Test Cricket - Information

[C_C]

Naw faaip..you are the triple centurion for the 'other' team.

 

[marc71178]

I had a rubbish game.

Richard got dropped 18 times on 0, but at least he has a 19th chance average of infinity.

 

[Neil Pickup]

yay, I got Neil out.

Caught on the boundary having already gone for five sixes in the over.

 

[Adamc]

Caught on the boundary having already gone for five sixes in the over.

I field at gully.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I field at gully.

Everyone was on the boundary out of fear for my Sobers-like hitting.

 

[tooextracool]

On both occasions he was injured - groin in the Second and Third Tests of 2000\01, shoulder in 2002. Otherwise he's always tied England in knots - and most others, too.
I fail to believe someone as usually informed as you can fail to remember that Murali in 2002 was nothing close to fit to play.

oh he was, i'll give you that he was carrying an injury, but he was in no way hampered by it, because he was bowling as accurately as he usually does.
nonetheless, maybe you'd like to explain his average in the 2001 series against england, which was still over 30?

 

[Richard]

I know because it's back in the mid to late 80s - how old were you then?

Unless you've seen ball by ball, that is irrelevant.

Please, don't insult our intelligence by saying you can tell more from reading about it and watching limited highlights.

I haven't.
I have, however, said that you can read the conditions every bit as well.

 

[Richard]

oh he was, i'll give you that he was carrying an injury, but he was in no way hampered by it, because he was bowling as accurately as he usually does.

He was bowling pretty much as accurately, but he clearly wasn't able to use his normal variations or to spin most deliveries as much as he'd have liked. As such he was ineffective.

nonetheless, maybe you'd like to explain his average in the 2001 series against england, which was still over 30?

More accurately it was 20.71 in The First Test and 39.42 in the other 2.
And I've already mentioned - he was hampered by his groin that series. It didn't make him bowl particularly poorly at Galle (but then - by his standards at Galle, where he's taken 87 wickets at 16.14 it wasn't that good), but in the other 2 it meant he was playable where otherwise he's mostly not been.

 

[marc71178]

I haven't.
I have, however, said that you can read the conditions every bit as well.

How, tell us can you do that whilst seeing almost none of it?

 

[Richard]

Almost none of it, eh? Now, then, how do you know this?

 

[marc71178]

Well, for a start you weren't around at the time, which kind of means you won't have seen much of it.

 

[Richard]

Does it? How do you know how extensive the highlights I've got hold of are, or how much I've read of it, or how much of it people I've talked to remember of it?

 

[marc71178]

Oh yes, because I'm sure there's libraries full of Test coverage by the BBC from the late 80's

Funny how you rely on other people who've seen it, but are ignoring someone on here who watched it...

 

[tooextracool]

He was bowling pretty much as accurately, but he clearly wasn't able to use his normal variations or to spin most deliveries as much as he'd have liked. As such he was ineffective..

and yet if you had watched the game at edgbaston, you would know for sure that he turned the ball as much as he always does.

More accurately it was 20.71 in The First Test and 39.42 in the other 2..

which changes the fact that he was poor for the series overall how?
and either way bowling poorly for 2 tests, is not "struggling for the odd test against england"

And I've already mentioned - he was hampered by his groin that series. It didn't make him bowl particularly poorly at Galle (but then - by his standards at Galle, where he's taken 87 wickets at 16.14 it wasn't that good), but in the other 2 it meant he was playable where otherwise he's mostly not been.

and you've got proof this dont you?
you conveniently come up with rubbish, just to try and save face. if he wasnt fit, he wouldnt have played in that series, and he wouldnt have bowled as much as he did, simple as that.

 

[Neil Pickup]

For - crying - out - loud.

Leave it.

 

[Richard]

Oh yes, because I'm sure there's libraries full of Test coverage by the BBC from the late 80's

Funny how you rely on other people who've seen it, but are ignoring someone on here who watched it...

And many people have said Qadir could turn it on anything, as Murali and Warne can... including the pitches in England in 1987. I've watched some stuff, and found Murali and Warne have never failed to turn it, regardless of how wet it might be.

 

[Richard]

and yet if you had watched the game at edgbaston, you would know for sure that he turned the ball as much as he always does.

Sometimes, yes - sometimes no.

which changes the fact that he was poor for the series overall how?
and either way bowling poorly for 2 tests, is not "struggling for the odd test against england"

He wasn't poor overall, he was good for 1 Test and poor for 2.
And he was poor for the 2 he was poor for because of injury.

and you've got proof this dont you?
you conveniently come up with rubbish, just to try and save face. if he wasnt fit, he wouldnt have played in that series, and he wouldnt have bowled as much as he did, simple as that.

Christ, do you seriously believe that? The number of times Murali has played when unfit is untrue, and this was one of them. The reason for that is incredibly obvious - with him, Sri Lanka can beat anyone, without him they struggle to match most people, especially away.

 

[marc71178]

And many people have said Qadir could turn it on anything, as Murali and Warne can... including the pitches in England in 1987.

What, the same pitces that someone who watched it said he didn't?

 

[Richard]

Yes... the same pitches that someone else said he did, and that I saw him do so.

 

[Top_Cat]

Okay that's two mods now (Neil and I) who've told you guys to just leave it alone in this thread but you refuse. The only thing stopping me from closing this thread is that Stephano asked me not to so I'm going to leave it open but can people please try to stay on-topic and not be so fixated upon having 'right of reply' to an argument completely irrelevant to this thread?

You think there aren't others who have points related to the debate (I know *I* do)? So why wouldn't people be posting them? Could it be that they're considering the purpose of this thread and then deciding not to soil its content with irrelavent minutae about a debate which could be had elsewhere? C_C is one of the most opinionated members of the forum (in a good way ) and he's stayed right out of a debate I'm sure he'd love to inject his two cents into. Can others please attempt to follow suit?