AUS v NZ 3rd Test

Back

AUS v NZ 3rd Test

Author	Message
MikeR	MikeR Posted 5 Years Ago #2870361
Hacker Group: Forum Members Posts: 478, Visits: 0	+x Decentric - 11 Jan 2020 9:33 AM +x MikeR - 11 Jan 2020 8:19 AM +x Paddles - 10 Jan 2020 3:57 PM +x baggygreenmania - 10 Jan 2020 9:53 AM +x Paddles - 9 Jan 2020 1:07 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 5:02 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 4:19 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 2:24 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 2:18 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:42 PM I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. Figures can lie DC. imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it. How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee... One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening... Unauthodox, unique whatever. None of those bowlers listed bowl the way he does. In fact I dont know anyone outside of the England team of 1932/33 that employ this tactic. It shud be banned.. then Wagner will revert to being the in/out bog ordinary trundler that he was. You don't remember Johnson, Thommo, the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. The real difference with Wagner is twofold; 1 his stamina to keep it going for longer and repeatedly than Johnson et al could muster, but then he is a lot slot slower, so that will help his stamina levels and 2, his accuracy in keeping it below the head, not that the WI quartet or Thomo Lillee et al had to worry about that rule which was brought in to negate the WI tactics of the 1970's and 1980's in 1994. What I find most amusing, is that batsman are allowed to walk outside leg or bat in front of their stumps,... The batsman seems to be allowed the entire crease, but the bowler not. Hardly seems fair. You don't remember the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. No. I watched quite a deal of them so surely I'd have remembered any condemnation of Bodyline tactics. Wagner is given the whole crease. The batsman is not trying to kill you with a hard leather ball. So totally fair. But the Windies were't openly condemned for it.Nor is Wagner being condemned. And to be honest, its just leg theory, not Body line, the fields are totally different - he wants the batsman playing shots, not just fending to leg slips and gully. For the WI quartet era, whenever safety was raised, Viv would point out that he does not bat in a helmet. Nor did Richardson. In fact, when Marshall asked Boon whether he was going to get out or whether he had to go around the wicket and kill him, there were even chuckles in that era. Post Hughes, those comments would rightly be criticised and widely as horridly inappropriate. But the West Indies bouncer barrage was so common for 20 years, that the bouncer restriction rule was put in place in 1994. Minimum over rates were introduced as well, cos the WInides would bowl as few as 9 overs an hour.If you need a refresher on how the Windies bowled - this might jog your memory. This is the test that Gatting nearly loses his face.The trouble was the uneven bounce. If somebody’s bowls two balls in the same spot at that pace, and one goes past your neck and one goes past your ankles, you’re knackered.”"Peter WilleyForgive me for being so bold, but I am not entirely convinced you remember WI cricket before 1994. EVen after the bouncer law, Steve Waugh made a name for himself in the WI in 1995 - wearing many shots all over his body because he put the pull and hook away. Ambrose, Walsh, et al still served him plenty of short stuff. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/13/scariest-test-england-ever-played-terror-west-indies-cricket-1986-patrick-patterson "We didn’t mind the bouncers; that’s the way cricket was. They could bowl you four or five bouncers an over and it wasn’t a bother, you learned how to play them. But nothing was "DELIBERATELY PITCHED OUTSIDE LEG with an obvious LEG THEORY FIELD". WAGNER AIMS FOR THE BODY. HE IS BOWLING BODYLINE". My last word on the subject. All bouncers are aimed at the body. How else could they ever get a wicket. Whether its the badge on the helmet or the ribs, all bouncers are aimed at the batsman on a bodyline. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp17RYl5d1M - where are these head shots aimed at? The stumps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cozSq8XC-LU - This is where the WI start it in 1976. Look what happens to Close. SOmeome tell me where Michael Holding is aiming if not the body? He tenderises him up like a cheap steak ready to be bbq'd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOOQn-kGpGk - at the 1 min mark - another West Indian favourite - long made famous by Roberts, Croft and Marshall, here Ambrose bowls AROUND the wicket to a rhb and bounces him. Now its impossible to get more deliberately pitching wide outside leg, than a rhb bowler - bowling to a rhb AROUND the wicket.... Remember Marshall's sledge to Boon - you gonna get out or do I have to bowl around the wicket and kill you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VOGoiaZlX8 - was there always someone out to catch the hook shot? You bet cha. It was just over and over of this stuff - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0O3oK9bSBI - - and noone retired more batsmen out hurt than Courtney Walsh. Watch him in that long video in Australia take out Wessels. Brute of a ball. This may your last word on the subject, but its quite bizarre you think the bouncer is aimed somewhere other than at a batsman. And even more so if you do not think the WI field was set for the bouncer barrage. The WI were right handed bowlers, thus a lot of the fending off of bouncers from an angle in went to slips, but sometimes - they would bowl around the wicket. Now - there is no lbw or even bowleds if the batsman stands ground to around the wicket.That is just to rough the batsman up. And they did it. To claim that Wagner is doing anything near as rough as what the WI did is laughable. Let alone that he doing something worse. But how as a cricket fan you could forget the WI bouncer barrage of the quartet - I am simply astonished. Its one of the most famous ever phases of cricket history. Fire in Babylon. You don't have to saviour Wagner's success - but it would be nice to have some objective perspective on this as against WI, THommo, Mitch J, etc - FIre in Babylon trailer - a must watch for any cricket fan who wants to know about the famous WI quartet teams of LLoyd and Richards, the why's and how's. A young Jason Holder is the kid playing on the beach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwHgNJCI1mo Paddles, watch it you're using basic geometry there, it may go over some heads. Right hand bowlers going over the wicket to a right hand batsman will always pitch the ball outside off, even though it will hit the head. When the West Indies were bowling they were all right arm bowlers (I'm sure you may think of a left armer but I can't off the top of my head), and at the time left hand batsmen were a rarity, there were some like Border and Wessels and basic geometry does state that to hit the stumps or bounce the batsman most balls would indeed pitch outside leg to a left handed batsman. Here is an example of Baggers favourite Glenn McGrath taking