Start the poll Damn it, what are you afraid of ? Separate the milk from the water, let the forum members decide how close your 'seems' is.Key word "seems". Of those that have posted thus far, you are on your own, and your definition of match-fixing differs from what (in my experience) is the unanimously accepted one.
But you are not afraid of making pointless point that 'no-one else' agrees with my definition.I'm afraid of cluttering up the forums with pointless threads when if anyone agrees with you, they will surely say so in this thread.
If you are a lone-ranger, you're regularly going to have to bowl 15-20 overs more per innings than a member of a pack. Even though there will obviously be cases where something happens to even-out the averages.What are you talking about? I am comparing bowlers who bowl differing amounts. To say that one bowler bowling more is going to be fatigued more is one thing. To say it is that much of a difference is another. The differences between like bowlers and the number of overs they bowl per inning/match does not go into "15-20 overs more" as you stipulated.
You do realise that keeping the runs dry and not taking wickets puts huge pressure back on the "wicket-taker" don't you? He then has to bowl far more overs before the oppo are bowled-out, and will probably see an increase in economy-rate as he bowls more. So instead of taking 4-50 he might take 7-150, which is a poorer set of figures.But that's the point, Gillespie is not going to benefit as much as a Hadlee for example. Hadlee's support would keep the runs dry but wouldn't take wickets. McGrath would also keep the runs dry but would take wickets. If I wanted to be the leading bowler I'd rather a Chatfield next to me.
No, they're always equally likely.I understand that, but the drawbacks are less likely to occur for the great bowler than the advantage.
No, it's the assumption you want to come to, because you don't like what I'm saying.From what you have been arguing it is the assumption I've come to.
That makes precisely zero sense to me.The amounts they bowl are much different to the amounts of wickets they take. It also has little to do with who they are. I am in essence talking about a lone-ranger and someone who bowls in a pack. Not really Warne or Murali. It can be x or y. The point is to show that like bowlers do not bowl so much more/less that the ability to bowl this much itself is a major skill. It really isn't, the differences are negligible.
Well Sanz is rarely anything other than at odds, who it may be with doesn't matter. And obviously whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest an Australian player is less than excellent, KaZoH0lic must disagree.Might have known when opening this thread that I'd find Kazo and Sanz at odds![]()
![]()
Frankly, I've been getting along pretty well with Sanz for a while now and I don't think I'm alone.Well Sanz is rarely anything other than at odds, who it may be with doesn't matter. And obviously whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest an Australian player is less than excellent, KaZoH0lic must disagree.
**** Mozilla settings, I get to read Richards comments. He rarely lets a chance slip to take a cheap shot at me.
It is solely his and his right only to be flag bearer of posting crap, derailing threads. 50000+ posts of idiocy and counting. No one can get even close.
That's the part that gave it such hype. Previously, wrist-spinners were hoping to land the ball on the cut portion and were just looking to get the wrists limber. That Warnie landed that ball first ball in England on what was a really more of a pace-friendly deck is why people went nuts over it. He certainly was the first Aussie spinner in such a long time who could do it. It was just such a shock to the system. That he then removed Robin Smith caught at slip with a ball at least as good soon after confirmed, at least, it wasn't a fluke.Yeah the Gatting ball gets plenty or air time. Changed his life though, in terms of marketability.
Thing that gets me about it was that it was his first ball in the match.