The Ashes are coming home!

[tooextracool]

Cant you just eat in anyway please?

its not like richard's computer counts as anything.

 

[tooextracool]

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

Good news for England!

err thats not good news at all, we've effectively lost one of our few proven players against australia.

 

[tooextracool]

An exaggeration methinks.
I'd guess it was closer to 30, and I'd also guess quite a few more were against Australia than anyone else..

whatever it is, he wasnt a very good fielder.

I never said I thought he was a good fielder or not; not once did I comment on his fielding.
Just that seamers don't tend to make the best fielders and Indians don't tend to make the best fielders either.
So I thought it was possible Prasad would have been an average fielder...

err there have been plenty of good fielders who are seamers(gough, mcgrath, flintoff, jones, and a few others). generally though they have safe pair of hands, which is most useful when you field at at the boundary.
and if you think that indians dont make the best fielders, then you certainly havent watched any of kaif, yuvraj, azhar or jadeja, who are quite comfortable some of the best fielders of the past 20 years.

Except in 2000-2000\01, and 1 or 2 other brief periods.

there were brief periods, thats about it, its completely different from a 1.5 year period.

 

[tooextracool]

Was he?
I remember him bowling pretty sharp at some stages of all three.
Do you have some average figures?.

i think it was about 86mph in bangalore, and around 82 mph for the other 2 games.

Because basic logic suggests so?.

says the person who thinks mcgrath has taken about 250 lucky wickets in his test career, and that vettori has been lucky in ODIs for a consistent 5 year period.

No, it doesn't, but it's more likely to be right than human eyes which are notoriously poor in so many ways.

or the batters eyes, who actually plays the ball.
its also a bit strange that in yesterdays game, everytime harmison bowled a short ball,it was registered a lot slower than when he pitched it up. his short balls went through at 81-82 mph while the ones that he pitched up went in at 85+ mph.

 

[tooextracool]

Bowlers bowl odd balls at 88-89 in the subcontinent, too, just not usually for as long.
Because, of course, the almost-always present heat and humidity makes it much harder.

and its quite impossible for a bowler to produce a single ball at 90 mph, even when hes been producing it everywhere else?

 

[tooextracool]

So why does it happen so rarely?
Top-class batsmen being beaten for pace is an exceptionally rare occurrance, whatever the length.

thats probably because everytime it happens, you dismiss it as 'lucky', or 'didnt quite see the ball'.

 

[Richard]

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.

And that's where the problem comes - I've never, once, said anything along the lines of either that he's been lucky 499 times at an average of 21, or the Bill-Bob-style thing.
A 3 or 4-for where all the wickets have come from poor strokes, is lucky - I've not had to change any ideas to come to that conclusion.
If it were genuinely the tiny variations that caused these copious poor strokes, don't you think I'd notice?
D'you think I like going over and over the same stuff again, arguing against the tide time after time?

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.

Why not?
There is no good reason why not - the only reason why most minds refuse to accept the fact that this is possible is because of the basic like-to-see-the-best-in-everything cricketing frailty.
If you can explain how someone is putting pressure on batsmen by allowing them to score relatively freely, and how that pressure means they deserve the 3 poor strokes played to them that get them wickets, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Richard]

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.

Both Vaughan and Hussain posted third-men (for a large variety of reasons - amongst them the score being 552 for 3) on plenty of occasions, to a large variety of bowlers.
And at least 8 different batsmen have cut Harmison to third-man - not driven, catches at third-man off drives are exceptionally unusual. And it's happened in both forms of the game.
There is no constant, anywhere, except Harmison repeatedly being cut 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.

I'm aware of that.
And I'm perfectly well aware of the reasons for that, too.

 

[Richard]

whatever it is, he wasnt a very good fielder.

He wasn't, no, he was merely below average bordering on acceptible, and didn't drop anywhere near as many catches as he has since his return.

err there have been plenty of good fielders who are seamers(gough, mcgrath, flintoff, jones, and a few others). generally though they have safe pair of hands, which is most useful when you field at at the boundary.
and if you think that indians dont make the best fielders, then you certainly havent watched any of kaif, yuvraj, azhar or jadeja, who are quite comfortable some of the best fielders of the past 20 years.

I certainly haven't watched that much of Azharruddin or Jadeja, enough merely to realise they were better than the general Indian standard.
Maybe I'd better do so, eh?
And yes, I'm perfectly well aware Yuvraj Singh and Kaif are extremely good fielders.
Nonetheless India's fielding has been deplored so many times I lose count.

there were brief periods, thats about it, its completely different from a 1.5 year period.

1.5 years = brief.

 

[Richard]

i think it was about 86mph in bangalore, and around 82 mph for the other 2 games.

You think?
This could not just be the fact that you got a false impression of the speeds, because of several factors, amongst them his effectiveness?
I find it perfectly conceivable that he bowled the same speeds in all 3 games.

says the person who thinks mcgrath has taken about 250 lucky wickets in his test career, and that vettori has been lucky in ODIs for a consistent 5 year period.

And there's no point going over them again.

or the batters eyes, who actually plays the ball.
its also a bit strange that in yesterdays game, everytime harmison bowled a short ball,it was registered a lot slower than when he pitched it up. his short balls went through at 81-82 mph while the ones that he pitched up went in at 85+ mph.

Not to mention yesterday when Watson's shorter balls came out quicker generally than his fuller ones.
I'll not deny that it's something I've noticed, too, but unless I can find a good reason for it I'll leave it that it's my misperception.

 

[Richard]

and its quite impossible for a bowler to produce a single ball at 90 mph, even when hes been producing it everywhere else?