his hatrick, a right arm bowler over the wicket to 1 right hander and 2 left handers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Toky3I9RKXE By the way Baggers, Inside Sport is a sporting magazine which has a forum attached to it, and in the true sense of the word is a public meeting place for the exchange of ideas. In roman times where the word originated it was a place of debate, arguments for and against an idea. Most probably the magazine welcomes the forum to allow the development of stories, so an argument backed up by documentation, that Paddles and I do supply, is probably more welcome than a friendly pow wow. Afterall the authors of the stories don't want to publish something that can be ripped apart for being incorrect, it would lead to a diminished reputation of the author and the publication. I doubt very much Inside Sport is going to publish "Because Baggers says so". Documentation to support makes it harder to argue against. But because You were so polite Baggers with no chastisement from DC I may pop in now and again if my schedule allows it. Also DC you have appeared to blame my presence for absent posters, who have always disappeared when cricket is not on, especially Bobbie the charming lady on this site, who hasn't posted for months now, before I came back. I hardly think she is psychic, Who knows maybe some creepy guy sent a personal message to her maybe asking to catch up with her, that has put her off coming back, that has happened on other sites that I know of and is unfortunately the negative aspect of forum sites with personal message attachments. Very inappropriate behaviour if you ask me if that is the case, but only Bobbie could explain her reasons for not being here, and I doubt very much it has to do with me. Mike, a guy who has played a fair bit of cricket, who welcomed you back , and I know each other off forum. You don't seem to be aware of how you can be perceived. I didn't read it, but he thought you posted a comment maligning the lack of cricket knowledge on here. He is reluctant to disseminate his quite vast knowledge as much as I'd like him to. Your comment to Paddles, about going over some heads, is offensive. And - can be construed as arrogant. It can be difficult if one feels like they have a deeper understanding of a sport, not to appear patronising. It may not be you, personally, who has in any way contributed to the lower traffic on the forum, but some withdraw from adversarial polemics. It can be a question of humility. I think everybody reading your links to articles enjoys the content, but being friendly towards others and sometimes appreciating some inherent value in what they post is a gracious gesture and paramount for a convivial forum. As for the PM system, it can be useful. I've met up face to face with two posters on this site - using PM as a mechanism. Since you've last posted on here, possibly around The Ashes, Baggers has attended a Shield game with me in Tas and has interacted with a lot of my TCA cricket mates - some who have played at a much higher level of cricket than you. I'm not sure if you've played Shield, English County or First Grade? Baggers interacted well with all of these cricket mates - regardless of cricket knowledge differential amongst any of the TCA Members. FWIW I don't think you are as biased a Queenslander as you've been accused of, but you seem to have an obsession with trying to stir Baggers up, or, get his attention. Particularly since returning. Remember I started a thread on this site a while back lauding the high quality of this forum, with you being one of a number of key contributors to the quality of it. Arrogance - unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important, or know more than other people. Not a pleasant definition is it? Firstly you do speak of Grazor who referred to NZ as "the cheaters" in around 30 posts deliberately riling up Paddles? Without telling you too much about myself bar I am on numerous sites worldwide under many names including Whirlpool which I have to do. I have no interest in posting on this particular site, but I do read everything here and I mean everything, eg Baggers post about me not being required to participate as I am bias. (glad to see you don't see that in me, because I can assure you I am not, I couldn't care less who makes up the Australian side, it's not in my job description.) There is not much that I miss, you don't have to tell me who Bobbie is because I know exactly who she is because I read everything. I know all about your get together with Baggers in Tasmania, have no interest in it but I do know about it, it is irrelevant to what I do. After reading your complaints about the trolls on Whirlpool , and then do exactly the same to Paddles, causing him to lose it in a post you deleted, see I do see everything, you would think that you may pull it in, especially considering how you started the thread on how this forum is of such high quality. You want that definition of arrogance again? You're the only forum in the world that has a unique thread on that. Now Paddles doesn't need me to fight his battles he is brilliant at doing that himself and I know Paddles on many different forums, but he just doesn't realize it is me, so much so I did advise him to ignore the personal attacks on a different site. Amazing how someone that actually knows something about cricket can within 10 posts of coming back can show how quickly you can undermine. So currently we have Baggers wanting myself and Paddles removed from the site, yourself chastising me, etc, etc, etc. Point proven??? Doesn't feel good does it. You're Australian after all. Edited 5 Years Ago by Decentric
	Reply

Decentric	Decentric Posted 5 Years Ago #2870330
Legend Group: Awaiting Activation Posts: 22K, Visits: 0	+x baggygreenmania - 10 Jan 2020 2:22 PM There are some on here that love bagging Tim Paine's keeping. Moreso on that other moronic site. JL calls Paine still the world's best keeper. Who are we to argue. https://youtu.be/sBZY64ix440 I heard some local specialist sporting commentators discussing this issue in the local media yesterday on ABC radio. They claimed there were a particular elements in the media who had been advancing that Paine should be replaced by Smith as captain, and, Carey as keeper /batter. Once again, even though Mike alludes to Boucher declaring QDK as top keeper in the world, there are some claiming Paine is, means he is considered a high quality keeper - who should be representing this country, particularly with experts claiming Carey is a long way behind. I think I also saw it posted on here, that Paine has listened to advice from Ian Healy, and improved, possibly from Mike. Amother comment from the ABC radio discussion was that Peter Siddle has never seen such good camaraderie in the Australian team in any era he has played in. He attributed this to Paine and Langer. Siddle said the atmosphere was quite different. The pundits claim that it is a strength of Paine's having been Bailey's understudy for a long time. Plus Bailey is one of Paine's best mates. The radio discussion also alluded to Matt Wade being in a precarious position to be dropped - because he hasn't taken the most of his opportunities in Test cricket. On the other hand, Head is perceived as a young cricketer improving with a Test average of 40 plus - most of it played at home though. Edited 5 Years Ago by Decentric
