The Ashes are coming home!

[Richard]

Using editted highlights and reports written showing other people's opinions...

Using highlights which are always extensive and reports which almost invariably convey a good impression.

 

[Richard]

See, it's the same head in the sand "They're not flaws" - in spite of person after person pointing them out.

Person after person pointing-out the same things which I've showed time and again why are not flaws.

 

[Richard]

You HAVE to have pace in a side, and he's got plenty of that.

You have to have the best bowlers - Lee actually bowled well yesterday, it had little or nothing to do with the fact he bowled quickly.

 

[marc71178]

Using highlights which are always extensive and reports which almost invariably convey a good impression.

An hour or so a day is not extensive.

 

[marc71178]

Person after person pointing-out the same things which I've showed time and again why are not flaws.

So in spite of nobody here being able to agree on what is a chance, you still think it's not a law.

Head in the sand.

 

[Richard]

also, I don't think it was Lee's pace that troubled the English bowlers, so much as the fact that be bowled very, very well with great lines and swing, and thought out Strauss completely.

Precisely, the pace had nothing to do with it and idiotic ideas such as pace seeming to trouble anyone are as out-of-place as they are with it supposedly troubling any decent batsman.

 

[Richard]

An hour or so a day is not extensive.

Three hours are.

 

[Richard]

So in spite of nobody here being able to agree on what is a chance, you still think it's not a law.

Head in the sand.

No, just most people not realising how important the realisation of what a chance is.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, but you weren't watching them, by your own admission.

 

[marc71178]

No, just most people not realising how important the realisation of what a chance is.

So we're all wrong, and you're right then?

The arrogance is back.

What is and what isn't a chance is not important, and it is completely subjective, making the numbers all subjective (which coincidentally seems to support the players you like, but not the one's you don't - subjectivity perchance?)

 

[Richard]

Y'know, I can live with the fact that some of your theories are somewhat questionable, I can even live with your inability to let anyone else have the last word due to some mutated form of 'right of reply' and I can even live with the post wars you regularly engage in.

But not giving someone credit for what was great bowling shows just how mean-spirited you are when it comes to a player you don't like. This is bordering on irrational because just about all evidence is to the contrary of what you said above.

'Short, wide, out-and-out poor deliveries'?? Which game did you watch!??!

Gilchrist - Technically shorter and wider than the orthodox 'corridor' bowling but it was so obviously deliberate. Gilchrist, early on, looks to hit deliveries like that and immediately before that ball, Harmi had generally kept it tight, tied Gilchrist down and then threw in the slightly wider one to see if Gilchrist would go for it based on the way other bowlers had bowled to him. This is pretty well-known around the world. Anyone who's actually seen Gilchrist bat for a length of time would know he's vulnerable to that sort of tactic early on and it worked. Smart bowling by Harmi.

Ponting - Again, it's well known and has been for ages that Ponting is vulnerable early on to a full and fast delivery. The ball was NOT straight it actually tailed in enough to beat the stroke. The fact that it was bowled at just over 92mph alone would have made it tough to negotiate first-up for anyone but the fact it moved in (if you get to see the replay, you'll see it but try putting your objective glasses on - or maybe any glasses because you must be blind not to see the movement) made it really tough. Ponting wasn't up to it a lot of other batsmen wouldn't have been. Again, a great first-up ball and excellent bowling to a well-known and estalished deficiency in Ponting's technique.

Martyn - Again, well known that Martyn looks to play the lofted shot over slips or gully so the tactic was pretty obvious to feed him a short fast delivery and put one of the best fielders in the world down there for the catch. All obviously deliberate and it worked. Again, great tactical nous shown by Vaughan and a beautifully-executed plan by Harmi. No it wasn't a great shot but a tactic like that with a steepling delivery makes the shot very difficult to control and Martyn was forced into it; Martyn may have edged it for 6 or he may have been caught. Considering how many times he's been out attempting shots like that in the past, it was a valid move to at least try early on in his innings. Considering his recent form, bowling on a length in the corridor was less likely to work because it hasn't worked on him of late. It's called innovation, Richard, and it's needed against players who are in-form because just bowling up on a length and hoping for the best isn't enough.

Hayden - I'll give you this one - not fantastic bowling with a ball Hayden would ordinarily have nailed and the catch of the century. But not awesomely terrible bowling, either because Hayden has been out on the cut previously as it's hardly his strongest area.

Hussey - This was probably the worst of the 5 wickets except for the fact the slower-ball deceived Hussey. In that sense, it was well executed but had Hussey picked it, it was a slow, low full-toss on off-stump and likely would have been put away. So whilst the result was right and the actual execution of the delivery was really good, he was lucky Hussey didn't pick it.

Credit where credit is due, eh?

I completely disagree with the assessment of Gilchrist and Martyn.
Gilchrist will hit maybe 16 out of 20 deliveries like that off the face of the bat, often off the middle and into the gap. The other 3 he'll probably either swish and miss or edge thickly, then 1 or so out of 20 he'll do suchlike.
It was not a good ball, whether it was deliberate or not (and judging by Harmison's bowling in the last year and said game I'd say it wasn't).
Martyn - yes, that tactic will get him out cheaply - very, very occasionally. If it really was as easy as that he'd not average over 40 in ODIs and over 50 in Tests.
Again - even if it was deliberate it was poor bowling and poor tactics.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but you weren't watching them, by your own admission.

Which ones?
All England home series of the 1990s I've watched very extended highlights of having watched something of all from 1994 onwards at the time.

