The Ashes are coming home!

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

I wouldn't say that. That's like saying accuacy is no good without seam movement... it's just not the case. Pace AND swing is of course an awesome combination, but Lee doesn't swing the ball every game and he still bowls wicket-taking deliveries because of his pace.

By the way, have you been watching the NWS?

 

[Richard]

http://content.cricinfo.com/engvaus/content/story/211795.html

Good news for England!

Not really, it was hardly likely he'd have played anyway, was it?

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't say that. That's like saying accuacy is no good without seam movement... it's just not the case. Pace AND swing is of course an awesome combination, but Lee doesn't swing the ball every game and he still bowls wicket-taking deliveries because of his pace.

He does?
Lee only bowls wicket-taking deliveries when he swings it (whether conventional or reverse).

By the way, have you been watching the NWS?

Yes, why?

 

[vic_orthdox]

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.

The point is that one of the more trustworthy English fielders was placed in that position becuase of the likelihood of a chance going there - due to a plan implemented! Also, fortunately enough the catch went straight to Pieterson. What's to say that it couldn't have gone 10 metres to his left, and someone like KP could have got to it where a Lewis or a Harmison couldnt' have?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He does?
Lee only bowls wicket-taking deliveries when he swings it (whether conventional or reverse).

I disagree. When he gets in the right areas, Lee has a devastating bouncer that is as good as any other in the world, as well as a sharp rising one at the ribs that batsmen compulsively fend away in the air, he's got a good yorker and he is capable of beating batsmen with pace, making them late on the ball and creating edges and so on. He's not particularly adept at seam movement, but there are other ways to bowl wicket taking deliveries than with lateral movement. There's a reason he has the best ever strike rate in ODIs, and it's not because he swings it every game.

Yes, why?

Just curious. You're usually involved in practically every CC discussion on every subject, but I haven't seen you around anywhere discussing the games so far.

 

[King_Ponting]

he is capable of beating batsmen with pace.

as seen by solanki's trouble with him yesterday

 

[Richard]

The point is that one of the more trustworthy English fielders was placed in that position becuase of the likelihood of a chance going there - due to a plan implemented! Also, fortunately enough the catch went straight to Pieterson. What's to say that it couldn't have gone 10 metres to his left, and someone like KP could have got to it where a Lewis or a Harmison couldnt' have?

Well I certainly don't think Harmison could have got to it from the middle of the pitch.
I'd back either Lewis (a perfectly good fielder) or Gough to have got it if it'd been away from the man (Gough's taken several stunning catches at third-man - this one and this one to the fore).
I don't feel Pietersen's presence was either good tactics or neccessary.

 

[Richard]

I disagree. When he gets in the right areas, Lee has a devastating bouncer that is as good as any other in the world, as well as a sharp rising one at the ribs that batsmen compulsively fend away in the air, he's got a good yorker and he is capable of beating batsmen with pace, making them late on the ball and creating edges and so on. He's not particularly adept at seam movement, but there are other ways to bowl wicket taking deliveries than with lateral movement.

So why does it happen so rarely?
Top-class batsmen being beaten for pace is an exceptionally rare occurrance, whatever the length.
Yorkers are good restrictive deliveries, but unless the batsmen have got the slog on a Yorker that doesn't swing isn't a particularly effective wicket-taking ball.

There's a reason he has the best ever strike rate in ODIs, and it's not because he swings it every game.

No, it's because he gets an inordinate amount of poor strokes.

Just curious. You're usually involved in practically every CC discussion on every subject, but I haven't seen you around anywhere discussing the games so far.

Well... that'd be because I've been concentrating fully on the TV.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Well I certainly don't think Harmison could have got to it from the middle of the pitch.
I'd back either Lewis (a perfectly good fielder) or Gough to have got it if it'd been away from the man (Gough's taken several stunning catches at third-man - this one and this one to the fore).
I don't feel Pietersen's presence was either good tactics or neccessary.

Now now, you were the one who brought up Harmison the post prior, if you want to get tikki-touch-wood .

Yes, you may well back the above mentioned fielders to take the catch, and with every right too. The point still stands, though, no matter who you think could have been down there, that Pieterson was down there with the intention of him taking a catch, with the knowledge that he is more likely to do so than most other players in the English heirachy.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, it's because he gets an inordinate amount of poor strokes.

And WHY does he get so many poor strokes, Richard? Why doesn't, say, Andrew Symonds get all these poor strokes and average 22 with a strike rate under 30? It couldn't be, for example, because Lee bowls well and when batsmen try and score off him they get out?

 

[Richard]

Now now, you were the one who brought up Harmison the post prior, if you want to get tikki-touch-wood .

I did paraphrase it with the "if he's bowling" though, didn't I?!

Yes, you may well back the above mentioned fielders to take the catch, and with every right too. The point still stands, though, no matter who you think could have been down there, that Pieterson was down there with the intention of him taking a catch, with the knowledge that he is more likely to do so than most other players in the English heirachy.

Have we actually heard Vaughan mention - without prompt - that he deliberately put Pietersen there that ball (incidentally - Pietersen has fielded at third-man on plenty of occasions in his ODI career), because I certainly haven't.

 

[Richard]

And WHY does he get so many poor strokes, Richard? Why doesn't, say, Andrew Symonds get all these poor strokes and average 22 with a strike rate under 30? It couldn't be, for example, because Lee bowls well and when batsmen try and score off him they get out?

