tooextracool said:
yes but its quite like that the same ball wouldnt have been nicked by several other batsmen....therefore you cant say for sure whether a delivery is a jaffa or a wicket-taking delivery in the first place....so you cant say that all wicket taking balls will take a wicket, because the same ball would not have been a wicket taking ball had some other batsman who wasnt as capable had played at it...
A wicket-taking ball has taken a wicket.
A Jaffa has been played-and-missed at.
This is decided
AFTER THE BALL HAS PASSED THE BATSMAN AND STUMPS.
Of course you can't say what will be what as it comes out of the hand, I've just said that.
But once a ball has been bowled and the result is known, you can say what the delivery was. If it got a wicket, it deserved it. If it didn't, it might have taken a wicket - but tough luck. Bowl another one and maybe that will.
rubbishm far more often there is no swing at all after the first 25 overs, along with the fact that there is no seam movement it makes it almost impossible to bowl a wicket taking delivery.
Wrong, you can always use the off-cutter or leg-cutter to move the ball off the pitch. You can also use the off-break slower-ball if the pitch is turning enough.
oh no there was good bowling, its quite conceivable that sometime just sometime he might actually have bowled accurately and not bowled as many long hops then?
Oh, of course there will have been these times, and on them he's a very good bowler (eg Bridgetown, 2003) - but they're so rare that it seems a bit of a coincidence to me that they might have both occurred in a South Africa Test-match where he played just once that series. And judging by his economy-rate in one of those games and by watching the game in the other, I can say otherwise for certain.
hold on a second here, if you cant tell that either of them was quicker then how can you say that there was no significant difference in their speed. after all every batsman that faced both said that holding was much faster than marshall....
Did they really? Why have I not once heard anyone say that, then? And let me assure you, I've read and listened to plenty of batsmen who faced both.
The only time I've ever heard Holding rated "the fastest bowler in The World" was by Boycs after The Greatest Over Of All-Time - not surprising, given that Marshall had hardly played at that point.
err yes i know what they were capable off, but that doesnt escape the fact that bowlers like holding were far more gifted than bowlers like marhsall....so why do you not consider holding lucky then?
Oh, he was lucky, but that's so obvious that no-one mentions it.
Same way no-one mentions the fact that every cricketer who is more gifted than another is lucky - it's sort of very obvious.
And personally I'd say that Holding's height was cancelled-out by Marshall's greater control of length - so, it seems, would everyone else who rated Marshall the better bowler.
no he didnt have a 'sound technique' he had limitations such as the tendency to play on the front foot but he worked his way around it by playing front foot pull shots etc. in the same way you cant guarantee me that someone like hick would in fact fail when he had a similar weakness.
Did anyone ever manage to exploit that perceived weakness to make him fail for an extended stretch? No, thought not.
So therefore it wasn't really much of a weakness at all.
what point does it make in this argument which concerns me and you then?
Because you've come very close to saying those sorts of things.
and yet again you take both sides of an argument...that last line what half my posts in this thread are about....natural gifts are indeed important and just because someone like harmison relied heavily natual gifts it doesnt mean that they dont deserve any credit for taking wickets...
and not once did i say that richards didnt need concentration....its you putting words on my keyboard, i said that he relied far more on natural gifts than he did on concentration and technique......
Despite the fact that concentration is a natural gift. Which he relied very heavily upon, like any good batsman.
If you ask me anyone who relies very heavily on exclusively poor strokes to get wickets deserves less credit than someone who bowls good deliveries to get a proportion of their wickets.