tuffey vs harmison

[marc71178]

I've seen Brian Lara, Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh, Jacques Kallis and many other top-class batsmen troubled by excessive pace and bounce.

How dare you rate them as class players?

It's all luck and fortune!

 

[Richard]

Rubbish.
They all have good first-chance averages and all have played in an era of outstanding bowlers and variable conditions.
They've all disappointed at times but if they hadn't they'd all be better than George Headley.

 

[marc71178]

But how can they be good if "good batsmen aren't troubled by excessive pace and bounce" and they all have been?

 

[Neil Pickup]

They're different bowlers, and I'm a fan of both of them.

From a purely neutral perspective, I'd probably take Tuffey - as he's a bit more consistent, but I'm not neutral, so Steve-O it is 8D

 

[Mingster]

Yeah, true. Harmisson uses bounce and pace, whereas Tufey likes to be full and use the swing. Although I think Tuffey has become a bit faster in the last 2-3 years.

Tuffey does not swing the ball enough. His seam position is scrambled.

It's a bloody no-contest, Tuffey wins hands down.

And Richard, do you know where I can find these first-chance averages? And how do I know you are recalling them accurately?

I think you are just destroying the game of cricket, dropped catches, missed run-outs, are all part of cricket.

You're just a bloody fool, seriously.

 

[Rik]

Got to be Tuffey. He didn't look much when he started his career but he's developed into a very solid medium-fast seamer, a bit like a more consistant Hoggard. Harmison has shown he can get wickets against teams who cannot handle a ball bowled over 80mph. Arguement? You got to be joking.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Would it be termed "abuse of power" if Harmison suddenly, like, accidently, got another 300 votes?

 

[Rik]

You're just a bloody fool, seriously.

Ending a post with a full on insult isn't usually the best way to win an arguement, weather you have a point or not. If you do feel the need to put a little something at the end of your post, at least make it clever...:rolleyes:

 

[Rik]

Would it be termed "abuse of power" if Harmison suddenly, like, accidently, got another 300 votes?

Result = Bye Bye Pickup

 

[Rik]

But how can they be good if "good batsmen aren't troubled by excessive pace and bounce" and they all have been?

Good batsmen appear to be troubled, a la Steve and Mark Waugh, but as is so often the case, you could bang in the ball all day against them and they would look uncomfortable but they wouldn't get out to it...

It doesn't take a genius to take off the blinkers and realise Richard does have a point most of the time, weather you choose to take them off or not is another matter

 

[Rik]

Got to be Tuffey. He didn't look much when he started his career but he's developed into a very solid medium-fast seamer, a bit like a more consistant Hoggard. Harmison has shown he can get wickets against teams who cannot handle a ball bowled over 80mph. Arguement? You got to be joking.

Actually, thinking about it, Tuffey is more like Richard Johnson in style and role

 

[Craig]

Tuffey by a country mile. Harmison has had his moments in his Test cricket.

 

[Mister Wright]

The thing is boys, players like the Waugh twins & the other may not always get out to the short stuff, but as a result of the short stuff. So many times you would see Steve Waugh barraged with short balls and then get trapped in front, hit one straight to point, nick behind, etc. Although it didn't happen that often and it had to be done by a class bowler, but it did happen.

 

[Mingster]

Ending a post with a full on insult isn't usually the best way to win an arguement, weather you have a point or not. If you do feel the need to put a little something at the end of your post, at least make it clever...:rolleyes:

It's just that having argued with him for ages (back to Cricinfo days) I just can't be bothered to get witty anymore.

It's getting tedious how he continuously writes off NZ Players.

 

[Richard]

But how can they be good if "good batsmen aren't troubled by excessive pace and bounce" and they all have been?

I usually use the term "troubled by" to mean "regularly dismissed, cheaply, by".
Clearly, some don't understand, and for basically his entire career, people refused to accept Stephen Waugh was not troubled by the short delivery.
But if someone regularly, cheaply, gets dismissed by short deliveries they aren't that good; that's obvious.

 

[Richard]

It's just that having argued with him for ages (back to Cricinfo days) I just can't be bothered to get witty anymore.

It's getting tedious how he continuously writes off NZ Players.

If you really think I've got something against players simply because they're from New Zealand, you need to check your scope.
It is far more likely that a biased fan has noticed the instances of apparrent slagging-off of players from his team more than that from others.
Just to prove a point, here is a New Zealand team I rated extremely highly:
Horne
Astle
McMillan
Fleming
Twose
Cairns
Parore
Harris
Nash
L****n
Allott
Notice it? The WC99 team.
The team that played a Test series just after wasn't bad, either:
Twose
Horne
Fleming
Astle
McMillan
Parore
Cairns
Nash
Vettori
Doull \ Bell
Allott \ O'Connor
Sadly New Zealand have lost a lot of bowlers to injury and I'm afraid I don't rate Bond, Tuffey, Oram, Mills and others especially highly - there is scope for them to change my views.
So stop letting silly national bias affect your thinking.

 

[Richard]

Richard, do you know where I can find these first-chance averages? And how do I know you are recalling them accurately?

I think you are just destroying the game of cricket, dropped catches, missed run-outs, are all part of cricket.

The only way for you to know is to check for yourself.
Which you don't need to do because you don't value them.
Why would I want to "recall" something incorrectly? I base my assessment of players partly on these, so what the hell would I gain by getting them wrong? Answer - skewed assessment.
And deconstruction is not destruction. Without deconstruction, cricket would be of no interest whatsoever.

 

[Richard]

Would it be termed "abuse of power" if Harmison suddenly, like, accidently, got another 300 votes?

Yes, and it would likely result in summary dismissal.
What is the point of power without judicious excercise of the power? Where are your morals?:!( :!( :!( :P

 

[Neil Pickup]

*Bump*

 

[Loony BoB]

Haha, someone's held a thread-grudge.

My first real read of the infamous Richard. Fun times. Oh, and the only reason I'm posting this is to say that "L****n" made me laugh.