 

[Richard]

So we're all wrong, and you're right then?

The arrogance is back.

No, it never went away.

What is and what isn't a chance is not important, and it is completely subjective, making the numbers all subjective (which coincidentally seems to support the players you like, but not the one's you don't - subjectivity perchance?)

No, it's very occasionally disputed (and I've covered that) when you realise the fact that it's very important, and don't you think it's a bit more likely that I support players because of that, rather than the other way around?
No, of course not, you've already decided how my rating of cricketers works and you're never, ever going to change that as far as I can see.

 

[Richard]

Err, I mentioned 'one of the world's best fielder' in my post (referring to Pieterson).

I'm not 100% certain he wasn't there anyway but in all of the games I've watched, he's been in the ring like a really big Jonty Rhodes and has made himself very obvious. I was so shocked to see him take the catch because usually, the side's worst fielder is put there to hide him - unless there's a plan. So I gather it was very deliberate. Why on Earth would you put him at 3rd man otherwise!?

Thing is, though, even the side's worst fielder (if Harmison's bowling it'd be Gough) would still be more than expected to take such a simple catch.
I think Pietersen being at third-man that ball has been overblown.
It was an easy catch, and not one you need an exceptional fielder to take.

 

[Richard]

However kaspers relative inability to bowl a yorker (i dont think he has bowled one all tour) is something which is strongly against him.

Even if he did have a relative inability to bowl Yorkers, does that matter when you've got McGrath who can bowl them?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Precisely, the pace had nothing to do with it and idiotic ideas such as pace seeming to trouble anyone are as out-of-place as they are with it supposedly troubling any decent batsman.

Well, I disagree there...

Pace is clearly a large asset, insofar as plenty of bowlers who would otherwise not be anything special manage to get by with it and not much else. It's not everything of course, but it helps get wickets just like accuracy, swing, seam movement, variation and all sorts of other assets a bowler has at his disposal. All I was saying was that Lee didn't bowl well just because he bowled fast, not that his pace was not also a significant asset, because it is. Lee's pace provides not only another avenue to wicket-taking, it can also put opposition batsmen on the back-foot and assists his other bowlers (just like McGrath's accuracy can), and it provides variation in the attack which is its big weakness as things stand.

Pace can't make a bad ball good, but it can make a good ball utterly unplayable.

 

[Richard]

If Gillespie doesn't start at Lords, I'll eat Richard's computer.

Even if he's injured?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Martyn - yes, that tactic will get him out cheaply - very, very occasionally.
Again - even if it was deliberate it was poor bowling and poor tactics.

Yes, it will work rarely. However, when you look at things, your probably only going to bowl two balls early on (within Martyn's first few overs) while you have Pieterson down there at 3rd Man for which Martyn could play that shot, and simply if you want to score to that ball (short and outside the line of off stump at head height [impossible to get over the top of to cut safely]) you have to take on the fielder down at 3rd Man.

Therefore, if he wants to take you on early while he's not "in", then he has to try to hit it over the top of the fielder, because someone of Pieterson's athletic ability will probably be able to get around to most balls that go in the region. Maximum you can concede is 12 runs, likely result is that Martyn will leave them both, and the best you can hope for is a wicket.

Generally, chances are that your not going to concede that much, because in most cases it will be dot balls, and maybe one boundary (which in a match of 500 runs is of little significance) for the sake of a key wicket.

It's not poor tactics. Lucky it worked - possibly, but poor tactics, no.

 

[Richard]

Well, I disagree there...

Pace is clearly a large asset, insofar as plenty of bowlers who would otherwise not be anything special manage to get by with it and not much else. It's not everything of course, but it helps get wickets just like accuracy, swing, seam movement, variation and all sorts of other assets a bowler has at his disposal. All I was saying was that Lee didn't bowl well just because he bowled fast, not that his pace was not also a significant asset, because it is. Lee's pace provides not only another avenue to wicket-taking, it can also put opposition batsmen on the back-foot and assists his other bowlers (just like McGrath's accuracy can), and it provides variation in the attack which is its big weakness as things stand.

Pace can't make a bad ball good, but it can make a good ball utterly unplayable.

Oh, it can, hell, yes.
But pace is no use without swing, against any decent batsman.
All pace and bounce does is makes swing and accuracy more effective.

 

[Richard]

Yes, it will work rarely. However, when you look at things, your probably only going to bowl two balls early on (within Martyn's first few overs) while you have Pieterson down there at 3rd Man for which Martyn could play that shot, and simply if you want to score to that ball (short and outside the line of off stump at head height [impossible to get over the top of to cut safely]) you have to take on the fielder down at 3rd Man.

Therefore, if he wants to take you on early while he's not "in", then he has to try to hit it over the top of the fielder, because someone of Pieterson's athletic ability will probably be able to get around to most balls that go in the region. Maximum you can concede is 12 runs, likely result is that Martyn will leave them both, and the best you can hope for is a wicket.

Generally, chances are that your not going to concede that much, because in most cases it will be dot balls, and maybe one boundary (which in a match of 500 runs is of little significance) for the sake of a key wicket.

It's not poor tactics. Lucky it worked - possibly, but poor tactics, no.

Harmison's got countless batsmen caught at third-man when bowling poorly, ever since the very start of his career.
I've seen it time and again, whoever the batsman on strike is, and it really doesn't matter to me.
It isn't, never has been and never will be good bowling.