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

[Richard]

2 more great bowlers who only seem to take wickets through being lucky that bad shots are played against them.

No, not only at all - when are you going to give-up trying to put words onto my keyboard?

 

[Mr. P]

Anyone who intentionally bowls a Long-Hop needs their head examined.
Because probably 19 times out of 20 it'll go for runs. And maybe 79 times out of 80 it won't take a wicket.

Thats a very easy way to look at things. A long-hop is basically (and im sure you will agree) is a rubbish ball there to be hit. Yes?

Of course people bowl these intentionally. Half volleys are amazingly terrible deliveries most of the time, but they are bowled with success when combined with an acute strategy.

And its not as if it isn't common for this to happen. Bowlers do this all the time...I can go into further detail if you wish?

 

[Richard]

And mostly it doesn't work - whether it's intentional or not we can never know for sure, because bowlers will often claim credit for what was in fact a mistake.

 

[Richard]

Yes that's exactly right. Just because the batsman played a poor stroke that does not mean the bowlers didn't do it well. He forced the error, in many cases.

Of course a bowler can intentionally bowl a long-hop. As with the former paragraph, the bowler forces the error. A long-hop can be the perfect way of dismissal.

No bowler can ever force an error, he can do his utmost to encourage one, but he can't force it.
And IMO a bowler should never be credited for a batsman's error.

 

[Mr. P]

And mostly it doesn't work - whether it's intentional or not we can never know for sure, because bowlers will often claim credit for what was in fact a mistake.

You would be surprised how often it does work...

And also, why do you think the mistake was made? A lot of the time through good, long-hop bowling!

 

[Mr. P]

No bowler can ever force an error, he can do his utmost to encourage one, but he can't force it.
And IMO a bowler should never be credited for a batsman's error.

Since technically every wicket ever taken was a mistake on the batsmans part, no bowler deserves credit, I presume?

 

[Richard]

You would be surprised how often it does work...

And also, why do you think the mistake was made? A lot of the time through good, long-hop bowling!

I wouldn't be surprised how often it does work - but you, and many others, quite clearly would be surprised how often it doesn't work.
In the cases where mistakes are made, it's through poor batting. Good batting, which happens in the majority of cases, will see a good spell followed by a poor delivery put away and any pressure which might exist eased slightly.

 

[Richard]

Since technically every wicket ever taken was a mistake on the batsmans part, no bowler deserves credit, I presume?

No, not every one - but yes, most.
There are plenty of wickets where the bowler deserved no credit - but I don't mind too much if it's in the middle of a spell where wickets have been taken which are deserved.
Equally, there are wickets for which the bowler deserved credit and the batsman has made error.

 

[Mr. P]

In the cases where mistakes are made, it's through poor batting. Good batting, which happens in the majority of cases, will see a good spell followed by a poor delivery put away and any pressure which might exist eased slightly.

Yes. Yes you are right. You said no long-hops deserve wickets and you just went back on yourself here.

"In the cases where mistakes are made, it's through poor batting."

Which is maunfactored by the bowler. The long-hop is tactical SO often...have you no eyes? I see this every time I watch a cricket match! Have you played cricket yourself? What is a slower ball? Yep, a long-hop! Is it successful? Yes! Is it tactical? Yes!

"Good batting, which happens in the majority of cases, will see a good spell followed by a poor delivery put away and any pressure which might exist eased slightly."

To start off, good batting is not in the majority of cases.

Secondly, I have accepted a good deal (but certainly not most) of long-hops are not done on purpose and they should be hit away...

Finally, so often is good batting ended by good bowling, in which all I have stated happens...

 

[Mr. P]

No, not every one - but yes, most.
There are plenty of wickets where the bowler deserved no credit - but I don't mind too much if it's in the middle of a spell where wickets have been taken which are deserved.
Equally, there are wickets for which the bowler deserved credit and the batsman has made error.

Hmm sorry mate im pretty sure you just went back on your word here...

No bowler can ever force an error, he can do his utmost to encourage one, but he can't force it. And IMO a bowler should never be credited for a batsman's error.

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

 

[marc71178]

No, not only at all - when are you going to give-up trying to put words onto my keyboard?

When are you going to give up imposing these mad ideas on the forum?

 

[marc71178]

Since technically every wicket ever taken was a mistake on the batsmans part, no bowler deserves credit, I presume?

Got it in one, so I don't know why bowlers bother playing the game.

Why not just get 2 bowling machines and set them up.

It would also remove all chucking controversies, and there's be no need for umpires as the machine can be programmed to give the decisions as well.

Then we could get rid of batsmen and fielders and play the came completely with programmed robots.

Then there'd be no mistakes made by anyone and wouldn't it be a better game?!

 

[luckyeddie]

I think shorter bowlers who get outstanding averages (eg Marshall) have bowled better than taller ones, because everyone knows taller bowlers have a bigger margin-for-error in length.

Only with respect to catches in slips or short leg - everybody knows that (that statement ought to be banned, incidentally).

In order for the taller bowler to hit the stumps, he has to pitch the ball closer to the 'driving length' than the shorter bowler.

Thus the Munchkin bowler has the bigger margin of error for bowled or leg-before dismissals.

Strangely enough, by the same token (or by the same 'what you're toking) it could be argued that shorter batsmen have an unfair advantage over taller ones for reasons less obvious than the usually quoted 'good balance'.

Short batsmen wear smaller pads. Consequently, there is a greater chance of them being struck above the knee-roll - an anea so frequently taken as an indicator that the ball might well have gone on to pass over the top of the stumps. Consequently, they are less likely to be given out leg before wicket.

Therefore, smaller batsmen are lucky.

