The Ashes are coming home!

[Richard]

which again is never accurate. you only have to look at the last ODI between england and australia, the england bowlers were a lot faster than the aussies yet it only registered in the averages as 2-3 mph more.

Or perhaps they looked a lot faster and in fact were only 2-3mph more?
I'd be interested to hear your reasons as to how the human eye is a better judge of speed than an intrument designed with exceptional precision.

or rather his averages on flat pitches post 2001.

I never saw him bowl on flat pitches pre-2001, so I can't comment on whether or not he was capable of bowling wicket-taking deliveries then.

 

[tooextracool]

Atherton's average in Australia includes 1998\99 when he was never, ever going to score a thing because he simply wasn't close to being fit and his movements were badly restricted.

the excuses just come pouring in. and you still havent explained why other players were succeeding while he wasnt.

 

[Richard]

have you heard of exaggeration?

Yes, and by-and-large I feel it's a tool best not used, because it can lead to misleading.

and seriously, if you think that the england team didnt put down on average at learst 20 catches in the ashes series, then you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

It may surprise you to learn that I don't think that.
England's ineptitude at catching in Ashes Series has infuriated me like nothing aside from the Murali issue.

 

[Swervy]

Er, the only really important one - his shot-selection was massively better.
He didn't tend to hook compulsively, or fail to know whether or not to play balls consistently pitched on and outside off.

you obviously missed the times when Atherton hooked when the trap had been laid for him.

Remember for a left hander it is very different...quite often the ball is going across a lefty and there is a tendancy for left handed players to go after those types of balls. Unfortunately, Trescothicks footwork lets him down (which is his downfall as opposed to his shot selection).

gower had a similar failing (a failing which quite often was a success for him, much like Trescothick)....but there can be no doubt that Gower was a superior batsman than Atherton

 

[Richard]

the excuses just come pouring in. and you still havent explained why other players were succeeding while he wasnt.

Because they were fit and he wasn't?
Seriously if you think Atherton's failure in 1998\99 said a thing about his ability you're delusional - any fool can tell that he was barely able to move at times, and hadn't a cat-in-hell's chance of batting well.
It's a perfectly valid "excuse".

 

[tooextracool]

Or perhaps they looked a lot faster and in fact were only 2-3mph more?
I'd be interested to hear your reasons as to how the human eye is a better judge of speed than an intrument designed with exceptional precision..

largely because the speedometers themselves showed ball after ball that for the large part he was bowling around 87-88. fact is that a few slower balls here and there, along with some end of spell balls around 79-80ish and he ends up with an average of 85.

I never saw him bowl on flat pitches pre-2001, so I can't comment on whether or not he was capable of bowling wicket-taking deliveries then.

so why make such an accusation then? as far as im concerned i could say something like:
i think vaas has never bowled a wicket taking delivery in his life.

and you wouldnt be able to prove me wrong.

 

[tooextracool]

It may surprise you to learn that I don't think that.
England's ineptitude at catching in Ashes Series has infuriated me like nothing aside from the Murali issue.

so why claim that its only 'slightly worse' then. because the bottom line is that back then we were quite comfortable the worst fielding side in the world.

 

[Richard]

you obviously missed the times when Atherton hooked when the trap had been laid for him.

Really?
I can't remember a single time, outside 1998\99 when his back didn't let him duck and he had no choice but to Hook (well, a better choice would have been not to play, but his mindset didn't let him take that choice), when he fell into the catch-at-square-leg trap.
Of course there'll have been some, but I doubt they'll have been anywhere near as frequent as Trescothick.

Remember for a left hander it is very different...quite often the ball is going across a lefty and there is a tendancy for left handed players to go after those types of balls. Unfortunately, Trescothicks footwork lets him down (which is his downfall as opposed to his shot selection).

gower had a similar failing (a failing which quite often was a success for him, much like Trescothick)....but there can be no doubt that Gower was a superior batsman than Atherton

There can't - because Gower, unlike Trescothick, had the technique to be able to bat well despite lack of footwork. Nonetheless I don't think Gower was enormously better than Atherton would have been if his back hadn't hampered him on 2 or 3 occasions.
Trescothick's problem is not that he massively often executes shots poorly because he doesn't move his feet - it's that he often doesn't select the right one.

