players Who You Thought WOULDN'T Make It.............

[Richard]

How often do we see it anyway - the batsman 'done in the flight' but playing through the line and not checking the shot he gets it away over long off?

And doing so is good batting, and the batsman deserves credit for not getting out. That's why so few wickets really come from batsmen being "done in the flight".
It's wholly different to playing down the wrong line, which is just poor batting that is massively lucky if it results in playing a delivery that a better stroke would have seen result in a wicket.

 

[Richard]

Slower balls ARE long-hops. They are successful very regularly. It is a long-hop that at the same time is a good delivery.

I also don't think that all long-hop wickets fall to bad batting...

Well I do.
Are you actually clear on what a Long-Hop is? It's not just the definition of a bad ball - it's a ball that comes to the batsman at between waist and shoulder height, and is the easiest height to hit cleanly off the back-foot. Like Half-Volley length, it changes depending on how much bounce the bowler and pitch is getting, and how tall the batsman is.
Hence, all the best slower-balls are full, and cannot be Long-Hops.

 

[Mr. P]

The best slower ball are not always full. Can have much the same effect at any length.

 

[Mr. P]

Take note of the word NEVER. Technically an error is made upon every wicket...

Second part not true. On RUDs there is no error from the batsman and it is simply a delivery he had no realistic chance of playing.

Every ball can be played in some way. And off every wicket some sort of mistake is made.

Yes, every ball could be played. If you get a ball that pitches leg and moves onto off you might play completely down the wrong line and end-up playing precisely the line the ball moves onto. But it's not realistic. It's just about so unlikely as to be ruled-out. There is no such thing as an "unplayable delivery". There is such thing as a "realistically unplayable delivery".

In that second quote you say as if a "RUD" has taken wickets. If so, a mistake was made. I fail to see your point...

How can a "RUD" be possible. For it to take a wicket, a mistake was made...

Unless "RUD" is a fiction and does not exist? If so, you're arguing for no reason...

 

[marc71178]

Wrong, you can be lucky for any length of time.

Just ask Glenn Mcgrath, Shaun Pollock and Steve Harmison.

 

[marc71178]

If the batsman nicks (or, in Richardson's case, gloves) the ball, it's a RUD

Except when it's Flintoff bowling.

 

[marc71178]

And doing so is good batting, and the batsman deserves credit for not getting out.

So by being fooled by the bowler, he deserves credit now?

 

[Richard]

The best slower ball are not always full. Can have much the same effect at any length.

Hmm, a 70mph half-tracker, yes, that's likely to be effective.
The idea behind a slower-ball is to get the batsman to play early. If they drive early, it's likely to go up. If the placement isn't right (which it isn't about 1\2 the time) then it'll result in a wicket as long as the catch is held.

 

[Richard]

In that second quote you say as if a "RUD" has taken wickets. If so, a mistake was made. I fail to see your point...

How can a "RUD" be possible. For it to take a wicket, a mistake was made...

Unless "RUD" is a fiction and does not exist? If so, you're arguing for no reason...

As far as I can work-out that doesn't make sense.
A realistically unplayable delivery IS possible - a wicket is taken, no mistake is made by the batsman, he's done all he can be expected to do. You do see that sometimes.

 

[Richard]

Just ask Glenn Mcgrath, Shaun Pollock and Steve Harmison.

Except, of course, they're not going to make everyone praising them look silly by saying "ah, it was all poor batting, I didn't really bowl that well", are they?
Apart from this, it would also be something of an insult to the batsmen.

 

[Richard]

Except when it's Flintoff bowling.

No, not at all, Flintoff has bowled a few RUDs in his Test-career (not many, though).
A couple that I can think of off the top of my head are to Dasgupta at Bangalore and Sehwag at Lord's (though Hussain actually dropped the catch - one of the few instances where Flintoff genuinely was unlucky).

 

[Richard]

So by being fooled by the bowler, he deserves credit now?

