World Cup - Australia first.... daylight second

[Top_Cat]

What utter rubbish.

They conceived a plan and executed it to take a wicket.

How is that not good Cricket?

Because it wasn't an out-swinging, off-cutter which swung out a foot and cut back a metre to knock back all three stumps, break both bails and knacker the wicket-keeper who was standing up, knowing that if he didn't, the bowler wouldn't have felt like he truly deserved the wicket enough and would probably have recalled the batsman in utter shame, graciously removing himself from the attack and breaking both arms so he'll never again suffer the humiliation of taking a wicket he didn't earn. Duh.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You can't blame him but you certainly can't credit good cricket - either to the bowler or the captain (or whoever decided on the idea).

Possibly the single stupidest statement I have ever seen on this forum. I actually had to re-read that 3 or 4 times to be certain that you actually said it.

HOW is it not good cricket to read a vulnerability of a batsman, place a fielder in position and bowl a ball to induce a shot which is caught by said fielder, resulting in a wicket? That is the very definition of good cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

Except that scoring runs in a single game doesn't mean being in-form.

i dont see why not. if someone scores 141 in the previous game, you'd expect them to be more likely than any other player to score in the next one.

Well he didn't get past 50, did he? He just slogged like he usually does, and fortunately for him (unfortunately for us at large) it came-off on this occasion.

no he didnt get past it but 40 off 18 balls from a slogger of the quality of ricardo powell speaks volumes about how poor the bowling was to him.

 

[tooextracool]

You can't blame him but you certainly can't credit good cricket - either to the bowler or the captain (or whoever decided on the idea).

as has already been stated this makes no sense. and whether you want to credit harmison for the delivery or not, you still cant go around calling it bad bowling if all he did was bowl the ball that his captain wanted him to bowl, especially when it paid off.
any plan that works once is good captaincy, if it works twice its brilliant.

Yes, he has - as I say, kinda inevitable when you play 200-odd ODI innings.
In my experience, however, that is the sort of ball that he will much more often than not hit in the middle of the bat. Yours may be different.

i doubt it, almost every ball bowled is different in some way or another, and the only thing we can conclude from that one was that it was good enough to get the outside edge of gilchrists bat.

 

[Richard]

What utter rubbish.

They conceived a plan and executed it to take a wicket.

How is that not good Cricket?

Because it was a plan unlikely to pay much dividends?
Given that almost everyone has tried it and the batsman in question still averages over 40 in ODIs.

 

[Richard]

Possibly the single stupidest statement I have ever seen on this forum. I actually had to re-read that 3 or 4 times to be certain that you actually said it.

HOW is it not good cricket to read a vulnerability of a batsman, place a fielder in position and bowl a ball to induce a shot which is caught by said fielder, resulting in a wicket? That is the very definition of good cricket.

Because it's something which has failed about 50 times for every time it's succeeded.
That, for me, is a pretty good definition of bad cricket.

 

[Richard]

i dont see why not. if someone scores 141 in the previous game, you'd expect them to be more likely than any other player to score in the next one.

Not if they'd played 15 games for an average of 10 before then.

no he didnt get past it but 40 off 18 balls from a slogger of the quality of ricardo powell speaks volumes about how poor the bowling was to him.

Not really, it just says that he got lucky for once.
The bowling was, from the descriptions, just pretty straightforward, the stuff he normally hits a couple of fours off then puts one straight up in the air.
On this occasion he happened not to.

 

[Richard]

as has already been stated this makes no sense. and whether you want to credit harmison for the delivery or not, you still cant go around calling it bad bowling if all he did was bowl the ball that his captain wanted him to bowl, especially when it paid off.
any plan that works once is good captaincy, if it works twice its brilliant.

Not if it fails 100 times alongside this.
And I can assure you Martyn wouldn't be averaging 40 in ODIs if dismissing him was as easy as bowling wide Long-Hops.

i doubt it, almost every ball bowled is different in some way or another, and the only thing we can conclude from that one was that it was good enough to get the outside edge of gilchrists bat.

Yes, all deliveries are different, but deliveries can broadly be grouped and generally Gilchrist will put deliveries comparable to that away.
Gilchrist on this occasion was poor enough to edge it rather than middle it.

