"The almighty Flintoff" and "the below test standard Lee"

[Richard]

Another example of you being so ridiculously wrong you make yourself look like a complete fool, and being so stubborn and bloody minded that no matter what happens you will cling to this belief like lifes blood for the rest of your time on this forum. Consistent high pace is troublesome. EVERY SINGLE BATSMAN IN THE WORLD SAYS SO. It makes you rush your shots, it makes the ball hurt more when it hits you, it gives you a higher chance of not getting your shot quite right, and it makes any movement significantly harder to play.

Obviously it makes any movement significantly harder to play, I've said that time and again. What I consistently fight against is the absurd notion that high pace without movement is dangerous or even remotely useful.
If you seriously think that it hurts more a ball hitting you at 95mph than 85, you've clearly never tried it. As almost anyone will tell you, once it reaches that sort of speed 10mph is utterly immaterial, it canes like hell once it hits somewhere that's not very heavily padded (ie anywhere other than legs or helmet) whether it's 85 or 95.
And frankly I couldn't give a flying fu<k if every batsman in The World says consistent high pace is troublesome when they keep on going out and utterly contradicting themselves by playing it with such utter ease.

That depends. Particularly good yorker bowlers (like Brett Lee for example) can get wickets without them moving, and do so. These are wicket taking deliveries.

They are, but only when used as complete shock weapons. Once you overuse them (as so many bowlers who can't get it to swing do) they become relatively easy.

I'm not going to bother with this one again. It's been done to death.

Good, good - not like you're going to change my mind or I'm going to change yours.

What, so you the most recent evidence doesn't completely contradict your ridiculously inaccurate view?

No, it doesn't, I've never said the short-ball isn't a weapon on pitches like that, I've said it's not a weapon on more commonplace pitches.
And it's not a good idea to discuss commonplace when an exception is most fresh in the mind, because the unwary get wrong ideas.

That pitch was somewhat uneven (although not nearly as much as you seem to think), but not one of the short ball wickets Lee took (three of them) had anything at all to do with uneven bounce. One of them being caused by a particularly excellent bouncer which followed the batsman down the slope combined with good field placings, one being caused by pace and the other being caused by a batsman who was simply clueless at how to play fast, accurate short bowling.

How on Earth do you know that they didn't have anything to do with the uneven bounce (or, more significantly, pace?) Unless you procured the HawkEyes of all these deliveries and several similar ones you can't know that.
That pitch, as everyone could tell, was extremely difficult to Hook and Pull on, as attested to by the fact that even the WAns Langer, Martyn, Katich and Gilchrist regularly got themselves into trouble against the short-ball trying to Hook it rather than play it.

 

[Richard]

Come off it. Australia scored 250+ in that match. The batting wasn't the problem at all. 250 should have been, and I'd suggest that in future meetings will be, more than enough.

And if they'd had the sense to think "things aren't going great, wouldn't it be best to make things as easy as possible for ourselves?" and field first Bangladesh would probably have got 150 and they'd have been able to chase it down.

 

[luckyeddie]

Good, good - not like you're going to change my mind or I'm going to change yours.

Top comment, Richard - way to bring it down to one-to-one.

On one side, one Richard.

On the other, one entire cricket-loving population of the world, minus Richard.

 

[Richard]

Yes, indeed - never one to let the failings of most of the majority (not, actually, the whole lot of it as you're suggesting) get to me.
I've given my reasons why there's the misperception that every batsman feels under pressure because he's not scoring - if people choose to ignore it and ply on with what they've always been told there's not much I can do about it.

 

[tooextracool]

well at the time he was selected it was fair since Kasper started bowling well later on in the season for season and was pikced for the axed Bichel & eben then people still questioned whether Kasper would have been good at the highest level as well since his record at that time in test cricket wasn't anything to sing praises about........

so you dont think they could have used someone with these figures in the previous few seasons?
2001/02 51 24.29
2002 53 26.66
2002/03 48 24.75
2003 77 21.15
2003/04 24 23.29

or do you think this is better(bracken):
2001/02 24 31.79
2002/03 16 36.62
2003/04 22 33.95

or maybe this one(williams):
2001/02 32 28.31
2002/03 24 29.25
2003/04 15 32.93

I'm standing on my point with Bracken, ur just writing off has rubbish...

so other than 1 good season on a bunch of seamer friendly wickets, what else has bracken done?
i dont see any reason why he shouldnt write him off as rubbish when that is precisely what he has been.

I would be so sure that the even the Great Bevan could have saved Australia on that day tec....

maybe, then again maybe not. but considering how many times hes saved australia in the past, you might say he was the most likely to have.

 

[tooextracool]

Bevan was dropped because:

a. he was not going to be considered for the next world cup; and.

