The Ashes are coming home!

[Richard]

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

Where have I said he wasn't a Hooker? The Hook was one of his best strokes (on the relatively rare occasion he played it in his later years), and it didn't often get him out.
Because he played it at the right times - he wasn't a compulsive Hooker.

 

[tooextracool]

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

your point is? just because they had the potential, it doesnt mean that they were better.
fact is tresco IS better than butcher. and no matter how much potential he has butcher cant be better.

 

[Richard]

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.

So... how many Pakistanis there?
England had some good fielders, too - Ramprakash, Hussain, Knight, Atherton, Hick, Stewart (when not 'keeping). And they weren't that bad a fielding side except when playing Australia.

 

[Swervy]

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.

ever the pedant....

well as you are being picky..so will I..

as of the end of the 4th test vs SA in 2003(his 56th test), Butcher averaged 35.42
By theend of his last test, his 71st he averaged 34.58...looks like a drop in his average to me

 

[tooextracool]

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..

and its quite possible that he bowled different at certain times, and played on slower wickets at other times and the like. fact is that you can only make out how fast a bowler is by comparing him to others in the same game, or by asking a batsman.

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.

yes you did, you went on to say that his success had completely to do with allan donald, even in games in which donald didnt play.

 

[Swervy]

Where have I said he wasn't a Hooker? The Hook was one of his best strokes (on the relatively rare occasion he played it in his later years), and it didn't often get him out.
Because he played it at the right times - he wasn't a compulsive Hooker.

as I say..i wasnt trying to make any point there..calm down boy

 

[Richard]

ever the pedant....

well as you are being picky..so will I..

as of the end of the 4th test vs SA in 2003(his 56th test), Butcher averaged 35.42
By theend of his last test, his 71st he averaged 34.58...looks like a drop in his average to me

And that's because of his utterly irrelevant failures against Bangladesh, which would almost certainly have been corrected had he had the chance this summer.
Butcher has only experienced a drop in average since the summer of 2004.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I say, you really like a row don't you? Doesn't take much to get your back up, just a difference of opinion to your own seems to suffice. Apologies for the Ealham misunderstanding, as for the rest well, I won't bother wasting my time frankly, we'll agree to disagree.

I think you've learnt a valuable lesson about young Rich there PD.

 

[Richard]

as I say..i wasnt trying to make any point there..calm down boy

Then why bother posting it?!?!?

 

[Swervy]

And that's because of his utterly irrelevant failures against Bangladesh, which would almost certainly have been corrected had he had the chance this summer.
Butcher has only experienced a drop in average since the summer of 2004.

oh ..his crap form vs Bangladesh is irrelevent..is that because it doesnt suit what you say?

How do you know that he certainly would have improved his average..agian its pure guess work from you..you do that quite a lot dont you.

 

[tooextracool]

So... how many Pakistanis there?
England had some good fielders, too - Ramprakash, Hussain, Knight, Atherton, Hick, Stewart (when not 'keeping). And they weren't that bad a fielding side except when playing Australia.

out of all those you mention, only 1 was an england regular. knight barely played test cricket. stewart kept for a very large part of his career. hick barely played consistently after 96.
if you're going to bring names out of the blue then i can bring names like noel david and the likes in.
as far as how many good pakistanis are there: anwar, inzy, akram, waqar, ijaz(easily the best of them), latif(as keeper) and sohail.

 

[Richard]

and its quite possible that he bowled different at certain times, and played on slower wickets at other times and the like. fact is that you can only make out how fast a bowler is by comparing him to others in the same game, or by asking a batsman.

The speed of the pitch is utterly irrelevant, the speed of the ball given is the one as the ball leaves the hand.
It's possible he bowled different at different times, but judging by Pollock's consistency in most respects I'd guess he didn't do so that often.
Asking a batsman is one of the worst ways to determine how fast someone bowled because we've seen so many times when batsmen have said bowlers seem to be bowling faster than they actually are.

yes you did, you went on to say that his success had completely to do with allan donald, even in games in which donald didnt play.

I suggested it as a possibility, no more.
You provided some reasons why it should not be so.

 

[Swervy]

Then why bother posting it?!?!?

why the frig not...jeez Rich, has someone open your curtains in your bedroom...you seem even more arguementative than ever...quick, dont let the sun in, it might destroy all those old newspaper clippings you have from the 20's from which you have sussed out that people were better catchers than they are now

 

[Richard]

oh ..his crap form vs Bangladesh is irrelevent..is that because it doesnt suit what you say?

Yes, it is - anything to do with Bangladesh is irrelevant in terms of international cricket, as I've said about a million times and so have many, many others.

How do you know that he certainly would have improved his average..agian its pure guess work from you..you do that quite a lot dont you.

It's pretty safe guesswork, given how easy England have found batting this summer.

 

[Swervy]

The speed of the pitch is utterly irrelevant, the speed of the ball given is the one as the ball leaves the hand.
It's possible he bowled different at different times, but judging by Pollock's consistency in most respects I'd guess he didn't do so that often.
Asking a batsman is one of the worst ways to determine how fast someone bowled because we've seen so many times when batsmen have said bowlers seem to be bowling faster than they actually are.

When in fact, it is the batsmans perception of a bowlers speed which is the important thing

 

[Richard]

out of all those you mention, only 1 was an england regular. knight barely played test cricket. stewart kept for a very large part of his career. hick barely played consistently after 96.
if you're going to bring names out of the blue then i can bring names like noel david and the likes in.
as far as how many good pakistanis are there: anwar, inzy, akram, waqar, ijaz(easily the best of them), latif(as keeper) and sohail.

Wasim and Waqar were seriously good fielders?
No, not many were regulars - nor was Jadeja (Robin Singh played just 1 Test too).
Fact is, India by and large weren't incredibly good at fielding in Test-cricket, and England were average without being exceptional.

 

[Swervy]

Yes, it is - anything to do with Bangladesh is irrelevant in terms of international cricket, as I've said about a million times and so have many, many others.

It's pretty safe guesswork, given how easy England have found batting this summer.

Strauss' average dropped..why wouldnt Butchers..again less of the guessing, and more of the reality please

 

[Richard]

why the frig not...jeez Rich, has someone open your curtains in your bedroom...you seem even more arguementative than ever...quick, dont let the sun in, it might destroy all those old newspaper clippings you have from the 20's from which you have sussed out that people were better catchers than they are now

I'm always argumentative - why the hell would I be more so now than any other time?

 

[tooextracool]

The speed of the pitch is utterly irrelevant, the speed of the ball given is the one as the ball leaves the hand..

so howcome the speedometer registers every bowler as a hell of a lot slower on a sluggish wicket?

I

t's possible he bowled different at different times, but judging by Pollock's consistency in most respects I'd guess he didn't do so that often.
Asking a batsman is one of the worst ways to determine how fast someone bowled because we've seen so many times when batsmen have said bowlers seem to be bowling faster than they actually are.

why? because the speedometers say so. like it or not there have been several occasions when the speedometers have been most certainly wrong.

 

[Richard]

When in fact, it is the batsmans perception of a bowlers speed which is the important thing

No, in fact is speed isn't remotely important at all - what matters is how effective a bowler is at getting the wickets without conceding the runs.
But where speed is concerned the speed-gun, not the batsmen, is what needs to be consulted.