Flintoff rarely if ever bowled 90mph balls, except for the odd time in India.
Certainly didn't bowl 1 in New Zealand, no-one did.

 

[Richard]

thats probably because everytime it happens, you dismiss it as 'lucky', or 'didnt quite see the ball'.

"Didn't quite"?
Lara clearly didn't see the Flintoff ball at Old Trafford (as he didn't see another ball from the same bowler, a slower-ball, the Test before) and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dunce of the highest order.
And yes - if a batsmen does get out to an innocuous short-ball the bowler is lucky. Fortunately it doesn't happen too often.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Why not?
There is no good reason why not - the only reason why most minds refuse to accept the fact that this is possible is because of the basic like-to-see-the-best-in-everything cricketing frailty.
If you can explain how someone is putting pressure on batsmen by allowing them to score relatively freely, and how that pressure means they deserve the 3 poor strokes played to them that get them wickets, I'd love to hear it.

Because you have an incredibly narrow version of what consistutes a wicket-taking ball, and an incredibly wide version of what constitutes a bad shot. A bad shot is when a player either plays at a ball with completely awful technique, like Aftab Ahmed's pointless waft across the line with the bat angled in the wrong direction against Symonds yesterday. If a batsman is beaten in the flight trying to hit out against a spinner, it's not a poor shot for which the bowler deserves no credit. If a batsman is frustrated into playing a risky stroke against tight bowling in an attempt to score, it is not a poor shot for which the bowler deserves no credit. If a player is suckered into playing at a wide or a short ball and hits it straight to a fielder under a plan from the bowler, it is not a poor shot for which the bowler deserves no credit. In fact, even if the bowler just bowls it straight and the batsman misses it and gets bowled, the bowler is not "lucky", since they did the right thing to get a wicket and the batsman made an error. "You miss, I hit" is a perfectly decent sort of a strategy, particularly in one day cricket, and a bowler does not deserve to be derided as "lucky" if they achieve success with it.

Yes, an inswinging yorker that comes in a metre and knocks middle stump out of the ground looks great, but it is not the only way to bowl a wicket-taking delivery, and when McGrath puts 20 balls on the spot in the corridor at a length that is difficult to play and utilises his subtle variations and the batsman tries to play one and edges it, it's not poor bowling. A typical McGrath dismissal is where he puts it in the corridor, brings some in off the seam, moves some away, maybe gets a bit of swing, lets a few go straight on, bowls the odd one on the stumps and so on. The batsman finds scoring difficult because of his line and as such cannot get off strike, and eventually makes an error and either leaves one which comes in and bowls him/gets him lbw, or tries to defend one that might come in, and it moves away an inch and catches the edge and Gilchrist pouches it. Or, he tries to smash it away through the off side on the up and gets caught in the slips or drags it on. That is not poor bowling, or poor batting, and it's McGrath trademark, AND he can do it on wickets that other bowlers can't move it a centimetre on. THAT is why he is the best pace bowler in the world, not because he just happens to me more lucky than everyone else over and over again.

 

[marc71178]

Again - even if it was deliberate it was poor bowling and poor tactics.

Had it of course been G Smith and A Nel who did it, your tune would've changed.

 

[marc71178]

I think Pietersen being at third-man that ball has been overblown.

So why wasn't one of the best fielders fielding somewhere much more useful?

 

[Jono]

D'you think I like going over and over the same stuff again, arguing against the tide time after time?

I honestly think you do. Because you know that's what you are going to get when you log on to these boards.

What I never understand is how the others can continue to argue with you over the same points continously. I guess they enjoy it too?

 

[Swervy]

I honestly think you do. Because you know that's what you are going to get when you log on to these boards.

What I never understand is how the others can continue to argue with you over the same points continously. I guess they enjoy it too?

I know..and I am guilty of it myself...but it is entertaining to see him(he is just like Twenty20 cricket) insist he is right ALL THE TIME...when he is so blatantly not

 

[tooextracool]

"Didn't quite"?
Lara clearly didn't see the Flintoff ball at Old Trafford (as he didn't see another ball from the same bowler, a slower-ball, the Test before) and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dunce of the highest order.

yes because you say so, and of course as we all know the odds of not seeing 2 similar balls in 2 consecutive tests

"And yes - if a batsmen does get out to an innocuous short-ball the bowler is lucky. Fortunately it doesn't happen too often.

rather, everytime it happens you dismiss as lucky. fact is that it does happen fairly often, problem is not too many bowlers can bowl it well enough.

 

[tooextracool]

Flintoff rarely if ever bowled 90mph balls, except for the odd time in India..

no he doesnt, there are plenty of times when he bowls at an average of 86-87 and gets the odd ball to clock 90. i can guarantee you that he bowled several deliveries at 90 mph at trent bridge against SA in 03. i can guarantee you that he did the same against the WI last summer.

 

[tooextracool]

You think?
This could not just be the fact that you got a false impression of the speeds, because of several factors, amongst them his effectiveness?
I find it perfectly conceivable that he bowled the same speeds in all 3 games..

err, im not talking about his effectiveness, im talking about what was registered on the speedo. he was consistently bowling at above 85mph in bangalore than his average speed of 82odd mph in the other 2 games.

Not to mention yesterday when Watson's shorter balls came out quicker generally than his fuller ones.
I'll not deny that it's something I've noticed, too, but unless I can find a good reason for it I'll leave it that it's my misperception.

well whatever it is, the speed should remain similar irrespective, given that it takes the speed out of the hand. certainly not 4-5 mph slower, as it was for harmison.