who intentionally aims to pitch one a foot outside off to tempt the batsman and getting it spot on where he wanted is now bowling badly? I wish I could bowl that badly that I can put it exactly where I am aiming.
If someone aims where a good batsman will hit it, most likely for four, he might be accurate but he sure lacks the nous needed to bowl well!

Utter. Rubbish.

Yeah? Then why does everyone say "forget the previous ball, it's gone, concentrate on the next one"? And why do any runs get scored when batting is hard, if everyone worried about what had gone before and kept getting themselves out?

 

[Richard]

Have you ever seen him play?

Yep - saw him in NW Challenge 2003. Looked distinctly ordinary.

 

[Richard]

Hope you didn't cause yourself too much pain when you shot yourself in the foot then!

Yeah. Right.
You'd love as much pain as you could get, wouldn't you?
Anyway, the point is, most of that team could never again be selected for ODIs, but most of it, bar Fairbrother and Stewart, are still playing. I'd still say it would comfortably beat NSW, if you brought in, say, Read and Afzaal. And we will never know for certain so none of the NSW fans can "prove" that wrong.

 

[Richard]

And how's that team supposed to take wickets? Two proper bowlers, Ealham, Alleyne and Hick?!

Also I note the string of failure in the Top Order.

The string of failure?
Knight, Hick and Fairbrother averaged over 40, over 37 and over 37 respectively. If that's failure then what's success? Alleyne and Ramprakash's opportunities were limited (yes, they only had themselves to blame and Alleyne never made an irresistible case for selection with domestic form) and I assume you're not calling Stewart or Thorpe failures?
And Ealham, not a "proper" bowler? So you have to take wickets to be a "proper" bowler in your book?
For me, you can afford Gough and Hick going for a few - Caddick, Ealham and Alleyne can all keep it tight. You don't need wickets if you can get economy, and most batsmen will get themselves out if you stop them scoring at 5-an-over these days, anyway.
For me, there is easily enough batting to chase 250, which would hopefully be conceded less than it wouldn't be.

 

[Richard]

Generally I agree with most of the things you say , apart from that first chance bull$hit , however this is incredibly ignorant.
Surely as an opening bowler you would see the importance of building up the pressure , working a batsman out.

Dennis Lillee used to do it aswell , he'd tie a guy up & them throw them a wide half volley that went away a bit & they would be so keen to hit it they would often get a snick , it worked famously on many occasions.

I would personally rather bowl well for 4 overs & then bowl a wide one or a half tracker which gets a wicket than bowl absolute $hit & then bowl a jaffa which gets one.

The poor shot which results from the poor delivery is usually the result of the pressure which is built up by the bowler over a number of overs , then when the batsman see's a long hop or half volley his eyes light up & he is so keen to hit it for four & under such pressure to score that he often misjudges or tries to hit the ball to hard , and a wicket results.

IMO bowlers certainly deserve credit for such dismissals & if they didnt then few really deserve credit for anything.

david, you really seem to rather overrate my ability. As I have mentioned to you, bowling accurately is not my speciality. I can bowl the odd jaffa, but I'm really not that accurate.
I would prefer bowl 4 overs for 8 then get a Long-Hop smashed to cover, too, because I would get better figures than if I had bowled 4 overs for 24 then got a caught-behind off a perfectly pitched away-swinger. But I would enjoy the actual wicket-taking ball far more if I deserved it, and would not kid myself that I deserved a wicket with a Long-Hop. Anyway, I'm very pleased with myself if I bowl 4 overs for 8.
Anyway, I will maintain that a decent batsman will very rarely get out to a Long-Hop or Half-Volley.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yeah? Then why does everyone say "forget the previous ball, it's gone, concentrate on the next one"? And why do any runs get scored when batting is hard, if everyone worried about what had gone before and kept getting themselves out?

Because that is what you ought to do, however cricket isn't just played off the pitch, it's in the mind.

 

[Richard]

If it's only an ideal, why do so many batsmen do it?

 

[luckyeddie]

If it's only an ideal, why do so many batsmen do it?

The point Neil was making, quite simply is that they don't do it

because they can say something doesn't mean that they can actually do it.

Anything untoward which happens is bound to play on the mind in the future (within that innings) - got to watch out for that again, mustn't do this, mustn't do that and so on - unless you have quite exceptional powers of mental strength.

Master that one simple thing (putting the past behind you and playing each ball on its merit) is probably the difference between a Tendulkar, a Lara and the lesser player.

See Boycott, Gavaskar statements passim