 

[tooextracool]

Not if they'd played 15 games for an average of 10 before then.

styris had shown improvement in the 3 series before the world cup, and he definetly was performing after it. s i'd say he was quite likely to score even by your definition. nonetheless any batsman with any sort of score under his belt, is bound to be in a better position to score than someone who hasnt had any runs.

Not really, it just says that he got lucky for once.
The bowling was, from the descriptions, just pretty straightforward, the stuff he normally hits a couple of fours off then puts one straight up in the air.
On this occasion he happened not to.

the SA bowling in that series lacked any sort of effectiveness or discipline, and its not surprising that powell scored against them. if their bowling was even close to quality, they would have dismissed him cheaply, as every quality bowling attack has done so.

 

[tooextracool]

Not if it fails 100 times alongside this.
And I can assure you Martyn wouldn't be averaging 40 in ODIs if dismissing him was as easy as bowling wide Long-Hops.

and because of course you can say that that plan was executed just as perfectly a 100 times before?
i can assure you that martyn has been out several times before that series in similar fashion, except no other team tried to do it everytime. and yes martyn is still going to average 40 because just like most weaknesses, he obviously worked on it.

Yes, all deliveries are different, but deliveries can broadly be grouped and generally Gilchrist will put deliveries comparable to that away.
Gilchrist on this occasion was poor enough to edge it rather than middle it.

no i cant see how you can so easily claim that the ball is something that gilchrist would have put away, because all we know is that it was good enough to get the outside edge.

 

[Richard]

styris had shown improvement in the 3 series before the world cup, and he definetly was performing after it. s i'd say he was quite likely to score even by your definition. nonetheless any batsman with any sort of score under his belt, is bound to be in a better position to score than someone who hasnt had any runs.

Obviously - I didn't think we were discussing Styris, I thought we were discussing McCullum.
Re-reading it it's clear I was mistaken.
Still - I maintain that I reckon Styris would have been unlikely to have scored runs in that SA game.

the SA bowling in that series lacked any sort of effectiveness or discipline, and its not surprising that powell scored against them. if their bowling was even close to quality, they would have dismissed him cheaply, as every quality bowling attack has done so.

Pollock and Ntini bowled perfectly well throughout the tournament, and were both exceptional early in that game. Indeed, Kallis too started very well. The only bowler who never settled in that game was Allan Donald. Lara got away first, then Powell and Sarwan absurdly managed to smash it all over everywhere.

 

[Richard]

and because of course you can say that that plan was executed just as perfectly a 100 times before?
i can assure you that martyn has been out several times before that series in similar fashion, except no other team tried to do it everytime. and yes martyn is still going to average 40 because just like most weaknesses, he obviously worked on it.

Martyn first had that weakness noted in a major fashion by New Zealand in 2001\02. I can't see any evidence he's done that much work on it - it simply is one of those faults that will get you out occasionally but will also get you one hell of a lot of runs. I don't see that it's that difficult to bowl, so I don't see that teams would either have decided not to try it or failed to execute it well.

no i cant see how you can so easily claim that the ball is something that gilchrist would have put away, because all we know is that it was good enough to get the outside edge.

Like I say - I consider it a case of Gilchrist being poor enough on this occasion to nick it.

 

[marc71178]

Because it was a plan unlikely to pay much dividends?
Given that almost everyone has tried it and the batsman in question still averages over 40 in ODIs.

So I assume you know that a lot of sides have targetted him in this way then?

Or are you desperately trying to cover yourself because Harmison bowled to a plan and succeeded from it?

In fact it's no different from your comments "Hayden is easy to dismiss".

 

[Richard]

Not really - Hayden is easy to dismiss, if you can bowl inswing (which not that many bowlers can at the present time).
However, ANYONE can bowl a few Long-Hops outside off.
I couldn't, frankly, give a damn about who the bowler was - it's a single wicket, it makes little or no odds - Harmison has still by-and-large been a pretty poor ODI bowler, and if that delivery had gone for six instead of to Third-Man it'd not make any real difference here or there.