 

[Richard]

butcher who was averaging in the 20s back then

And who clearly always had the potential to average more.

 

[Swervy]

And who clearly always had the potential to average more.

yeah...34.58

 

[Richard]

so why claim that its only 'slightly worse' then. because the bottom line is that back then we were quite comfortable the worst fielding side in the world.

England's fielding when not playing Australia was light-years ahead of Pakistan's and India's, and nor was it disgracefully poor compared to everyone else.
It was worse, yes, but it was simply average rather than poor.

 

[Richard]

yeah...34.58

And it'd probably have kept going up if his career had not probably been halted as it has.

 

[Swervy]

And it'd probably have kept going up if his career had not probably been halted as it has.

despite it actually falling for the last 2 years of his test career

 

[Richard]

largely because the speedometers themselves showed ball after ball that for the large part he was bowling around 87-88. fact is that a few slower balls here and there, along with some end of spell balls around 79-80ish and he ends up with an average of 85.

And so it means you've got to be careful when comparing bowlers who bowl lots of slower-balls and those that don't.
It doesn't mean you can't compare one bowler with himself.

so why make such an accusation then? as far as im concerned i could say something like:
i think vaas has never bowled a wicket taking delivery in his life.

and you wouldnt be able to prove me wrong.

Way I remember it you made the accusation - you said "did it say he was a lucky bowler"; I corrected that.
Fact is, Pollock since 2001 hasn't been particularly lucky, he's got pretty poor figures on non-seaming pitches and outstanding ones on seaming\uneven ones, which sum him up well.
I've never accused Pollock of being a lucky bowler on flat pitches before 2000\01, because I never saw him bowl on them then.

 

[tooextracool]

Because they were fit and he wasn't?
Seriously if you think Atherton's failure in 1998\99 said a thing about his ability you're delusional - any fool can tell that he was barely able to move at times, and hadn't a cat-in-hell's chance of batting well.
It's a perfectly valid "excuse".

oh really? he could move could he?
so howcome he doesnt say anything of the sort in this article?
http://www.icc-cricket.com/england/content/story/80021.html

the only injury that atherton had was one that he had been suffering from for nearly a decade.

and i was referring to the 2001 and 97 series in england about the other batters doing better than him.

 

[Richard]

despite it actually falling for the last 2 years of his test career

Indeed?
Butcher's average at the end of 2002\03 was 32.98; since then this is it's pattern.
Butcher's average has only gone down in the last 5 Tests of his career.

 

[tooextracool]

And who clearly always had the potential to average more.

oh bravo what an argument!
so apparently a side with yasir hameed, mark ramprakash, graeme hick, darren ganga, ian salisbury etc would be better than the current side too, given that they have the 'potential' to be better.

 

[Swervy]

Really?
I can't remember a single time, outside 1998\99 when his back didn't let him duck and he had no choice but to Hook (well, a better choice would have been not to play, but his mindset didn't let him take that choice), when he fell into the catch-at-square-leg trap.
Of course there'll have been some, but I doubt they'll have been anywhere near as frequent as Trescothick.

Not that this proves anything..but I did find it mildly amusing to see the picture on Athertons cricinfo profile given this talk of him being a hooker or not

 

[Richard]

oh bravo what an argument!
so apparently a side with yasir hameed, mark ramprakash, graeme hick, darren ganga, ian salisbury etc would be better than the current side too, given that they have the 'potential' to be better.

They did?
Aside from Yasir I'd dispute that any have the potential to be any better than they are\were.

 

[tooextracool]

England's fielding when not playing Australia was light-years ahead of Pakistan's and India's, and nor was it disgracefully poor compared to everyone else.
It was worse, yes, but it was simply average rather than poor.

rubbish, you havent watched any thing of england back then. both pakistan and india had some very good fielders in the 90s - azhar, tendulkar, dravid, jadeja, robin singh,kumble and even sidhu and the like were all fine fielders.