	Reply
Decentric	Decentric Posted 5 Years Ago #2870325
Legend Group: Awaiting Activation Posts: 22K, Visits: 0	+x MikeR - 11 Jan 2020 8:19 AM +x Paddles - 10 Jan 2020 3:57 PM +x baggygreenmania - 10 Jan 2020 9:53 AM +x Paddles - 9 Jan 2020 1:07 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 5:02 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 4:19 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 2:24 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 2:18 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:42 PM I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. Figures can lie DC. imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it. How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee... One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening... Unauthodox, unique whatever. None of those bowlers listed bowl the way he does. In fact I dont know anyone outside of the England team of 1932/33 that employ this tactic. It shud be banned.. then Wagner will revert to being the in/out bog ordinary trundler that he was. You don't remember Johnson, Thommo, the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. The real difference with Wagner is twofold; 1 his stamina to keep it going for longer and repeatedly than Johnson et al could muster, but then he is a lot slot slower, so that will help his stamina levels and 2, his accuracy in keeping it below the head, not that the WI quartet or Thomo Lillee et al had to worry about that rule which was brought in to negate the WI tactics of the 1970's and 1980's in 1994. What I find most amusing, is that batsman are allowed to walk outside leg or bat in front of their stumps,... The batsman seems to be allowed the entire crease, but the bowler not. Hardly seems fair. You don't remember the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. No. I watched quite a deal of them so surely I'd have remembered any condemnation of Bodyline tactics. Wagner is given the whole crease. The batsman is not trying to kill you with a hard leather ball. So totally fair. But the Windies were't openly condemned for it.Nor is Wagner being condemned. And to be honest, its just leg theory, not Body line, the fields are totally different - he wants the batsman playing shots, not just fending to leg slips and gully. For the WI quartet era, whenever safety was raised, Viv would point out that he does not bat in a helmet. Nor did Richardson. In fact, when Marshall asked Boon whether he was going to get out or whether he had to go around the wicket and kill him, there were even chuckles in that era. Post Hughes, those comments would rightly be criticised and widely as horridly inappropriate. But the West Indies bouncer barrage was so common for 20 years, that the bouncer restriction rule was put in place in 1994. Minimum over rates were introduced as well, cos the WInides would bowl as few as 9 overs an hour.If you need a refresher on how the Windies bowled - this might jog your memory. This is the test that Gatting nearly loses his face.The trouble was the uneven bounce. If somebody’s bowls two balls in the same spot at that pace, and one goes past your neck and one goes past your ankles, you’re knackered.”"Peter WilleyForgive me for being so bold, but I am not entirely convinced you remember WI cricket before 1994. EVen after the bouncer law, Steve Waugh made a name for himself in the WI in 1995 - wearing many shots all over his body because he put the pull and hook away. Ambrose, Walsh, et al still served him plenty of short stuff. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/13/scariest-test-england-ever-played-terror-west-indies-cricket-1986-patrick-patterson "We didn’t mind the bouncers; that’s the way cricket was. They could bowl you four or five bouncers an over and it wasn’t a bother, you learned how to play them. But nothing was "DELIBERATELY PITCHED OUTSIDE LEG with an obvious LEG THEORY FIELD". WAGNER AIMS FOR THE BODY. HE IS BOWLING BODYLINE". My last word on the subject. All bouncers are aimed at the body. How else could they ever get a wicket. Whether its the badge on the helmet or the ribs, all bouncers are aimed at the batsman on a bodyline. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp17RYl5d1M - where are these head shots aimed at? The stumps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cozSq8XC-LU - This is where the WI start it in 1976. Look what happens to Close. SOmeome tell me where Michael Holding is aiming if not the body? He tenderises him up like a cheap steak ready to be bbq'd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOOQn-kGpGk - at the 1 min mark - another West Indian favourite - long made famous by Roberts, Croft and Marshall, here Ambrose bowls AROUND the wicket to a rhb and bounces him. Now its impossible to get more deliberately pitching wide outside leg, than a rhb bowler - bowling to a rhb AROUND the wicket.... Remember Marshall's sledge to Boon - you gonna get out or do I have to bowl around the wicket and kill you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VOGoiaZlX8 - was there always someone out to catch the hook shot? You bet cha. It was just over and over of this stuff - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0O3oK9bSBI - - and noone retired more batsmen out hurt than Courtney Walsh. Watch him in that long video in Australia take out Wessels. Brute of a ball. This may your last word on the subject, but its quite bizarre you think the bouncer is aimed somewhere other than at a batsman. And even more so if you do not think the WI field was set for the bouncer barrage. The WI were right handed bowlers, thus a lot of the fending off of bouncers from an angle in went to slips, but sometimes - they would bowl around the wicket. Now - there is no lbw or even bowleds if the batsman stands ground to around the wicket.That is just to rough the batsman up. And they did it. To claim that Wagner is doing anything near as rough as what the WI did is laughable. Let alone that he doing something worse. But how as a cricket fan you could forget the WI bouncer barrage of the quartet - I am simply astonished. Its one of the most famous ever phases of cricket history. Fire in Babylon. You don't have to saviour Wagner's success - but it would be nice to have some objective perspective on this as against WI, THommo, Mitch J, etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwHgNJCI1mo - FIre in Babylon trailer - a must watch for any cricket fan who wants to know about the famous WI quartet teams of LLoyd and Richards, the why's and how's. A young Jason Holder is the kid playing on the beach. Paddles, watch it you're using basic geometry there, it may go over some heads. Right hand bowlers going over the wicket to a right hand batsman will always pitch the ball outside off, even though it will hit the head. When the West Indies were bowling they were all right arm bowlers (I'm sure you may think of a left armer but I can't off the top of my head), and at the time left hand batsmen were a rarity, there were some like Border and Wessels and basic geometry does state that to hit the stumps or bounce the batsman most balls would indeed pitch outside leg to a left handed batsman. Here is an example of Baggers favourite Glenn McGrath taking