Oh, sometimes it is (Strauss yesterday, for instance).
At other times, though, he bowls rubbish, batsmen are scoring freely off him - yet still manage to smash that Half-Volley to a fielder, or play down the wrong line to that Long-Hop.
And on those occasions - where he gets 10-55-3 with all 3 coming from poor strokes - the only viable description is "lucky".

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Oh, sometimes it is (Strauss yesterday, for instance).
At other times, though, he bowls rubbish, batsmen are scoring freely off him - yet still manage to smash that Half-Volley to a fielder, or play down the wrong line to that Long-Hop.
And on those occasions - where he gets 10-55-3 with all 3 coming from poor strokes - the only viable description is "lucky".

Okay, I'll just try replacing the concept of "taking wickets" with "being lucky" when discussing Australian pace bowlers with you. Why is that Lee has been lucky with greater regularity than any other bowler in the history of ODI cricket?

 

[King_Ponting]

^^ lol what a post.

 

[King_Ponting]

not the greatest but lee is up there http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/ODIS/BOWLING/ODI_BOWL_BEST_SR.html

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

not the greatest but lee is up there http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/ODIS/BOWLING/ODI_BOWL_BEST_SR.html

Just to clarify, I mean among bowlers with a fair number of games under their belt. Bond and Rana have played basically one good year each, Lee has been at it since 2000 now.

 

[Richard]

Okay, I'll just try replacing the concept of "taking wickets" with "being lucky" when discussing Australian pace bowlers with you.

I really do wish you wouldn't, because as I've mentioned you seem to have got a wholly misleading impression of my ideas of Australian seam-bowling.

Why is that Lee has been lucky with greater regularity than any other bowler in the history of ODI cricket?

Because it had to happen to someone?
It's not like no-one else has ever had it happen to them, either, just not normally for as long as Lee has had it.

 

[howardj]

I really do wish you wouldn't, because as I've mentioned you seem to have got a wholly misleading impression of my ideas of Australian seam-bowling.

Because it had to happen to someone?
It's not like no-one else has ever had it happen to them, either, just not normally for as long as Lee has had it.

Look Richard, I've got massive reservations about Lee coming back into the Test side. Namely, he releases the pressure valve that's kept so tightly on, by McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Warne. Indeed, these four guys get wickets because of this pressure. However, having said that, you can not deny that Brett Lee is a magnificent ODI bowler. The ODI game fits him like a glove - it allows him to bowl in short bursts; he's great in the out field, and he can slog at the death. A great ODI package.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I really do wish you wouldn't, because as I've mentioned you seem to have got a wholly misleading impression of my ideas of Australian seam-bowling.

I don't think you have anything particular against them because they are Australian... just that you form these ridiculous first-impression judgements of players and stick to them like bloody glue no matter how many times you are proven wrong. I sort of admire how thick-skinned you are about it all, but surely you realise how it must look?

Picture this conversation:
Bill: Glenn McGrath isn't a very good bowler. He just bowls it straight.
Bob: No, he has subtle variation which gets him wickets, watch...
*Mcgrath takes a wicket*
Bill: It was just a fluke, he won't do it again because he just bowls it straight.
Bob: Yes he will, he has subtle variation which gets him wickets, watch...
*McGrath takes another wicket*
Bill: It was just a poor shot, he won't do it again because he just bowls it staight!
Bob: Yes he will, he has subtle variation which gets him wickets, watch!!
*McGrath takes another wicket*
Bill: He's just... he's just... LUCKY!

That's how it is arguing with you. You pick a line, and you stick to it and if something happens which contradicts it, it's just "luck", and despite the fact that the very nature of luck suggests that it won't happen 499 times at an average of 21, or 188 times at an average of 22 once every 28 balls, you still claim that it's luck. It's infuriating, and it's why so many people find you so difficult to deal with here.

Because it had to happen to someone?
It's not like no-one else has ever had it happen to them, either, just not normally for as long as Lee has had it.

There's no such thing as a neverending supply of luck that happens over and over again involving the same thing and the same person without fail. If that happens, it's not luck.

 

[badgerhair]

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.

Ah, so if a batsman is known to have an inordinate fondess for the hook, and the bowler posts a couple of deep square legs and bowls a bouncer, and the batsman is caught at deep backward square, that's bad bowling, is it?

It seems to have escaped your omnivisual capacity that third man is a position which is rarely occupied in Test cricket, but that Vaughan regularly posts one either on the boundary or 25 yards in when Harmison is bowling and certain batsmen are at the crease - the third man mysteriously disappears mid-over when the batsmen take a run and someone else is batting in some instances. Harmison then bowls balls invitingly full and wide of off stump, encouraging a batsman who likes an expansive drive, which he then edges spectacularly to third man.

Conventional wisdom (of which I didn't think you were any kind of fan) would indeed hold that bowling a succession of eminently driveable balls is poor bowling, but I am open to the possibility that if a bowler and captain set a somewhat unconventional field and batsmen repeatedly get caught by the fielder in the unconventional position there may be some method to the madness. And if a captain and bowler have a plan to take a wicket and it comes off, then I call it good bowling, whether or not it's of a style of which I generally approve.

But then I don't believe that luck plays as much of a part in cricket as you do.

Cheers,

Mike