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

[Richard]

yes those yorkers that the wickets of lara were all of short balls werent they? as much as you refuse to believe short balls can get wickets if they are directed well enough at the right pace. however it is crucial that you dont overdo it, and both flintoff and harmison have been guilty of doing that on a few occasions. the point though is that its all fine if you bowled a few short balls and then followed them up with pitched up balls and flintoff has certainly of late demonstrated that he can in fact do that successfully.

Short-balls don't get good batsmen out very often.
I don't like to see it when they do.
Sorry, but you can't get around that. Look at the proportion of wickets that fall to short-balls, it's very, very small.
Nor will bowling a few short balls followed by a full one get you many quality batsmen out. Because good batsmen don't either worry about the last few balls or use them to premeditate.

 

[Richard]

the fact is that even if harmison does in fact go on to become the most successful english bowler of all time and takes 400 wickets, richard would still be saying that he didnt deserve them and that they all had to do with poor shots rather than good balls.

If it were true, I'd say that.
However, the chances of it happening are very remote.
If Harmison continues to bowl like he's bowled so far in his career, I'll fairly confidently say he won't get 400 wickets or anything close.

 

[Richard]

isnt getting a wicket with a short ball just as vaild a way of getting a wicket though????

No.
If a wicket is taken with a short-ball the batsman will invariably have made an error.
Or occasionally you'll get things happening like Lara losing sight of the ball.

 

[Raj123]

No.
If a wicket is taken with a short-ball the batsman will invariably have made an error.

plszz....that logic can be applied to each and every delivery that has ever been bowled (and got a wicket) in the history of the game

 

[steds]

No.
If a wicket is taken with a short-ball the batsman will invariably have made an error.

eerrmm...yeah! what's your point?
It's the same when it is piched up
Is an edge to second slip not an error? What about being bowled through the gate?(surely it is an error to leave a gap big enough for the ball to fit through)

 

[Richard]

This certainly isn't true:

that logic can be applied to each and every delivery that has ever been bowled (and got a wicket) in the history of the game

There is such thing as a realistically-unplayable-delivery (RUD) which (fairly obviously) cannot realistically have dismissal avoided.
WRT this:

Is an edge to second slip not an error? What about being bowled through the gate?(surely it is an error to leave a gap big enough for the ball to fit through)

Yes, plenty of pitched-up balls which IMO deserve wickets have also involved a degree of batting error: a swinging Carrot-Ball - if the batsman had left it he'd have stayed in; an in-dipper that just gets through bat and pad - if there had been no gap it mightn't have got through.
But IMO getting out to a short-ball (along with attempting to defend a ball clearly not on the line of the stumps and some other things) is much more of an error. Inevitably, this is simply personal opinion and is not fact.

 

[tooextracool]

Short-balls don't get good batsmen out very often.
I don't like to see it when they do.
Sorry, but you can't get around that. Look at the proportion of wickets that fall to short-balls, it's very, very small.

no it doesnt get good batsmen out very often, but the fact is that it does get them out if it is bowled at a good enough pace right into the body. its happened before and will continue to happen. the point is that 1-2 short deliveries an over makes sense(depending on the kind of bowler you are, obviously for someone like pollock it would be stupid to do that) and if bowled well enough can get you a wicket, but if done to frequently which is what both flintoff, harmison and caddick in particular have been guilty off on many occasions.

Nor will bowling a few short balls followed by a full one get you many quality batsmen out. Because good batsmen don't either worry about the last few balls or use them to premeditate.

which all comes back down to the same argument.....the fact is that it worked on lara and the WI bowlers from the 80s used it just as well

 

[tooextracool]

If it were true, I'd say that.
However, the chances of it happening are very remote.
If Harmison continues to bowl like he's bowled so far in his career, I'll fairly confidently say he won't get 400 wickets or anything close.

much in the same way that you were 'confident' that harmison would never average under 30 or take 7-12 or even be marginally successful in a series against any test class team in the world....because the ability to get bounce off a pitch cannot be used as a weapon to get wickets and that quality batsmen dont get out to bounce?
the thing is that even if he does manage to get 400 wickets, which seems quite likely if he continues the way he is at the moment, 102 wickets from 23 tests, you would still be saying that you never denied that harmison would get 400 wickets and that he got them from poor deliveries. of course its just amazing that if all it took was ordinary deliveries to take 400 wickets then why are there only such a small group of people who have done so and why has there never been an england bowler who has gotten 400 wickets?