his hatrick, a right arm bowler over the wicket to 1 right hander and 2 left handers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Toky3I9RKXE By the way Baggers, Inside Sport is a sporting magazine which has a forum attached to it, and in the true sense of the word is a public meeting place for the exchange of ideas. In roman times where the word originated it was a place of debate, arguments for and against an idea. Most probably the magazine welcomes the forum to allow the development of stories, so an argument backed up by documentation, that Paddles and I do supply, is probably more welcome than a friendly pow wow. Afterall the authors of the stories don't want to publish something that can be ripped apart for being incorrect, it would lead to a diminished reputation of the author and the publication. I doubt very much Inside Sport is going to publish "Because Baggers says so". Documentation to support makes it harder to argue against. But because You were so polite Baggers with no chastisement from DC I may pop in now and again if my schedule allows it. Also DC you have appeared to blame my presence for absent posters, who have always disappeared when cricket is not on, especially Bobbie the charming lady on this site, who hasn't posted for months now, before I came back. I hardly think she is psychic, Who knows maybe some creepy guy sent a personal message to her maybe asking to catch up with her, that has put her off coming back, that has happened on other sites that I know of and is unfortunately the negative aspect of forum sites with personal message attachments. Very inappropriate behaviour if you ask me if that is the case, but only Bobbie could explain her reasons for not being here, and I doubt very much it has to do with me. Mike, a guy who has played a fair bit of cricket, who welcomed you back , and I know each other off forum. You don't seem to be aware of how you can be perceived. I didn't read it, but he thought you posted a comment maligning the lack of cricket knowledge on here. He is reluctant to disseminate his quite vast knowledge as much as I'd like him to. Your comment to Paddles, about going over some heads, is offensive. And - can be construed as arrogant. It can be difficult if one feels like they have a deeper understanding of a sport, not to appear patronising. It may not be you, personally, who has in any way contributed to the lower traffic on the forum, but some withdraw from adversarial polemics. It can be a question of humility. I think everybody reading your links to articles enjoys the content, but being friendly towards others and sometimes appreciating some inherent value in what they post is a gracious gesture and paramount for a convivial forum. As for the PM system, it can be useful. I've met up face to face with two posters on this site - using PM as a mechanism. Since you've last posted on here, possibly around The Ashes, Baggers has attended a Shield game with me in Tas and has interacted with a lot of my TCA cricket mates - some who have played at a much higher level of cricket than you. I'm not sure if you've played Shield, English County or First Grade? Baggers interacted well with all of these cricket mates - regardless of cricket knowledge differential amongst any of the TCA Members. FWIW I don't think you are as biased a Queenslander as you've been accused of, but you seem to have an obsession with trying to stir Baggers up, or, get his attention. Particularly since returning. Remember I started a thread on this site a while back lauding the high quality of this forum, with you being one of a number of key contributors to the quality of it. Edited 5 Years Ago by Decentric
	Reply
MikeR	MikeR Posted 5 Years Ago #2870313
Hacker Group: Forum Members Posts: 478, Visits: 0	+x Paddles - 10 Jan 2020 3:57 PM +x baggygreenmania - 10 Jan 2020 9:53 AM +x Paddles - 9 Jan 2020 1:07 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 5:02 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 4:19 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 2:24 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 2:18 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:42 PM I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. Figures can lie DC. imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it. How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee... One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening... Unauthodox, unique whatever. None of those bowlers listed bowl the way he does. In fact I dont know anyone outside of the England team of 1932/33 that employ this tactic. It shud be banned.. then Wagner will revert to being the in/out bog ordinary trundler that he was. You don't remember Johnson, Thommo, the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. The real difference with Wagner is twofold; 1 his stamina to keep it going for longer and repeatedly than Johnson et al could muster, but then he is a lot slot slower, so that will help his stamina levels and 2, his accuracy in keeping it below the head, not that the WI quartet or Thomo Lillee et al had to worry about that rule which was brought in to negate the WI tactics of the 1970's and 1980's in 1994. What I find most amusing, is that batsman are allowed to walk outside leg or bat in front of their stumps,... The batsman seems to be allowed the entire crease, but the bowler not. Hardly seems fair. You don't remember the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. No. I watched quite a deal of them so surely I'd have remembered any condemnation of Bodyline tactics. Wagner is given the whole crease. The batsman is not trying to kill you with a hard leather ball. So totally fair. But the Windies were't openly condemned for it.Nor is Wagner being condemned. And to be honest, its just leg theory, not Body line, the fields are totally different - he wants the batsman playing shots, not just fending to leg slips and gully. For the WI quartet era, whenever safety was raised, Viv would point out that he does not bat in a helmet. Nor did Richardson. In fact, when Marshall asked Boon whether he was going to get out or whether he had to go around the wicket and kill him, there were even chuckles in that era. Post Hughes, those comments would rightly be criticised and widely as horridly inappropriate. But the West Indies bouncer barrage was so common for 20 years, that the bouncer restriction rule was put in place in 1994. Minimum over rates were introduced as well, cos the WInides would bowl as few as 9 overs an hour. If you need a refresher on how the Windies bowled - this might jog your memory. This is the test that Gatting nearly loses his face. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/13/scariest-test-england-ever-played-terror-west-indies-cricket-1986-patrick-patterson "We didn’t mind the bouncers; that’s the way cricket was. They could bowl you four or five bouncers an over and it wasn’t a bother, you learned how to play them. The trouble was the uneven bounce. If somebody’s bowls two balls in the same spot at that pace, and one goes past your neck and one goes past your ankles, you’re knackered.”" Peter Willey Forgive me for being so bold, but I am not entirely convinced you remember WI cricket before 1994. EVen after the bouncer law, Steve Waugh made a name for himself in the WI in 1995 - wearing many shots all over his body because he put the pull and hook away. Ambrose, Walsh, et al still served him plenty of short stuff. But nothing was "DELIBERATELY PITCHED OUTSIDE LEG with an obvious LEG THEORY FIELD". WAGNER AIMS FOR THE BODY. HE IS BOWLING BODYLINE". My last word on the subject. All bouncers are aimed at the body. How else could they ever get a wicket. Whether its the badge on the helmet or the ribs, all bouncers are aimed at the batsman on a bodyline. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp17RYl5d1M - where are these head shots aimed at? The stumps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cozSq8XC-LU - This is where the WI start it in 1976. Look what happens to Close. SOmeome tell me where Michael Holding is aiming if not the body? He tenderises him up like a cheap steak ready to be bbq'd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOOQn-kGpGk - at the 1 min mark - another West Indian favourite - long made famous by Roberts, Croft and Marshall, here Ambrose bowls AROUND the wicket to a rhb and bounces him. Now its impossible to get more deliberately pitching wide outside leg, than a rhb bowler - bowling to a rhb AROUND the wicket.... Remember Marshall's sledge to Boon - you gonna get out or do I have to bowl around the wicket and kill you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VOGoiaZlX8 - was there always someone out to catch the hook shot? You bet cha. It was just over and over of this stuff - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0O3oK9bSBI - - and noone retired more batsmen out hurt than Courtney Walsh. Watch him in that long video in Australia take out Wessels. Brute of a ball. This may your last word on the subject, but its quite bizarre you think the bouncer is aimed somewhere other than at a batsman. And even more so if you do not think the WI field was set for the bouncer barrage. The WI were right handed bowlers, thus a lot of the fending off of bouncers from an angle in went to slips, but sometimes - they would bowl around the wicket. Now - there is no lbw or even bowleds if the batsman stands ground to around the wicket.That is just to rough the batsman up. And they did it. To claim that Wagner is doing anything near as rough as what the WI did is laughable. Let alone that he doing something worse. But how as a cricket fan you could forget the WI bouncer barrage of the quartet - I am simply astonished. Its one of the most famous ever phases of cricket history. Fire in Babylon. You don't have to saviour Wagner's success - but it would be nice to have some objective perspective on this as against WI, THommo, Mitch J, etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwHgNJCI1mo - FIre in Babylon trailer - a must watch for any cricket fan who wants to know about the famous WI quartet teams of LLoyd and Richards, the why's and how's. A young Jason Holder is the kid playing on the beach. Paddles, watch it you're using basic geometry there, it may go over some heads. Right hand bowlers going over the wicket to a right hand batsman will always pitch the ball outside off, even though it will hit the head. When the West Indies were bowling they were all right arm bowlers (I'm sure you may think of a left armer but I can't off the top of my head), and at the time left hand batsmen were a rarity, there were some like Border and Wessels and basic geometry does state that to hit the stumps or bounce the batsman most balls would indeed pitch outside leg to a left handed batsman. Here is an example of Baggers favourite Glenn McGrath taking his hatrick, a right arm bowler over the wicket to 1 right hander and 2 left handers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Toky3I9RKXE Correct me if I'm wrong but to Cambell, a right hander, the ball pitched outside off but it appears to me to be at the line of the body when he got the edge actually if he missed it it may have struck him in the groin, and so much bodily injury could result from that, think of his abillity to have children. To Lara, a left hander, the ball pitched outside the line of leg and would have hit Lara if Lara didn't protect himself with the bat. But the best of all is poor Jimmy Adams another left hander, who Australia deliberately put a short leg in for the deliberate bouncer that pitched well outside leg, the big bullies, it's just not right, it was so deliberate and was a bodyline delivery. And of course reversing that a left arm bowler bowling over the wicket at a right hand batsmen will always pitch outside the line of leg if bowling at the line of the stumps. Geometry! Just because the batsman is in the way of the stumps isn't a left armers fault. Maybe Baggers wants all left arm bowlers banned, but that would mean all left hand batsmen would have to be banned. That's discrimination! Once again I may be wrong again, but if a team wants to stack 7 fielders on the leg side as long as only 2 are behind square leg, that is within the rules and if that is the line they wish to bowl once again within the rules. Since the West Indies changed the bouncer rules (a ball deemed to be going over the shoulders in a batting position) limiting the use to just 2 per over, there is no stipulation on the line of a delivery, apart from really wide of leg which the umpires can deem negative bowling. But if that is negative bowling, then surely stacking the field with 9 fielders on off with the bowler bowling 1 meter outside off is also negative bowling, but in fact is worse because the bowler has no intention of taking a wicket, because its not hitting the stumps, let it go through to the keeper. Even worse how about putting all the fielders on the boundary to prevent a run chase.....ITS JUST NOT CRICKET. By the way Baggers, Inside Sport is a sporting magazine which has a forum attached to it, and in the true sense of the word is a public meeting place for the exchange of ideas. In roman times where the word originated it was a place of debate, arguments for and against an idea. Most probably the magazine welcomes the forum to allow the development of stories, so an argument backed up by documentation, that Paddles and I do supply, is probably more welcome than a friendly pow wow. Afterall the authors of the stories don't want to publish something that can be ripped apart for being incorrect, it would lead to a diminished reputation of the author and the publication. I doubt very much Inside Sport is going to publish "Because Baggers says so". Documentation to support makes it harder to argue against. But because You were so polite Baggers with no chastisement from DC I may pop in now and again if my schedule allows it. Also DC you have appeared to blame my presence for absent posters, who have always disappeared when cricket is not on, especially Bobbie the charming lady on this site, who hasn't posted for months now, before I came back. I hardly think she is psychic, Who knows maybe some creepy guy sent a personal message to her maybe asking to catch up with her, that has put her off coming back, that has happened on other sites that I know of and is unfortunately the negative aspect of forum sites with personal message attachments. Very inappropriate behaviour if you ask me if that is the case, but only Bobbie could explain her reasons for not being here, and I doubt very much it has to do with me.
