The Ashes are coming home!

[Swervy]

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

as I say, Daddy must have let some sunlight into the cave...all the bats must be flying around in a panic, banging into all the posters of the worlds first chance averages (obviously not filled in, coz there is no such thing anway)...carnage.

 

[Richard]

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

It does?
If it does sometimes maybe it's because bowlers are bowling within themselves?
And come to that - how many really slow pitches do you get in SA? Not many.

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

And if the speedo is wrong it's consistently wrong and such readings are excluded (like the time Gillespie was clocked as bowling 3 normal deliveries in the 60mph range).

 

[Swervy]

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.

the speed guns cant be entirely trusted....ask Nick Knight whether the 100mph ball he faced from Shoaib in the world cup was the fastest he had ever faced..I bet he says it wasnt..he had all the time in the world to play it..

 

[Swervy]

It does?
If it does sometimes maybe it's because bowlers are bowling within themselves?
And come to that - how many really slow pitches do you get in SA? Not many.

And if the speedo is wrong it's consistently wrong and such readings are excluded (like the time Gillespie was clocked as bowling 3 normal deliveries in the 60mph range).

if those 3 readings were taken, how can you trust all the others?

 

[Richard]

as I say, Daddy must have let some sunlight into the cave...all the bats must be flying around in a panic, banging into all the posters of the worlds first chance averages (obviously not filled in, coz there is no such thing anway)...carnage.

You can say there's no such thing all you want, you can't change the fact that once someone has compiled a statistic, it exists.
FYI... "Daddy" never comes into my room, and you're rather lucky I'm not someone who's never known his "Daddy" because if I were (as my own Dad is) I would almost certainly take great offence at that comment.
And I seriously suggest you rethink your perceptions of my bedrooms... for starters, there's no posters in a temporary room.

 

[tooextracool]

Wasim and Waqar were seriously good fielders? .

they were reliable, they were certainly not as poor as tufnell, atherton & butcher

No, not many were regulars - nor was Jadeja (Robin Singh played just 1 Test too)..

azhar, tendulkar, dravid,kumble, prasad, mongia,sidhu(safe hands), laxman(whenever he played) were.

Fact is, India by and large weren't incredibly good at fielding in Test-cricket, and England were average without being exceptional.

england werent average, they were downright disgraceful. india were average.

 

[Richard]

the speed guns cant be entirely trusted....ask Nick Knight whether the 100mph ball he faced from Shoaib in the world cup was the fastest he had ever faced..I bet he says it wasnt..he had all the time in the world to play it..

He did, which just goes to show that pace is really rather irrelevant, because top-class batsmen almost never get beaten for sheer pace.
That ball was 100mph - the fact that it was 100mph, however, was of value purely in terms of theatre, not in terms of the cricket.

 

[Richard]

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

When there is no reality guessing is the only option.
Given that 4 averages rose and 1 dropped, I'd say the safe guess is that 1 more would rise rather than fall.

 

[Swervy]

You can say there's no such thing all you want, you can't change the fact that once someone has compiled a statistic, it exists.
FYI... "Daddy" never comes into my room, and you're rather lucky I'm not someone who's never known his "Daddy" because if I were (as my own Dad is) I would almost certainly take great offence at that comment.
And I seriously suggest you rethink your perceptions of my bedrooms... for starters, there's no posters in a temporary room.

hahahaha...you are a joker arent you.

By the way, I know full well you know your Dad, coz you have mentioned him before, indeed, you have hinted that he has moulded you into the pig headed, arrogant buffoon you are.

Good work Daddy..you have produced a being of great entertainment for us here

 

[Richard]

if those 3 readings were taken, how can you trust all the others?

Because when readings aren't trustworthy it's blatantly obvious - when they are it's equally so.

 

[Richard]

hahahaha...you are a joker arent you.

By the way, I know full well you know your Dad, coz you have mentioned him before, indeed, you have hinted that he has moulded you into the pig headed, arrogant buffoon you are.

Good work Daddy..you have produced a being of great entertainment for us here

I suggest you stop talking stuff and nonsense before you really put your foot in something.

