World Cup 2015 (IV)

lardbucket wrote:quote from before the match:

"Vernon is a wonderful bowler who has performed well for us over the years," Domingo said at the time. "He has a good record in New Zealand and if there is anything in the wicket to exploit, we know he is the person to do it."

Domingo's pronouncements are not worth the paper they are written on.

So it's all rumour and nudge-nudge innuendo then, but we're still prepared to slander Philander's selection as a 'quota selection' rather than a possible selection error, and to extrapolate from that that it was a significant contributory factor in South Africa's loss to a worthy opponent.

I had hoped for better from you.

lardbucket wrote:So it's all rumour and nudge-nudge innuendo then, but we're still prepared to slander Philander's selection as a 'quota selection' rather than a possible selection error, and to extrapolate from that that it was a significant contributory factor in South Africa's loss to a worthy opponent.

I had hoped for better from you.

And once again I refer you to my posts. From the off I made it clear it was a rumour. Once again I said on a number of occasions that it was a contributory factor, not specifying how significant.

Likewise, I would have expected you to comment on what I wrote, not what you think I said.

Yes, it's a vicious rumour, spread AFTER the game.

You would do well to take your own advice.

Domingo 'clueless', 'pronouncements not worth the paper they're written on', Philander 'not even worthy of a position in the squad' ... it doesn't read well. And if I disagree with you, I must condone quota selections, 'black on white racism must be acceptable', and I 'don't have an argument'?

That's just sad.

embee wrote:maxwell and warner both have a good technique ...there problem is shot selection ( reverse ****** sweep) and how hard they go at the ball ... Mark Waugh commentating in the BBL was suggesting he may have been working with Maxy and Nic Maddinson to tone down their crazy playing ...if so it has worked on maxy during the gilly  

are you ****** kidding?
warners technique isnt too bad,. he actually looks like a real cricketer. but maxwell...no footwork no style no nothing he just closes his eyes and slogs. good technique is beautiful to watch. theres poetry in it. maxwell is as smooth and graceful as a drunk and crippled carthorse
its painful to say but id rather watch watson bat

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:its painful to say but id rather watch watson bat

short attention span?

lardbucket wrote:Yes, it's a vicious rumour, spread AFTER the game.

You would do well to take your own advice.

Domingo 'clueless', 'pronouncements not worth the paper they're written on', Philander 'not even worthy of a position in the squad' ... it doesn't read well. And if I disagree with you, I must condone quota selections, 'black on white racism must be acceptable', and I 'don't have an argument'?

That's just sad.

Once again read my posts. I have been saying for over two years that he should not be in the ODI squad for a number of reasons. Why did you not take issue with it then.

Oh, so it is only acceptable for Aussies to call coaches useless. Reference Buchanan and Arthur.

The comment about 1970 was sad and had no bearing on the discussion.

lardbucket wrote:

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:its painful to say but id rather watch watson bat

short attention span?

hes a bit wooden but not downright ugly which is more than you can say about maxwell. and at least you know it will all be over pretty quickly

taips ... so you still don't understand or haven't properly thought through the 1970 comment; fine.

skully wrote:6!!!!!! Shaggers make the Final.

Two run outs (missed) and Elliott being dropped cost the Yarps big time.

Well done to the Snoozies.

yep

lardbucket wrote:taips ... so you still don't understand or haven't properly thought through the 1970 comment; fine.

TBH I don't understand the relevance in this discussion.

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:

embee wrote:maxwell and warner both have a good technique ...there problem is shot selection ( reverse ****** sweep) and how hard they go at the ball ... Mark Waugh commentating in the BBL was suggesting he may have been working with Maxy and Nic Maddinson to tone down their crazy playing ...if so it has worked on maxy during the gilly  

are you ****** kidding?
warners technique isnt too bad,.  he actually looks like a real cricketer.  but maxwell...no footwork no style no nothing he just closes his eyes and slogs.    good technique is beautiful to watch.  theres  poetry in it.  maxwell is as smooth and graceful as a drunk and crippled carthorse
its painful to say but id rather watch watson bat

no ...i'm not kidding

maxwells feet get into the right position ...where his bat is swinging may not be correct though ...you dont get the power he gets if you dont have your feet right

Errrr .... distribution of weight might be vital, but there's more to "good technique" than that, surely?

