Steve Harmison pulls out of Zimbabwe tour

[marc71178]

No, it wasn't - there have been many balls identical in quality that have been played with the utmost ease.

So the fact that 3 similar balls have caused him big problems in a short period is ignored because 2 of them were bowled by someone you don't rate.

 

[marc71178]

And you've repeatedly told me that because of overall scoring-rates increasing bowlers should be judged differently now than they were 10 years ago.

Yes, they should be judged economy-wise differently. That's nothing like judging on average.

 

[marc71178]

Because if somoene goes at 4.5-an-over in a 50-over total of 185, the total is lower than it would be if they'd gone for 5.5-an-over.

That has to be the least logical thing I've seen you post. If he's gone at 4.5 when the rest are below 4, he hasn't helped keep the score down.

 

[marc71178]

It's commendible because it's not much over 4-an-over, which has been the standard good-point from about 1991-2-3.

Firstly, 4.5 is definitely a fair bit over 4.

Secondly this "standard good-point" is according to one person, and one person only, so it's hardly a standard.

 

[Craig]

Ricardo.

Is that a bad or good thing?

 

[tooextracool]

Such as Tendulkar last year, and to an extent Vaughan a while ago as well.

neither of which are true.....

 

[tooextracool]

Not hailed, but not castigated the way Gough has been.

but 2/41 just isnt good enough, for him to keep his place in the side he cant afford mediocre performances(especially considering some of his poor performances), he needs to be brilliant.

 

[tooextracool]

Wickets don't come into it unless you're bowling expensively.

are you out of your mind? wickets on seamer friendly wickets dont come unless you bowl poorly?rubbish.

An economical bowler doesn't need to take wickets.
Yes, the wickets were a bit seamer-friendly (not quite as much as you seem to be suggesting) - so? Bowling well still has to be done.

and the fact that he was relatively expensive given the conditions suggested that some of the performances were substandard.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Ricardo

Is that a bad or good thing?

It's sarcastic, I believe...

 

[marc71178]

neither of which are true.....

Is that why the supposedly out of form SRT hit a double century when supposedly out of form?

 

[tooextracool]

Is that why the supposedly out of form SRT hit a double century when supposedly out of form?

and anyone who watched the early part of that innings would have seen how he struggled to find his form and was completely out of sorts early on. do you actually believe that brad williams,bracken and co bowled well to tendulkar rather than tendulkar batting poorly against them to not score his runs?

 

[Richard]

I don't think he's been castigated, just criticised (and taking it in context, it's fair criticism)

I don't think it is.
I think he's been criticised for 2 bad games (albeit 2 very, very bad ones) as if they were 15!

 

[Richard]

So the fact that 3 similar balls have caused him big problems in a short period is ignored because 2 of them were bowled by someone you don't rate.

They were not similar, and in any case I've never said there was anything good about the Shoaib ball.
Lara played that one poorly.
The one at Edgbaston was certainly not similar to either of the Flintoff-Old-Trafford-wicket ball or the Shoaib-ret-hurt ball. It was full, the other two were short. All it had in common with the Edgbaston ball was that Flintoff bowled it and Lara didn't pick it up.
He was caused problems by one short-ball because he played it poorly. Another got his wicket because he didn't pick it up. Another unsettled him because he didn't pick it up, but it had nothing in common with the other two.

 

[Richard]

Yes, they should be judged economy-wise differently. That's nothing like judging on average.

Right, you have finally confirmed what I thought upon you accusing me of putting words on your keyboard.
You were saying that Harmison's even taken wickets in ODIs, but I don't place any importance on that.
Well, I do - but I don't like it when bowlers get away with being expensive because they keep getting gifted wickets.
Harmison hasn't been expensive - he's by-and-large bowled very well in ODIs from the start of the NatWest Series.

 

[Richard]

That has to be the least logical thing I've seen you post. If he's gone at 4.5 when the rest are below 4, he hasn't helped keep the score down.

Of course he has - just not helped as much as the other bowlers!
It doesn't mean he shouldn't be criticised for going for so much while everyone else has gone for so few (well, unless he was targetted and the batsmen got away with it), but nonetheless if someone's gone for 4.1-an-over they've still done pretty well even if the overall rate is 3.9-an-over.

 

[Richard]

Firstly, 4.5 is definitely a fair bit over 4.

Secondly this "standard good-point" is according to one person, and one person only, so it's hardly a standard.

I haven't invented it - I've picked it up from listening to just about every comment on the one-day game in most of my lifetime.
Whenever someone's gone for 4-an-over or less, they're almost invariably said to have bowled well. Whenever they've gone for 4.5, they're almost invariably said to have been "a bit" expensive.

 

[Richard]

but 2/41 just isnt good enough, for him to keep his place in the side he cant afford mediocre performances(especially considering some of his poor performances), he needs to be brilliant.

Which is wholy unfair and would not be the case were he 5 years younger.
A 28-29-year-old would never be getting the stick Gough is if he were as established as Gough.

 

[Richard]

are you out of your mind? wickets on seamer friendly wickets dont come unless you bowl poorly?rubbish.

You've wildy misinterpreted that.
It doesn't matter if you take 0 wickets if you bowl well - ie less than or just over 4-an-over.
Wickets only come into it if you've been expensive.

and the fact that he was relatively expensive given the conditions suggested that some of the performances were substandard.

Except that relative expensiveness doesn't matter if that's only relative to an exceptionally low rate.

 

[Richard]

and anyone who watched the early part of that innings would have seen how he struggled to find his form and was completely out of sorts early on. do you actually believe that brad williams,bracken and co bowled well to tendulkar rather than tendulkar batting poorly against them to not score his runs?

Well, if they're so infinately much better than Blignaut, Ervine and Friend it's not that surprising, is it?

 

[Langeveldt]

8 seperate replys in a row Richard?