2 things about that.
1)if he wasnt then why wasnt he dropped after the 2003 world cup then?
2) its not impossible for someone to play till hes 36-37.

b. if you had seem him play recently, you'd know that he has no throwing arm to speak of and is a wekness in the field.

if that were a problem then all you need to do is put him in the circle, where he wouldnt need a strong arm.

 

[tooextracool]

Come off it. Australia scored 250+ in that match. The batting wasn't the problem at all. 250 should have been, and I'd suggest that in future meetings will be, more than enough.

rubbish, it was a flat batting track. no the bowlers didnt bowl especially well, but the batters batted shockingly and scratched around for far too long.

 

[aussie]

so you dont think they could have used someone with these figures in the previous few seasons?
2001/02 51 24.29
2002 53 26.66
2002/03 48 24.75
2003 77 21.15
2003/04 24 23.29

or do you think this is better(bracken):
2001/02 24 31.79
2002/03 16 36.62
2003/04 22 33.95

or maybe this one(williams):
2001/02 32 28.31
2002/03 24 29.25
2003/04 15 32.93



so other than 1 good season on a bunch of seamer friendly wickets, what else has bracken done?
i dont see any reason why he shouldnt write him off as rubbish when that is precisely what he has been.

Well i think the reason why the selectors would have gone for Bracken & Williams over Kasper at that time was because Kasper had played & hadn't done anything that special in test but here where 2 good young bowles who were showing promise at domestic level & deserved a look a ahead over a bloke like Kasper who was tried and wasn't that successful..

You shouldn't write him off because even though his stats intest may not be that flattering you never know if he could come back later on and be effective. Has i said before Kasper wasn't that special in his earlier days in test cricket but with good performaces in state cricket & in CC he came back was very successful at the highest level, Bracken definately has the potential to do a Kasper so jsut give him chance i say...

 

[Pratters]

umm, there was this player called kasprowicz who was putting in season after season of exceptional performances.

FYI Kasporwicz had not done well against India and and it would be an out of the way decision to include him vs India in Australia. Also, I think the selectors should be applauded for bringin back Kaspa, and not criticised for not bringing him earlier.

well hes looked quite incapable, and hes certainly not ready yet. the point is that he was included in the test side not so long ago as a 'bowling all rounder' to back up mcgrath and gillespie, despite the fact that hes been absolutely miserable in domestic cricket after his injury.

Watson has not looked incapable. He has played very few matches to judge and so I said jury is still out.

so howcome macgill wasnt picked then?
and if you think that theres no better spinner in australia than someone who averages 48 in FC cricket, not to mention never taken a 5 wicket haul all his career then well you're just not paying enough attention. not to mention the fact that his last 2 seasons in australia before his first test with the ball came at averages of 62 and 93.
hauritz for me is easily the worst selection i have ever seen by any selector anywhere in the world.

I go back to the India in Australia series where MacGill was thrashed in his worst performance in a test and Ravi Shastri said that he doubted if he would ever play a test for Australia again. MacGill is in the current test squad. But is there a backup beyond him you or I can see?

what in test matches??

In test matches, Symonds was indeed a freak selection but he is not as bad a player as he is made out to be. In one dayers, Symonds is very good.

 

[marc71178]

Is there really any point in you continually pretending to think that this might have changed?
Because you know perfectly well that it hasn't.

So you still think you know more than the people who'vve actually been there and done it?

No wonder people think your theories to be hogwash.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, indeed - never one to let the failings of most of the majority (not, actually, the whole lot of it as you're suggesting) get to me.

So everyone who disagrees with you is just showing their failings, and you're right?

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes, indeed - never one to let the failings of most of the majority (not, actually, the whole lot of it as you're suggesting) get to me.
I've given my reasons why there's the misperception that every batsman feels under pressure because he's not scoring - if people choose to ignore it and ply on with what they've always been told there's not much I can do about it.

The thing is, Richard, you seem to want to hark back to a day in history which never existed in order to watch a sport which also doesn't exist and never has done, or even anything close to it, played by batsmen who have more time than Seiko when playing a short ball bowled by bowlers who would never bowl a short ball anyway, and take everyone with you.

You've possibly been reading just a bit too much Terry Pratchett for your own good, because that's a fantasy.

 

[Richard]

So you still think you know more than the people who'vve actually been there and done it?

Why keep asking as if you think something has changed?
Why would I believe my knowledge has decreased?

 

[Richard]

The thing is, Richard, you seem to want to hark back to a day in history which never existed in order to watch a sport which also doesn't exist and never has done, or even anything close to it, played by batsmen who have more time than Seiko when playing a short ball bowled by bowlers who would never bowl a short ball anyway, and take everyone with you.

You've possibly been reading just a bit too much Terry Pratchett for your own good, because that's a fantasy.