	Reply
Paddles	Paddles Posted 5 Years Ago #2870113
Semi-Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 1.5K, Visits: 0	+x baggygreenmania - 10 Jan 2020 9:53 AM +x Paddles - 9 Jan 2020 1:07 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 5:02 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 4:19 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 2:24 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 2:18 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:42 PM I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. Figures can lie DC. imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it. How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee... One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening... Unauthodox, unique whatever. None of those bowlers listed bowl the way he does. In fact I dont know anyone outside of the England team of 1932/33 that employ this tactic. It shud be banned.. then Wagner will revert to being the in/out bog ordinary trundler that he was. You don't remember Johnson, Thommo, the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. The real difference with Wagner is twofold; 1 his stamina to keep it going for longer and repeatedly than Johnson et al could muster, but then he is a lot slot slower, so that will help his stamina levels and 2, his accuracy in keeping it below the head, not that the WI quartet or Thomo Lillee et al had to worry about that rule which was brought in to negate the WI tactics of the 1970's and 1980's in 1994. What I find most amusing, is that batsman are allowed to walk outside leg or bat in front of their stumps,... The batsman seems to be allowed the entire crease, but the bowler not. Hardly seems fair. You don't remember the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. No. I watched quite a deal of them so surely I'd have remembered any condemnation of Bodyline tactics. Wagner is given the whole crease. The batsman is not trying to kill you with a hard leather ball. So totally fair. But the Windies were't openly condemned for it.Nor is Wagner being condemned. And to be honest, its just leg theory, not Body line, the fields are totally different - he wants the batsman playing shots, not just fending to leg slips and gully. For the WI quartet era, whenever safety was raised, Viv would point out that he does not bat in a helmet. Nor did Richardson. In fact, when Marshall asked Boon whether he was going to get out or whether he had to go around the wicket and kill him, there were even chuckles in that era. Post Hughes, those comments would rightly be criticised and widely as horridly inappropriate. But the West Indies bouncer barrage was so common for 20 years, that the bouncer restriction rule was put in place in 1994. Minimum over rates were introduced as well, cos the WInides would bowl as few as 9 overs an hour. If you need a refresher on how the Windies bowled - this might jog your memory. This is the test that Gatting nearly loses his face. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/13/scariest-test-england-ever-played-terror-west-indies-cricket-1986-patrick-patterson "We didn’t mind the bouncers; that’s the way cricket was. They could bowl you four or five bouncers an over and it wasn’t a bother, you learned how to play them. The trouble was the uneven bounce. If somebody’s bowls two balls in the same spot at that pace, and one goes past your neck and one goes past your ankles, you’re knackered.”" Peter Willey Forgive me for being so bold, but I am not entirely convinced you remember WI cricket before 1994. EVen after the bouncer law, Steve Waugh made a name for himself in the WI in 1995 - wearing many shots all over his body because he put the pull and hook away. Ambrose, Walsh, et al still served him plenty of short stuff. But nothing was "DELIBERATELY PITCHED OUTSIDE LEG with an obvious LEG THEORY FIELD". WAGNER AIMS FOR THE BODY. HE IS BOWLING BODYLINE". My last word on the subject. All bouncers are aimed at the body. How else could they ever get a wicket. Whether its the badge on the helmet or the ribs, all bouncers are aimed at the batsman on a bodyline. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp17RYl5d1M - where are these head shots aimed at? The stumps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cozSq8XC-LU - This is where the WI start it in 1976. Look what happens to Close. SOmeome tell me where Michael Holding is aiming if not the body? He tenderises him up like a cheap steak ready to be bbq'd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOOQn-kGpGk - at the 1 min mark - another West Indian favourite - long made famous by Roberts, Croft and Marshall, here Ambrose bowls AROUND the wicket to a rhb and bounces him. Now its impossible to get more deliberately pitching wide outside leg, than a rhb bowler - bowling to a rhb AROUND the wicket.... Remember Marshall's sledge to Boon - you gonna get out or do I have to bowl around the wicket and kill you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VOGoiaZlX8 - was there always someone out to catch the hook shot? You bet cha. It was just over and over of this stuff - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0O3oK9bSBI - - and noone retired more batsmen out hurt than Courtney Walsh. Watch him in that long video in Australia take out Wessels. Brute of a ball. This may your last word on the subject, but its quite bizarre you think the bouncer is aimed somewhere other than at a batsman. And even more so if you do not think the WI field was set for the bouncer barrage. The WI were right handed bowlers, thus a lot of the fending off of bouncers from an angle in went to slips, but sometimes - they would bowl around the wicket. Now - there is no lbw or even bowleds if the batsman stands ground to around the wicket.That is just to rough the batsman up. And they did it. To claim that Wagner is doing anything near as rough as what the WI did is laughable. Let alone that he doing something worse. But how as a cricket fan you could forget the WI bouncer barrage of the quartet - I am simply astonished. Its one of the most famous ever phases of cricket history. Fire in Babylon. You don't have to saviour Wagner's success - but it would be nice to have some objective perspective on this as against WI, THommo, Mitch J, etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwHgNJCI1mo - FIre in Babylon trailer - a must watch for any cricket fan who wants to know about the famous WI quartet teams of LLoyd and Richards, the why's and how's. A young Jason Holder is the kid playing on the beach. Edited 5 Years Ago by Paddles
	Reply
BaggyGreens	BaggyGreens Posted 5 Years Ago #2870091
Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 4.1K, Visits: 0	There are some on here that love bagging Tim Paine's keeping. Moreso on that other moronic site. JL calls Paine still the world's best keeper. Who are we to argue. https://youtu.be/sBZY64ix440 Edited 5 Years Ago by baggygreenmania
	Reply
BaggyGreens	BaggyGreens Posted 5 Years Ago #2870083
Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 4.1K, Visits: 0	bumping in case you missed it. "pro NSW progaganda" That is hypocritical crap. I have never been biased towards a bloke purely because he wears a two Blues cap.. I have always shown objectivity. Unlike you when it comes to those players wearing the maroon one. So dont go filling people here with your lies..just to denigrate me. Mike reckon its time to join Paddles elsewhere. Your kinda bias and arrogance aint needed here. You blokes are devisive.. not good form on this friendly forum. We may be small but we enjoy our little comments and debates.. but you always go over the top to prove your point. I think your prime concern is to bring down other posters.. arrogance and belittlement we dont need on this site. So please take another hike.. and make it permanent this time. I wont be posting on my own when Shield returns btw. Edited 5 Years Ago by baggygreenmania