It's a bit like saying a high-jumper's technique is good, because s/he gets good power into the lift-off. "Well, occasionally gets over a very decent height, sometimes headbutts one of the supports or misses the pit ... good technique nonetheless."

get your weight wrong and see how good your technique can be

Sometimes I think good technique is overrated.

embee wrote:get your weight wrong and see how good your technique can be

How does that contradict what I said?

taipan wrote:Sometimes I think good technique is overrated.

Whether you meant that ironically or not, FWIW I think that's largely true with T20, partly true w 50 overs, more debatable in Tests.

Admittedly, EOTE (Easy on the Eye) Ian Bell being at the other end of the spectrum from, say, CGS David Warner,may be the best case for technique being overrated. It's not much use executing the textbook if your brain is chalk when the chips are down. (Mixed metaphor intended.)

lardbucket wrote:

Henry wrote:Hard to split Aus and NZ in this tournament. NZ beat Aus in Auckland, and Aus beat NZ in Melbourne.

This final could have been a different story had it been played in Auckland, but obviously it wasn't so we'll never know.

I don't think Australia will EVER learn to win with grace and dignity. They gave send-offs (the ugliest and most cowardly form of sledging, as the batsman has no choice but to walk off) to pretty much every NZ batsman, reinforcing their reputation as the ugliest team in world cricket on the biggest stage of all. Well done them.

I saw one send-off, given by Haddin to Guptill. It was indeed ugly and should not have occurred. Was there some background to this?

As for the rest ... "every NZ batsmen" ... well, I suspect that was in your imagination. You see what you wish to see. You really hate us all, don't you ... how depressing. I cannot conceive of a hatred so great that you imagine things where they do not exist, just so that you can shoot them down.

Starc seems to be a gormless gentle giant; I've never seen Smith do anything on the field that did not bring credit to the game and to him as a person, and even Clarke, who I'm not a big fan of, was very gracious in victory yesterday, praising NZ handsomely before accepting any kudos that might be coming Australia's way. He almost choked up at the mere thought and mention of Phil Hughes; I actually thought he was going to lose it for a moment, but he pulled himself together.

Haddin's always been a bit of a hard qunt; but you don't have to tarnish a nation or even all its cricketers because of his poor behaviour.

Graeme Swann to lead a sprinkler dance and/or piss on the pitch, anyone?

.

I have just come across this

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/coarse-tongues-leave-stain-on-the-cup-20150330-1mb9q3.html

and remembered this volley of exchanges.

Trev's difficulties with Australia - and by the looks of it, triumphalism in any form, presumably also English on those rare occasions - are legendary on this forum. However, if Baum is to be believed (and to repeat, I didn't see any of it), he was only somewhat overstating the case, not entirely fabricating a tendency out of one single incident and one single perp as Lardy suggests. Again, because I have no axe to grind here, I must add His Lardship does explicitly say the single incident is all he saw: not necessarily that this was all that may have happened somewhere out there.

True, Henry might have added an antidote of grace. If only to sugar the pill and give an impression he was not going off on one a bit.

So anyway, where does that leave us? ....

With Flaming Bails at its most flaming and bailsy, perhaps!


(Oh, and btw: apols if anyone else has linked to Baum's article already: either on this thread, or one of the many possible others where it may have cropped up like a mushroom in an unsuspected woodful of trees.

It may be reassuring to any reader to know, in any case, that I emphatically do not actually have mammaries, pleasant to behold or otherwise. And life's too short to comb every bloody thread just in case - even of this most august of virtual publications. Duplication can, after all, always be ignored. It's hardly a capital offence.

Or is it?)

PeterCS wrote:

taipan wrote:Sometimes I think good technique is overrated.