Most batsmen are right-handed, most bowlers are right-handed. Most bowlers deliver the ball over the wicket. Therefore, all left-handed batsmen face a right-handed bowler delivering the ball over the wicket most of the time.

Few right-handed bowlers can bowl a decent out-swinger to a right-handed batsman. Even fewer can repeat the exercise when they have to change their line to a left-hander (in-swinger here). How often have you heard commentators say "he set the ball off outside leg and it didn't swing?".

Not many balls, therefore, will be pitching outside off stump yet offering a leg-before threat to a left-handed batsman. Most balls which would go on to strike the stumps would be pitching close to or outside leg stump.

There is a lesser chance that left-handed batsmen will be dismissed leg before wicket. Therefore, left-handed batsmen are lucky.

Therefore, smaller, left-handed batsmen are doubly lucky - everybody knows that..

 

[Richard]

Yes. Yes you are right. You said no long-hops deserve wickets and you just went back on yourself here.

"In the cases where mistakes are made, it's through poor batting."

Which is maunfactored by the bowler. The long-hop is tactical SO often...have you no eyes? I see this every time I watch a cricket match! Have you played cricket yourself? What is a slower ball? Yep, a long-hop! Is it successful? Yes! Is it tactical? Yes!

"Good batting, which happens in the majority of cases, will see a good spell followed by a poor delivery put away and any pressure which might exist eased slightly."

To start off, good batting is not in the majority of cases.

Secondly, I have accepted a good deal (but certainly not most) of long-hops are not done on purpose and they should be hit away...

Finally, so often is good batting ended by good bowling, in which all I have stated happens...

So a Long-Hop which is bowled on purpose should not be hit for four, because it's good bowling?
Whenever someone has tried a Long-Hop tactically if you ask me that's a poor tactic. And in my experience, Long-Hops (and you can't ever say for certain whether a Long-Hop is deliberate or not) tend not to take wickets.

 

[Richard]

Hmm sorry mate im pretty sure you just went back on your word here...

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.
But first part - true, I did not phrase it very well.
What I should have said was something along the lines of: where a bowler has encouraged error in that delivery, ie where he has drawn a batsman into playing at a ball he could leave, swinging it away and nicking it, he deserves credit for encouraging that error.
When the batsman makes an error casued by previous deliveries, which he should be putting out of his mind, the bowler doesn't deserve any credit IMO.

 

[Richard]

Only with respect to catches in slips or short leg - everybody knows that (that statement ought to be banned, incidentally).

In order for the taller bowler to hit the stumps, he has to pitch the ball closer to the 'driving length' than the shorter bowler.

Thus the Munchkin bowler has the bigger margin of error for bowled or leg-before dismissals.

Strangely enough, by the same token (or by the same 'what you're toking) it could be argued that shorter batsmen have an unfair advantage over taller ones for reasons less obvious than the usually quoted 'good balance'.

Short batsmen wear smaller pads. Consequently, there is a greater chance of them being struck above the knee-roll - an anea so frequently taken as an indicator that the ball might well have gone on to pass over the top of the stumps. Consequently, they are less likely to be given out leg before wicket.

Therefore, smaller batsmen are lucky.

Most batsmen are right-handed, most bowlers are right-handed. Most bowlers deliver the ball over the wicket. Therefore, all left-handed batsmen face a right-handed bowler delivering the ball over the wicket most of the time.

Few right-handed bowlers can bowl a decent out-swinger to a right-handed batsman. Even fewer can repeat the exercise when they have to change their line to a left-hander (in-swinger here). How often have you heard commentators say "he set the ball off outside leg and it didn't swing?".

Not many balls, therefore, will be pitching outside off stump yet offering a leg-before threat to a left-handed batsman. Most balls which would go on to strike the stumps would be pitching close to or outside leg stump.

There is a lesser chance that left-handed batsmen will be dismissed leg before wicket. Therefore, left-handed batsmen are lucky.

Therefore, smaller, left-handed batsmen are doubly lucky - everybody knows that..

I've never called any advantage gained by height, fast arm, double-jointed wrist or whatever unfair - that would be wholly ridiculous - though anyone could call someone blessed with unusual abilities "lucky", but personally I just think it sort of goes without saying.
But I do think to bowl economically from a height of 5"8' takes more accuracy than bowling from 6"6'. Because taller bowlers have a greater margin for error in length. Maybe it's a bit easier to get lbws from a shorter stature, yes, but I wasn't talking about wickets, I was talking about not getting hit for runs.
And I also refute the theory that taller bowlers find it harder to get batsmen playing - because you don't need to bowl on the length to hit the stumps to force the batsman to play, you just need to bowl on the line. Otherwise no-one would ever promote the bowling of "back-of-length" deliveries, because they'd all be let go.

 

[Mr. P]

So a Long-Hop which is bowled on purpose should not be hit for four, because it's good bowling?
Whenever someone has tried a Long-Hop tactically if you ask me that's a poor tactic. And in my experience, Long-Hops (and you can't ever say for certain whether a Long-Hop is deliberate or not) tend not to take wickets.

I never said every long hop should not be hit for four. If the batsman can counter the tactic well, then he should hit it away, by all means. But this does not mean the bowling is not good. Just because a ball is hit for four off a long-hop we can automatically presume it was down to bad bowling.

How is it a poor tactic? It is perfect in many situations.

Finally if you think long-hops don't take wickets then you are blind. The slower ball (Or long-hop as we shall call it) is an extremely successful long-hop.

 

[Mr. P]

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.

RUDs?

 

[luckyeddie]

RUDs?

Roughed-Up Dorks

(aka Yorkshiremen on a Saturday night)

 

[tooextracool]

No, you just remember the very few times they were and the many, many times they weren't.

and i can say that the contrary is applicable to you