 

[tooextracool]

It does?
If it does sometimes maybe it's because bowlers are bowling within themselves?)

yes it does, and thats really a stupid excuse, because then the samething can be said about pollock. fact is that flintoff for example in bangalore was bowling at around 90 mph, and in the other 2 games he was bowling in the low 80s.

And come to that - how many really slow pitches do you get in SA? Not many.

its quite possible to get one thats slower than the other.

And if the speedo is wrong it's consistently wrong and such readings are excluded (like the time Gillespie was clocked as bowling 3 normal deliveries in the 60mph range).

doubt it, there is no way of telling by how much the speedo is wrong because its quite possible for it to be wrong by a 2-3 mph without you knowing it.

 

[Richard]

they were reliable, they were certainly not as poor as tufnell, atherton & butcher

Atherton poor, come off it!
And Butcher might never have been particularly good, but he certainly wasn't as poor in his first phase of his career as he has been in his second.

azhar, tendulkar, dravid,kumble, prasad, mongia,sidhu(safe hands), laxman(whenever he played) were.

Prasad was a good fielder too?
First I've heard of that one.

england werent average, they were downright disgraceful. india were average.

So why did they not regularly drop catches in series outside Australian ones?

 

[superkingdave]

I suggest you stop talking stuff and nonsense before you really put your foot in something.

 

[Swervy]

I suggest you stop talking stuff and nonsense before you really put your foot in something.

look mate...I am a bit cleverer than that..I know the limits...sometimes you dont..some of the things yuo have said to some people have been untrue....like questioning CC's knowledge of a severe back injury, when he suffered a broken back.

Take the joke Richard....it would be great if you could dish it out as well, but obviuosly you cant.

I am just bored by your constant rubbish

 

[Richard]

yes it does, and thats really a stupid excuse, because then the samething can be said about pollock. fact is that flintoff for example in bangalore was bowling at around 90 mph, and in the other 2 games he was bowling in the low 80s.

The same thing could be said about Pollock, but that'd just mean that he was bowling faster than he actually was.

its quite possible to get one thats slower than the other.

It is, but most pitches in SA are quicker than those elsewhere.

doubt it, there is no way of telling by how much the speedo is wrong because its quite possible for it to be wrong by a 2-3 mph without you knowing it.

It is, and if that were the case it'd be wrong every ball and the same thing would be the case for every bowler.

 

[Richard]

look mate...I am a bit cleverer than that..I know the limits...sometimes you dont..some of the things yuo have said to some people have been untrue....like questioning CC's knowledge of a severe back injury, when he suffered a broken back.

Take the joke Richard....it would be great if you could dish it out as well, but obviuosly you cant.

I am just bored by your constant rubbish

And I am bored by yours... fact is, as far as I'm concerned you're wrong, far as you're concerned I am.
I can't be bothered to dish-out calling people bufoons when they aren't - I'd call you an overracting, snide ******* sometimes, but not a bufoon, because you clearly aren't.
I never questioned C_C's knowledge of a severe back-injury - I questioned his knowledge of Atherton's situation, of which he had less than I did, because I've read his autobio and C_C has never claimed to.

 

[Swervy]

look mate...I am a bit cleverer than that..I know the limits...sometimes you dont..some of the things yuo have said to some people have been untrue....like questioning CC's knowledge of a severe back injury, when he suffered a broken back.

Take the joke Richard....it would be great if you could dish it out as well, but obviuosly you cant.

I am just bored by your constant rubbish

however if you have taken offense, then i apologise

 

[tooextracool]

Atherton poor, come off it!?

go count the number of catches hes dropped in the slips.

And Butcher might never have been particularly good, but he certainly wasn't as poor in his first phase of his career as he has been in his second.

i doubt it, and i dont care whatever you want to call it, hes disgraceful now, so i wouldnt doubt that he was at least 'poor'. then

Prasad was a good fielder too?
First I've heard of that one.

so how much indian cricket have you watched then? prasad was one of the most relaible fielders in the deep.

So why did they not regularly drop catches in series outside Australian ones?

the thing is YOU SAID that they didnt drop catches regularly outside the ashes. fact is they did, just look at the series against NZ in 99.

 

[Richard]

What's so shocking about that?