sehwag going for 200

[marc71178]

Thing is, McGrath has the ability to back his claims up.

 

[Richard]

So have hundreds of others, but if you back yourself to perform and fail (and no-one succeeds all the time) you look rather foolish.

 

[marc71178]

So when has McGrath backed himself to succeed and then failed then?

 

[Richard]

Not very often - his averages in series have been low most of the time.
When did I say "he's backed himself to succeed a few times and looked a fool"?
Are you just trying to pick an argument for argument's sake?

 

[marc71178]

You said no-one succeeds all the time.

Yet you cannot tell us when McGrath has announced he's targetting someone and then failed to get his man.

Since he's not failed to get his man, he has therefore succeeded in what he announced on every occasion, therefore contradicting the "no-one succeeds all the time" proclamation.

 

[tooextracool]

hes an anomaly.....no wait hes an exception......no probably a coincidence

 

[marc71178]

No, he's just completely disproving the "no-one" comment.

 

[Richard]

You said no-one succeeds all the time.

Yet you cannot tell us when McGrath has announced he's targetting someone and then failed to get his man.

Since he's not failed to get his man, he has therefore succeeded in what he announced on every occasion, therefore contradicting the "no-one succeeds all the time" proclamation.

Since it would be rather tricky to find-out whether McGrath has announced he's targetting a batsman in every series, and if so who, we can't say whether or not he's got his man consistently in every series.
Even if he was only targetting one batsman, and got him on every occasion but didn't get a single other wicket all series and averaged 40 for the series, I'd not class that as "success" anyway.
Even McGrath has been played competantly on more than a few occasions, and hence he's not succeeded every time he's played.
Even if it is the case that he's had the number of someone he's announced he's aiming for every series. And, as I say, it would be rather difficult to find-out.

 

[Richard]

hes an anomaly.....no wait hes an exception......no probably a coincidence

The fact is if it were true that McGrath had succeeded in everything he would be every single one of those things, and there's sod-all you can do about it!

 

[marc71178]

Since it would be rather tricky to find-out whether McGrath has announced he's targetting a batsman in every series, and if so who, we can't say whether or not he's got his man consistently in every series.

Yes, because of course the media don't cover this sort of story do they?

If he's announced he's targetting someone, the press will report it, it's their job.

The fact that he's succeeded every time he's made such announcements makes a mockery of your comment that nobody does.

 

[marc71178]

The fact is if it were true that McGrath had succeeded in everything he would be every single one of those things, and there's sod-all you can do about it!

You what?

That makes absolutely no sense and strikes me as someone who's desperately trying to salvage anything they can from a losing battle.

 

[Richard]

It makes perfect sense - if McGrath succeeded in everything he did he would most certainly be an anomaly, and exception and a coincidence!
No-one succeeds in everything they do, not even close.

 

[Richard]

Yes, because of course the media don't cover this sort of story do they?

If he's announced he's targetting someone, the press will report it, it's their job.

The fact that he's succeeded every time he's made such announcements makes a mockery of your comment that nobody does.

Yes, they cover it - so it needs someone to dig-up all the different occasions and examine whether he did in fact take the wicket of the batsman he's aiming at a considerable number of times.
Somehow I doubt he has done so every series! It would be a superhuman effort.

 

[marc71178]

It makes perfect sense - if McGrath succeeded in everything he did he would most certainly be an anomaly, and exception and a coincidence!
No-one succeeds in everything they do, not even close.

Donald George Bradman springs to mind.

 

[Revelation]

he's gone for 16 vs Bangladesh (off 8 balls). I think he needs to settle a little.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Donald George Bradman springs to mind.

Especially his duck in the final Test.

 

[Richard]

Donald George Bradman springs to mind.

No, he never failed, did he - hence the fact he scored at the very least 60 every time he went to the crease.
He sums my point up perfectly - quite possibly the best at any one aspect of any sport there has ever been and even he failed plenty of times.
I'll say it again: no-one succeeds in everything they do, not even close. Maybe then some people will think about the truth of the matter.

 

[marc71178]

So please tell us when McGrath has targetted someone and failed to get him.

 

[Richard]

I can't - I haven't followed closely enough.
But equally I can't conceive that he's had the wood over every player he's announced he's targetting every time.
It even seemed I was in the minority when I thought he had the wood over Vaughan last Ashes! Plenty of Australians seemed to think Vaughan got the better.
Certainly people are wrong to suggest he's had the wood over Lara - however many times he's dismissed Lara, Lara's still scored a mountain of runs against Australia.

 

[Waughney]

Certainly people are wrong to suggest he's had the wood over Lara - however many times he's dismissed Lara, Lara's still scored a mountain of runs against Australia.

That only proves that Lara has the wood over Australia not McGrath