Er, no, he deserves credit for not allowing being fooled by a bowler to result in his dismissal.

 

[marc71178]

No, not at all, Flintoff has bowled a few RUDs in his Test-career (not many, though).
A couple that I can think of off the top of my head are to Dasgupta at Bangalore and Sehwag at Lord's (though Hussain actually dropped the catch - one of the few instances where Flintoff genuinely was unlucky).

Then there's Old Trafford 2004, to a certain World Record holding West Indian.

 

[marc71178]

Er, no, he deserves credit for not allowing being fooled by a bowler to result in his dismissal.

Why?

How does him fluking staying in when he should've been dismissed make him a better batsman and worthy of credit?

 

[tooextracool]

Exactly - which means I've got it right and those that remember the minority and forget the majority have got it wrong.

well done in spotting the sarcasm....

 

[tooextracool]

Which is why he took a pivotal four-for on a pitch that was as good for batting as any which has ever existed, yes.
Haven't you realised you're badly wrong about Bicknell, yet? Still?

and if harmison got those wickets by luck then so did bicknell....especially the long hop that got hall.regardless there was swing and movement off the pitch for bicknell to work with on those last 2 days....

 

[Mr. P]

As far as I can work-out that doesn't make sense.
A realistically unplayable delivery IS possible - a wicket is taken, no mistake is made by the batsman, he's done all he can be expected to do. You do see that sometimes.

There is a mistake off every wicket. No matter how "realistically unplayable" it seems. Just because he has "done all can be expected to do," doesn't mean there is no mistake.

 

[Mr. P]

Hmm, a 70mph half-tracker, yes, that's likely to be effective.
The idea behind a slower-ball is to get the batsman to play early. If they drive early, it's likely to go up. If the placement isn't right (which it isn't about 1\2 the time) then it'll result in a wicket as long as the catch is held.

Of course a 70mph half-tracker can be effective.

You say the aim is to make the batsman play early, well yes, and that applies to pulls and hooks as well. This is tactics mate, this is a long-hop, it takes wickets, it deserves them.

 

[tooextracool]

So you reckon Lara did not lose sight of those two Flintoff deliveries I refer to, then? Another example of how clearly you don't watch cricket.

no he didnt lose sight of the wicket....how someone who makes such a stupid claim can accusing me of not watching cricket is amazing....occasions where a batsman can lose sight of a ball are extremely rare indeed, and mostly have something to do with movement behind the bowlers arm. lara was just out-thought

 

[tooextracool]

For the same reason it didn't with Hoggard for the Second, Third (Sri Lanka) and First (India) Tests in 2002. And the many, many other bowlers who've had spells of getting a good average due to lots of poor strokes..

or the fact that they are completely different bowlers perhaps? hoggard for instance isnt anywhere near as accurate or for that matter anywhere near as good as mcgrath......

Whether they are perceived to have been "pushed back" or not, the fact is, they hardly ever get out to short-pitched balls.

this is got to be the foolish post you have ever come up with.....the fact that they played a poor stroke had a direct connection to the ball(s) before where they were pushed back on the crease....it seems that you have lost the argument again, and are coming up with stupid posts like those when you have nothing to reply to my post.....

Only if it's a Half-Volley or if they're very lucky are they going to hit the middle of the bat to one that swings late.

nope, sometimes particularly when you dont have much pace, good batsman can play along with the swing...we've seen many occasions of batsmen hitting swinging balls for four through the covers.....

Yes, it's far more likely that you'll play-and-miss than you'll nick a late swinging ball, and it's about an even chance of a nick carrying as falling short. But nonetheless if you're good enough to keep bowling there, you'll get the nick that carries eventually..

yes so finally you admit that it happens so very irregularly, just about as regularly as short balls picking up wickets....

No, it's not as easy to bowl good deliveries as it was 4 or 5 years ago - but equally we have far fewer bowlers around who can bowl them in any conditions.
It is these sorts of bowlers who are more needed in this era - instead, we have less of them.[/QUOTE]