 

[tooextracool]

There is such thing as a realistically-unplayable-delivery (RUD) which (fairly obviously) cannot realistically have dismissal avoided.

oh believe me, the percentage of times that one of those deliveries have actually taken wickets is very small indeed. far more often we've seen batsmen play and miss instead.

Yes, plenty of pitched-up balls which IMO deserve wickets have also involved a degree of batting error: a swinging Carrot-Ball - if the batsman had left it he'd have stayed in; an in-dipper that just gets through bat and pad - if there had been no gap it mightn't have got through.
But IMO getting out to a short-ball (along with attempting to defend a ball clearly not on the line of the stumps and some other things) is much more of an error. Inevitably, this is simply personal opinion and is not fact.

no the only reason why you believe that they deserve wickets is because you believe that the bowler deserves credit for his ability to move the ball in the air. but what you dont realise is that bowling a short ball at the right pace and place requires just about as much ability.....neither are wicket taking but you seam to prefer swing to pace and bounce. its your opinion but IMO its just foolish.

 

[The Baconator]

4 sum reason i always thought vaughan wouldn't make it

 

[Neil Pickup]

4 sum reason i always thought vaughan wouldn't make it

Join the gang..
.
You're forgetting that Pollock and McGrath don't deserve all their wickets either.

 

[Raj123]

This certainly isn't true:

There is such thing as a realistically-unplayable-delivery (RUD) which (fairly obviously) cannot realistically have dismissal avoided.

u mean short fast into the rib cage of the batsman, forcing him to defend awkwardly and popping up a catch

 

[tooextracool]

u mean short fast into the rib cage of the batsman, forcing him to defend awkwardly and popping up a catch

good batsmen dont do that though......except gary kirsten,fleming and steve waugh, they did it only 25% of the time so they can be dismissed as anomalies.

 

[Raj123]

good batsmen dont do that though......except gary kirsten,fleming and steve waugh, they did it only 25% of the time so they can be dismissed as anomalies.

shoaib to sachin 2003 world cup. that was a beauty.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So people with out necks cant play cricket?

Is Gladstone Small an argument for or against?

 

[Son Of Coco]

If he thinks he's improved since then, he's kidding himself.
The best I've seen Flintoff bowl was in India in 2001\02, especially at Bangalore.
He's bowled no differently since the Sri Lanka tour (the TRUE time when his figures started to improve, rather than since the time when he had a talk with Troy Cooley) to how he did in his "unlucky" 2 years before that.

unlucky for a whole two years? wow...

 

[Son Of Coco]

Short-balls don't get good batsmen out very often.
I don't like to see it when they do.
Sorry, but you can't get around that. Look at the proportion of wickets that fall to short-balls, it's very, very small.
Nor will bowling a few short balls followed by a full one get you many quality batsmen out. Because good batsmen don't either worry about the last few balls or use them to premeditate.

ahhhhhhhhhhhh, here we go again...........

 

[Richard]

shoaib to sachin 2003 world cup. that was a beauty.

What, one single cut over third-man?

 

[Richard]

ahhhhhhhhhhhh, here we go again...........

What, you seriously think good batsmen premeditate shots except in exceptional circumstances (ie quick runs needed)?

 

[Richard]

unlucky for a whole two years? wow...

Exactly, it's a ridiculous claim that genuinely was bandied-about by plenty of otherwise knowledgable cricket followers, just because he had the odd catch dropped off a Long-Hop and got a few play-and-misses because he bowled too short.