Warne on crowds

[marc71178]

England have had a far more settled side than SA have recently.
Therefore if anyone was untested, it was SA.

Oh sorry, I forgot that the middle order of Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen were clearly tried and tested Test players before the Ashes.

Compare that to an SA where all the team have played 15 Test matches and tell me which is more proven...

 

[marc71178]

So essentially, you're saying that if SA were a better side, more able to do the simple things, they might have beaten Australia?

You'll soon learn that Richard worships anything South African and cannot ever see that they're not anywhere near as good as he thinks they are.

 

[Richard]

Oh sorry, I forgot that the middle order of Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen were clearly tried and tested Test players before the Ashes.

Compare that to an SA where all the team have played 15 Test matches and tell me which is more proven...

Bell sure distinguished himself, played such a huge part in the victory?
Pietersen played a huge part though his own ability (rather than Warne's butterfingers) too?
Sorry, don't see how it matters.

 

[Richard]

You'll soon learn that Richard worships anything South African and cannot ever see that they're not anywhere near as good as he thinks they are.

So, what evidence is there of that, then?
Or is it just an ideal you aspire to?

 

[Goughy]

A batsman can quite easily be out without missing a straight one or playing a shocking shot.
There are deliveries - plenty of them - that batsmen have no realistic chance of keeping out. I call them RUDs - realistically unplayable deliveries.
And in any case - no batsman has ever kept on not gifting his wicket. It always happens eventually.
Bowling is on a scale - not just "good" or "bad". A catch is either dropped or caught - much, much simpler.

As some balls are easier to keep out so are some catches harder than others. A catch maybe either caught or not but every ball is either out or not out.

The dropping of a dolly may be the equivelent of playing around a straight one, but one of your RUDs maybe the equivelent of diving full length only to get your fingertips to the ball. Maybe to be termed in the future as RUBs (realistically uncatchable balls). Still out and still a drop.

Agreed that bowling is far harder to qualify and quantify as good or bad.

However as I already stated cricket is a 3 skill game and failing in 1 area is no excuse for performing badly and cannot be easily excused away.

 

[Matt79]

However as I already stated cricket is a 3 skill game and failing in 1 area is no excuse for performing badly and cannot be easily excused away.

Yeah. Could of, should of, might of.... SCOREBOARD.

 

[Dasa]

Yeah. Could of, should of, might of.... SCOREBOARD.

Before anyone else points it out...it's could have etc.

 

[marc71178]

So, what evidence is there of that, then?

The 2004/05 England in SA tour.

The catches comment regarding the recent SA in Aus tour.

 

[honestbharani]

Oh sorry, I forgot that the middle order of Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen were clearly tried and tested Test players before the Ashes.

Compare that to an SA where all the team have played 15 Test matches and tell me which is more proven...

hey, you know there are no better tests than taking on the mighty tigers, right?

 

[Richard]

As some balls are easier to keep out so are some catches harder than others. A catch maybe either caught or not but every ball is either out or not out.

The dropping of a dolly may be the equivelent of playing around a straight one, but one of your RUDs maybe the equivelent of diving full length only to get your fingertips to the ball. Maybe to be termed in the future as RUBs (realistically uncatchable balls). Still out and still a drop.

As far as I'm concerned a chance is only a chance once you get the ball into the middle of the fingers. Fingertips, as you mention, cannot take catches, so therefore something which hits the fingers is no different to something which goes over the top of them. Neither are ever going to be caught.
A difficult catch is obviously more difficult than an easy catch.
But both are still a catch and both are expected to be caught every time - if they're not you're always extremely disappointed.

However as I already stated cricket is a 3 skill game and failing in 1 area is no excuse for performing badly and cannot be easily excused away.

Of course ground-fielding is equally intangible as batting and bowling; and of course failing in any of the 3 areas is equally poor performance. Certainly I never make any excuses for dropped catches - I hate seeing a catch go down, full-stop.
But nonetheless, there's no two ways about the fact that dropped catches are a more specific failing than anything to do with batting or bowling.

 

[Richard]

Yeah. Could of, should of, might of.... SCOREBOARD.

And if the scoreboard was all that mattered the only people who would need to watch cricket would be the scorers.

 

[Richard]

The 2004/05 England in SA tour.

In that I said many England players were overrated, something I've said before and since?
Hardly see how that means I "worships anything South African and cannot ever see that they're not anywhere near as good as he thinks they are".

The catches comment regarding the recent SA in Aus tour.

Err, what? I've said that had the catches been taken Australian batsmen would've scored les. There's nothing you can do to change that - it's basic cricketing fact.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Err, what? I've said that had the catches been taken Australian batsmen would've scored les. There's nothing you can do to change that - it's basic cricketing fact.

If South Africa had bowled better Australia would have scored less, too. They didn't though, so what's your point?

 

[Richard]

That you can always say "if someone had bowled better less would've been scored".
There is no peak or sky for improvement in bowling, or ground-fielding.
There is, however, for catching.

 

[Ikki]

That you can always say "if someone had bowled better less would've been scored".
There is no peak or sky for improvement in bowling, or ground-fielding.
There is, however, for catching.

Uh, yes there is. Someone can get an easy catch, others may have to dive for a catch. Just as you can bowl or bat better, you can also catch better.

 

[dinu23]

Uh, yes there is. Someone can get an easy catch, others may have to dive for a catch. Just as you can bowl or bat better, you can also catch better.

how can u catch better? Either u caught it or dropped it.

 

[Ikki]

how can u catch better? Either u caught it or dropped it.

The ability to catch. Some can dive better than others, some have better concentration, better hands, better vision. All those contribute to how you can catch better.

What Richard is implying is that catching is black and white and differentiates from the other two aspects of the game. In the same idealogy, one who bowls fails every ball apart from those that take wicket, and idealistically that's true. But just as what has been aforesaid is silly, so is saying "if we took wickets off more of our balls bowled, we would have won".

 

[Richard]

Once the fielder is placed, catching is a black-or-white, on-or-off, whatever - issue.
Some fielders will get some things, some won't get what others would have.
But the fielder is there before the shot is played.
It is perfectly realistic to say that "if catches had been taken" is totally different from "if we'd bowled\batted better".

 

[chalky]

It is perfectly realistic to say that "if catches had been taken" is totally different from "if we'd bowled\batted better".

I'm sorry but that is nonsence catching is a skill just like batting or bowling, if you can't take the catch you don't deserve the wicket simple as that really.

 

[Richard]

Err - who doesn't deserve the wicket? The bowler doesn't deserve the wicket having bowled an excellent delivery?
The batsman deserves to carry-on, having done something different to what he'd done if the catch was caught?
No, neither of the above.
The team mightn't deserve the wicket, but look carefully... where did I say they did?