Who will be McGrath's 500th wicket?

[Mister Wright]

I find the lack of knowledge of opening pairs exceptionally irksome.

None of it was serious, the comments were all related to an earlier joke, so get over it.

 

[blockbuster]

Once again - I doubt it, Gillespie is the guy who gets Trescothick out barring exceptional circumstances.

Do you agree with anything anyone says? Looks like you're the resident trouble-maker

 

[Steulen]

Once again - I doubt it, Gillespie is the guy who gets Trescothick out barring exceptional circumstances.

You're way too sure of yourself. "Barring exceptional circumstances"...Tresco has been dismissed 7 times by Gillespie in Tests, at 6 different grounds, and 4 times by McGrath, at 4 different venues. Looks like the chances of McGrath getting Tresco are just slightly smaller than Gillespie's.

 

[Richard]

Because it became competitive.

You missed my point, that cricket (in its truest form) is just played in the backyard with a few mates, a couple of beers and a bbq if possible.

No, that's one of the most inpure, inprecise forms of cricket - in fact it's not cricket, it's just something quite closely resembling it, just like playground "football" or whatever.

 

[Richard]

None of it was serious, the comments were all related to an earlier joke, so get over it.

Maybe not serious in this case but there are any number of instances where people give opening-pairs the wrong way around when any fool can tell that they always bat the other way around.

 

[Richard]

Do you agree with anything anyone says? Looks like you're the resident trouble-maker

You're clearly another of these who doesn't realise that on a forum silence = assent, so basically any post I don't reply to I probably agree with.

 

[Richard]

You're way too sure of yourself. "Barring exceptional circumstances"...Tresco has been dismissed 7 times by Gillespie in Tests, at 6 different grounds, and 4 times by McGrath, at 4 different venues. Looks like the chances of McGrath getting Tresco are just slightly smaller than Gillespie's.

And Gillespie has also had him dropped 3 times, and if you look at Gillespie's chance-creation believe it or not every single one of the 9 has been comparable. All McGrath's have been different, so they can be explained by the fact that any bowler will get any batsman out if they bowl at them often enough.

 

[marc71178]

No, that's one of the most inpure, inprecise forms of cricket - in fact it's not cricket, it's just something quite closely resembling it, just like playground "football" or whatever.

Yes, because heaven forbid people actually have fun whilst playing Cricket.

 

[Richard]

No, Heaven forbid having fun is the be-all-and-end-all of playing cricket - there are other things of importance, several of them.

 

[marc71178]

No, there are not.

It is a game, and the main aim of it is to have fun.

For you to decide that it's not cricket when played with a BBQ and a few beers speaks volumes about you.

 

[Richard]

Cricket is cricket when it's played by the rules.
Barbecues and drink have nothing to do with it all - you can have both and still play cricket properly.
In a game one of many aims is to have fun.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Once again - I doubt it, Gillespie is the guy who gets Trescothick out barring exceptional circumstances.

So if Gillespie isn't playing for some reason, Trescothick won't be dismissed in either innings? <----- I know that's ridiculous, but following your logic......

 

[Son Of Coco]

And Gillespie has also had him dropped 3 times, and if you look at Gillespie's chance-creation believe it or not every single one of the 9 has been comparable. All McGrath's have been different, so they can be explained by the fact that any bowler will get any batsman out if they bowl at them often enough.

Or that McGrath has the ability to expose more weaknesses in a batsman. Has McGrath bowled at Trescothick more than Gillespie? I think that should read 'Any decent bowler will get any batsman out if they bowl at them often enough'

 

[Mister Wright]

No, that's one of the most inpure, inprecise forms of cricket - in fact it's not cricket, it's just something quite closely resembling it, just like playground "football" or whatever.

No. I can assure you it is cricket. It just isn't professional cricket.

 

[Mister Wright]

Maybe not serious in this case but there are any number of instances where people give opening-pairs the wrong way around when any fool can tell that they always bat the other way around.

And how do you know if Trescothick was injured that Strauss wouldn't face first. You sure know how to make a storm out of a tea cup.

 

[Steulen]

And Gillespie has also had him dropped 3 times, and if you look at Gillespie's chance-creation believe it or not every single one of the 9 has been comparable. All McGrath's have been different, so they can be explained by the fact that any bowler will get any batsman out if they bowl at them often enough.

Oh please.
Tresco edged McGrath once through the slips, that's dismissal #5
A credible LBW was turned down...that's #6...
Need I go on?

 

[Richard]

So if Gillespie isn't playing for some reason, Trescothick won't be dismissed in either innings? <----- I know that's ridiculous, but following your logic......

I wouldn't be amazed to see Trescothick score runs if Gillespie was injured, no.

 

[Richard]

Or that McGrath has the ability to expose more weaknesses in a batsman. Has McGrath bowled at Trescothick more than Gillespie? I think that should read 'Any decent bowler will get any batsman out if they bowl at them often enough'

Nope, I'd get Matthew Hayden out if I bowled at him often enough. Laws of numbers - go on long enough something is bound to happen eventually.
As far as I can tell (it'd probably be possible to look-up the exact number of deliveries) McGrath and Gillespie have bowled at Trescothick equally. McGrath's dismissals of Trescothick have little in common - top-edged pull, unplayable lifter that would have dismissed anyone, caught gully, dragged-on. None of them exposed any particular weakness, other than Trescothick's poor attacking-shot-selection and execution.
Gillespie, on the other hand, has consistently exposed the exact same weakness - uncertainty as to whether to play or drag the bat inside the line to balls on and around off-stump.
Interestingly, Brett Lee exposed another small flaw that Ntini has of times tapped into - uncertainty against the well-pitched short-ball.

 

[Richard]

No. I can assure you it is cricket. It just isn't professional cricket.

No, it's not cricket, it's just something that's very similar to cricket.

 

[Richard]

And how do you know if Trescothick was injured that Strauss wouldn't face first. You sure know how to make a storm out of a tea cup.

We don't know, because we don't know who'd play. But if Butcher was to open with him, I can categorically, certainly, beyond-all-question assure you that Butcher would face first.