Well I can't say I've ever read a single Terry Pratchett book but I'm sure it would be more comprehensible than your first paragraph.

 

[tooextracool]

Well i think the reason why the selectors would have gone for Bracken & Williams over Kasper at that time was because Kasper had played & hadn't done anything that special in test but here where 2 good young bowles who were showing promise at domestic level & deserved a look a ahead over a bloke like Kasper who was tried and wasn't that successful.....

so what happened to the ' they were great enough to bring back hayden, langer etc'.
AFAIC, kaspa wasnt an out and out failure at the international level, he just lacked the consistency. and from what ive seen from bracken and williams i find it hard to believe that anyone can think that those 2 actually ever looked test class, especially considering that their figures in domestic cricket werent anything spectacular.

You shouldn't write him off because even though his stats intest may not be that flattering you never know if he could come back later on and be effective. Has i said before Kasper wasn't that special in his earlier days in test cricket but with good performaces in state cricket & in CC he came back was very successful at the highest level, Bracken definately has the potential to do a Kasper so jsut give him chance i say...

no im not writing bracken off because of his poor domestic record. i was calling bracken rubbish the moment i saw him in that test series against india, which was long before i even looked up his domestic stats. if anything his domestic performances only back that argument up. ditto with williams.

 

[tooextracool]

FYI Kasporwicz had not done well against India and and it would be an out of the way decision to include him vs India in Australia. Also, I think the selectors should be applauded for bringin back Kaspa, and not criticised for not bringing him earlier..

really? so you think the selectors should be applauded for selecting someone who kept delivering season after season both in england and australia of successful bowling performances?
they should be mocked for bringing him in so late, especially considering that bracken on the evidence of half a season and williams got in line ahead of him.

Watson has not looked incapable. He has played very few matches to judge and so I said jury is still out...

hes played enough matches IMO, and his domestic performances with the ball speak volumes about how poor a bowler he is.

I go back to the India in Australia series where MacGill was thrashed in his worst performance in a test and Ravi Shastri said that he doubted if he would ever play a test for Australia again. MacGill is in the current test squad. But is there a backup beyond him you or I can see?

there might not be a brilliant backup, but to pick one of the worst players in domestic cricket and international cricket history is bordering on lunacy IMO.

In test matches, Symonds was indeed a freak selection but he is not as bad a player as he is made out to be. In one dayers, Symonds is very good.

he is every bit as bad as he is made out to be IMO. and what made it worse was the fact that he was selected over a world class player like katich.

 

[marc71178]

Why keep asking as if you think something has changed?
Why would I believe my knowledge has decreased?

I thought that perhaps you might have got off your high horse and accepted that you do not know more about a player's body than the player himself or you don't know more about pressure felt than the player who actually experiences it.

Clearly I am wrong here (although it is clear that in effect I'm not and you are)

 

[Pratters]

really? so you think the selectors should be applauded for selecting someone who kept delivering season after season both in england and australia of successful bowling performances?
they should be mocked for bringing him in so late, especially considering that bracken on the evidence of half a season and williams got in line ahead of him.

Australia did not really need Kasporwicz at that point of time. Kaspa is a goo dbowler but thought too highly by you IMO.

hes played enough matches IMO, and his domestic performances with the ball speak volumes about how poor a bowler he is.

Watson has been injured so many times that he has not played as many matches together without a break for us to give a verdict properly on him.

there might not be a brilliant backup, but to pick one of the worst players in domestic cricket and international cricket history is bordering on lunacy IMO.

Which player are you referring to.

he is every bit as bad as he is made out to be IMO. and what made it worse was the fact that he was selected over a world class player like katich.

As I said, Symonds is under rated.

 

[Richard]

I thought that perhaps you might have got off your high horse and accepted that you do not know more about a player's body than the player himself or you don't know more about pressure felt than the player who actually experiences it.

Clearly I am wrong here (although it is clear that in effect I'm not and you are)

Why would I have changed my perception?
What good reason is there?
Fact of the matter is, you know perfectly well that there is no chance whatsoever of me doing so and are simply taking another opportunity to have a non-registering dig.

 

[tooextracool]

Australia did not really need Kasporwicz at that point of time. Kaspa is a goo dbowler but thought too highly by you IMO..

are you serious? an attack of lee, bracken, williams,bichel and half fit gillespie didnt need kaspa at the time?

Watson has been injured so many times that he has not played as many matches together without a break for us to give a verdict properly on him...

exactly, and to pick him in the international side at a time when he still hasnt been performing as well as he was before injury isnt very smart is it?

Which player are you referring to. ...

nathan hauritz

As I said, Symonds is under rated.

even though he was clearly found out in test matches and his FC record is ordinary?