Whether you meant that ironically or not, FWIW I think that's largely true with T20, partly true w 50 overs, more debatable in Tests.

Admittedly, EOTE (Easy on the Eye) Ian Bell being at the other end of the spectrum from, say, CGS David Warner,may be the best case for technique being overrated. It's not much use executing the textbook if your brain is chalk when the chips are down. (Mixed metaphor intended.)

Not being the slightest bit ironic. I have felt for the some time that overemphasis on technique and coaching are a problem in the game. Particularly in England.

The likes of GP, Graeme Smith, Lara and Chanders are a long way from technically correct but they were all useful in tests. But that could be a LH thing.

I suppose it also depends whether "good technique" means "perfect, immaculate, 'textbook' - and that with every conceivable shot in the locker" at one extreme, or "perfectly adequate for purpose, with no recurrent glaring flaws, if with a rather limited safe repertoire of shots", at the other.

"Good" has a wide range of meanings, after all.

I wouldn't say any of those you mentioned had/has a faulty technique. Even Biff, who perhaps had the most dubious footwork of those few, was generally there or thereabouts when planting his plates, and swung the willow through an approximately accurate arc with sufficiently decent timing more often than not. And when he was anywhere on song, was of course much better than those minimal requirements for success. ...

I read the Baum article, didn't know what to make of it really, as I didn't see the end of the match... seems to be going a little overboard. Haddin is awful though, just a terrible sportsman. This does strike a familiar chord:

"What is objectionable is the snark, the cattiness, the hissing, the goads and provocations, the infantilism. What is objectionable is the faux offence taken should an opponent be so impertinent as to reply. "

PeterCS wrote:I suppose it also depends whether "good technique" means "perfect, immaculate, 'textbook' - and that with every conceivable shot in the locker" at one extreme, or "perfectly adequate for purpose, with no recurrent glaring flaws, if with a rather limited safe repertoire of shots", at the other.

"Good" has a wide range of meanings, after all.

I wouldn't say any of those you mentioned had/has a faulty technique. Even Biff, who perhaps had the most dubious footwork of those few, was generally there or thereabouts when planting his plates, and swung the willow through an approximately accurate arc with sufficiently decent timing more often than not. And when he was anywhere on song, was of course much better than those minimal requirements for success. ...

Some straw splitting here. I have never heard Smith's technique described anywhere near good. My point is that you find what works for you and you work around it. No coach would accept that in England.

Now on to Chanderpaul.

PeterCS wrote:

taipan wrote:Sometimes I think good technique is overrated.

Whether you meant that ironically or not, FWIW I think that's largely true with T20, partly true w 50 overs, more debatable in Tests.

Admittedly, EOTE (Easy on the Eye) Ian Bell being at the other end of the spectrum from, say, CGS David Warner,may be the best case for technique being overrated. It's not much use executing the textbook if your brain is chalk when the chips are down. (Mixed metaphor intended.)

its hard to argue with success and maxwell is successful at the short game. how long he can keep doing that i dunno. technique can make up to some degree for physical deficiencies. but without it as soon as theres the slightest degeneration in eyesight or balance youll go downhill

embee
surely good technique involves the feet and the body and the bat working together. its not necessarily all about textbook style like watson but about getting things working properly together. maxwell doesnt do that. the feet are here the eyes are there and much of the time the bats coming through on an entirely inappropriate arc. its effective when he connects but it mostly looks like that connection is sheer chance
i dont mind batting ugly from some guys cause it looks like theyre in control. but maxwell never looks like hes really in control of where that ball is going

Maxwell actually played well in last season's Shield...much to my amazement...he can dial it back

as for the 'rumoured' quota selection of Philander (or was it Morkel?), this sounds arrant nonsense being peddled by those Saffies trying to avoid the chokers tag...pretty low act...

The two bungled run-outs and comedy dropped catch in the latter stages showed that an otherwise peerless fielding team had panicked and dropped their bundle - as saffie teams have a habit of doing