	Reply
BaggyGreens	BaggyGreens Posted 5 Years Ago #2870033
Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 4.1K, Visits: 0	+x Paddles - 9 Jan 2020 1:07 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 5:02 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 4:19 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 2:24 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 2:18 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:42 PM I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. Figures can lie DC. imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it. How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee... One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening... Unauthodox, unique whatever. None of those bowlers listed bowl the way he does. In fact I dont know anyone outside of the England team of 1932/33 that employ this tactic. It shud be banned.. then Wagner will revert to being the in/out bog ordinary trundler that he was. You don't remember Johnson, Thommo, the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. The real difference with Wagner is twofold; 1 his stamina to keep it going for longer and repeatedly than Johnson et al could muster, but then he is a lot slot slower, so that will help his stamina levels and 2, his accuracy in keeping it below the head, not that the WI quartet or Thomo Lillee et al had to worry about that rule which was brought in to negate the WI tactics of the 1970's and 1980's in 1994. What I find most amusing, is that batsman are allowed to walk outside leg or bat in front of their stumps,... The batsman seems to be allowed the entire crease, but the bowler not. Hardly seems fair. You don't remember the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. No. I watched quite a deal of them so surely I'd have remembered any condemnation of Bodyline tactics. Wagner is given the whole crease. The batsman is not trying to kill you with a hard leather ball. So totally fair. But the Windies were't openly condemned for it.Nor is Wagner being condemned. And to be honest, its just leg theory, not Body line, the fields are totally different - he wants the batsman playing shots, not just fending to leg slips and gully. For the WI quartet era, whenever safety was raised, Viv would point out that he does not bat in a helmet. Nor did Richardson. In fact, when Marshall asked Boon whether he was going to get out or whether he had to go around the wicket and kill him, there were even chuckles in that era. Post Hughes, those comments would rightly be criticised and widely as horridly inappropriate. But the West Indies bouncer barrage was so common for 20 years, that the bouncer restriction rule was put in place in 1994. Minimum over rates were introduced as well, cos the WInides would bowl as few as 9 overs an hour. If you need a refresher on how the Windies bowled - this might jog your memory. This is the test that Gatting nearly loses his face. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/13/scariest-test-england-ever-played-terror-west-indies-cricket-1986-patrick-patterson "We didn’t mind the bouncers; that’s the way cricket was. They could bowl you four or five bouncers an over and it wasn’t a bother, you learned how to play them. The trouble was the uneven bounce. If somebody’s bowls two balls in the same spot at that pace, and one goes past your neck and one goes past your ankles, you’re knackered.”" Peter Willey Forgive me for being so bold, but I am not entirely convinced you remember WI cricket before 1994. EVen after the bouncer law, Steve Waugh made a name for himself in the WI in 1995 - wearing many shots all over his body because he put the pull and hook away. Ambrose, Walsh, et al still served him plenty of short stuff. But nothing was "DELIBERATELY PITCHED OUTSIDE LEG with an obvious LEG THEORY FIELD". WAGNER AIMS FOR THE BODY. HE IS BOWLING BODYLINE". My last word on the subject. Edited 5 Years Ago by baggygreenmania
	Reply
BaggyGreens	BaggyGreens Posted 5 Years Ago #2870031
Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 4.1K, Visits: 0	+x Decentric - 9 Jan 2020 9:18 AM Mike, we’ve generally had a pretty respectful forum. Since you’ve resurfaced with an adversarial tone towards Baggers in particular, a few polite posters have co-incidentally disappeared. We have also enjoyed female participation too. Fantastic that you are willing to research all those articles to substantiate your opinions, but one can let others decide how they interpret them. I would hate to see the friendly, polite folk of the forum disappear and the general convivial camaraderie also disappear. Nobody needs a PHD in cricket, but it is good to find like-minded people to have a friendly online chat. "pro NSW progaganda" That is crap. I have never been biased towards a bloke purely because he wears a two Blues cap.. I have always shown objectivity. So dont go filling people here with your lies..just to denigrate me. Mike reckon its time to join Paddles elsewhere. Your kinda bias and arrogance aint needed here. You are devisive.. not good form on this friendly forum. We may be small but we enjoy our little comments and debates.. but you always go over the top to prove your point. I think your prime concern is to bring down other posters.. arrogance and belittlement we dont need on this site. So please take another hike.. and make it permanent this time. Edited 5 Years Ago by baggygreenmania
	Reply
Paddles	Paddles Posted 5 Years Ago #2869848
Semi-Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 1.5K, Visits: 0	+x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 5:02 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 4:19 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 2:24 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 2:18 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:42 PM I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. Figures can lie DC. imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it. How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee... One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening... Unauthodox, unique whatever. None of those bowlers listed bowl the way he does. In fact I dont know anyone outside of the England team of 1932/33 that employ this tactic. It shud be banned.. then Wagner will revert to being the in/out bog ordinary trundler that he was. You don't remember Johnson, Thommo, the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. The real difference with Wagner is twofold; 1 his stamina to keep it going for longer and repeatedly than Johnson et al could muster, but then he is a lot slot slower, so that will help his stamina levels and 2, his accuracy in keeping it below the head, not that the WI quartet or Thomo Lillee et al had to worry about that rule which was brought in to negate the WI tactics of the 1970's and 1980's in 1994. What I find most amusing, is that batsman are allowed to walk outside leg or bat in front of their stumps,... The batsman seems to be allowed the entire crease, but the bowler not. Hardly seems fair. You don't remember the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. No. I watched quite a deal of them so surely I'd have remembered any condemnation of Bodyline tactics. Wagner is given the whole crease. The batsman is not trying to kill you with a hard leather ball. So totally fair. But the Windies were't openly condemned for it.Nor is Wagner being condemned. And to be honest, its just leg theory, not Body line, the fields are totally different - he wants the batsman playing shots, not just fending to leg slips and gully. For the WI quartet era, whenever safety was raised, Viv would point out that he does not bat in a helmet. Nor did Richardson. In fact, when Marshall asked Boon whether he was going to get out or whether he had to go around the wicket and kill him, there were even chuckles in that era. Post Hughes, those comments would rightly be criticised and widely as horridly inappropriate. But the West Indies bouncer barrage was so common for 20 years, that the bouncer restriction rule was put in place in 1994. Minimum over rates were introduced as well, cos the WInides would bowl as few as 9 overs an hour. If you need a refresher on how the Windies bowled - this might jog your memory. This is the test that Gatting nearly loses his face. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/13/scariest-test-england-ever-played-terror-west-indies-cricket-1986-patrick-patterson "We didn’t mind the bouncers; that’s the way cricket was. They could bowl you four or five bouncers an over and it wasn’t a bother, you learned how to play them. The trouble was the uneven bounce. If somebody’s bowls two balls in the same spot at that pace, and one goes past your neck and one goes past your ankles, you’re knackered.”" Peter Willey Forgive me for being so bold, but I am not entirely convinced you remember WI cricket before 1994. EVen after the bouncer law, Steve Waugh made a name for himself in the WI in 1995 - wearing many shots all over his body because he put the pull and hook away. Ambrose, Walsh, et al still served him plenty of short stuff. In fact - you may be the first keen cricket fan who professes ignorance on the WI bouncer barrages existing for 20 years! Edited 5 Years Ago by Paddles
	Reply
MikeR	MikeR Posted 5 Years Ago #2869803
Hacker Group: Forum Members Posts: 478, Visits: 0	+x Decentric - 9 Jan 2020 9:18 AM Mike, we’ve generally had a pretty respectful forum. Since you’ve resurfaced with an adversarial tone towards Baggers in particular, a few polite posters have co-incidentally disappeared. We have also enjoyed female participation too. Fantastic that you are willing to research all those articles to substantiate your opinions, but one can let others decide how they interpret them. I would hate to see the friendly, polite folk of the forum disappear and the general convivial camaraderie also disappear. Nobody needs a PHD in cricket, but it is good to find like-minded people to have a friendly online chat. Don't mind me DC afterall it's just twaddle from a biased anti-NSW poster who you mustn't mention JH too. Can't see too much wrong with what I write, and I just asked a question to Baggers regarding his intelligence towards the rules of the game, afterall how do I know that Baggers isn't Kumar Sangakkara the president of the MCC who maybe able to change the rules? A yes or No will suffice Or is it that the opposing view from someone, that questions the validity of what Baggers writes, goes against the political correctness of this site. Considering I've known Baggers for about 7 years, quite a bit longer than I think everyone on this site, even Paddles and have read the same posts over and over and over again, most of which are pro NSW player propaganda that I no longer just accept "the word" as gospel. I do have a brain, I have played the game at a senior level (Not at the level that would be deemed supreme but as I said I do have a brain), I have been around the developing aspect of the game at junior levels etc etc. I am prepared to ask questions and work things out myself, and am prepared to argue against "the word". Come to think of it I don't think Baggers has ever won a discussion in the last 7 years. Paddles may remember. According to Baggers he thinks Paddles and myself just cram provable quantitative analysis down his throat, with total disregard for his lack of substantiated evidence opinions. But as I said if that goes against the political correctness of this site, that's OK I'm out of here, just like Paddles, I'm not a robotic conformist. Enjoy your back-slapping Stepford site. PS Enjoy talking to yourself Baggers during the shield games. Edited 5 Years Ago by MikeR
	Reply
MikeR	MikeR Posted 5 Years Ago #2869779
Hacker Group: Forum Members Posts: 478, Visits: 0	+x Decentric - 9 Jan 2020 9:47 AM +x MikeR - 9 Jan 2020 6:37 AM +x Decentric - 8 Jan 2020 11:41 PM IOn one site Mike posted, it had an a article with Justin Langer appraising facets of the Aussie team. JL thinks Paine is currently the best keeper in the world. The Australian coach thinks the Australian keeper is the best in the world. I would never have expected that. I wonder who Mark Boucher, the head coach of South Africa, and arguably the best wicket keeper to ever play the game would say? Quinton de Kock maybe. I think I'll go with de Kock on that one given he's only 27 and I won't even consider the 5 test centuries the 14 ODI centuries, just based on the wicket keeping alone. Here is what most say about him "Quinton de Kock's fearless striking and handy glovework have earned him comparisons to greats of the game like Adam Gilchrist and Mark Boucher" Here is what is written about Paine "It had looked as though Paine would perhaps never play for Australia again, for at times, as his career progressed, he was not even the first-choice gloveman for Tasmania." Not trolling DC just pointing out that just because an Australian says something about another Australian that there may be just a little shade of bias in what is said. Doesn't necessarily make it true it's just an opinion unless of course Langer did point out quantifiable factual comparisons that leads him to say that. Opinions mean nothing unless you can provide quantifiable facts to support those opinions, you're a teacher you should know that, unless you're a, I shudder to write it, a Humanities teacher It could be the case JL is biased, but he selects him. At 30 Tests Paine has taken 131 dismissals, which is the highest in history. Although not perfect, dismissals probably indicate some degree of success as a keeper. Elsewhere there has been discussion on forums that Paine should be dropped. I'd contend he is one of the first selected. The Tasmanian selectors got it wrong. The Tas selection panel and coach were replaced and Tasmania has enjoyed more success since, last year making the Shield Final. I have no problem with Paine keeping personally and since Healy gave him some good advise he has improved, and that tells me a lot especially considering his age he is still prepared to listen, which I respect in any player. I do have a slight issue as captain especially his management of bowlers which a totally different discussion, but who else is there? The only experienced players in the side were all recently found wanting with sandpapergate either directly proven, or indirectly as sandpaper was used to enhance their performance, which can be looked at by some, not me personally, as being guilty by association. People who rate Paine based on DRS decisions are wrong in my opinion as most of the time it is the bowler who would have best view and they're the ones adamant it was out, but I can see their opinion of him being weak by not over-ruling the bowler. PS I think you mean 2017/18 Sheffield Shield final not last year final, last year Tasmania finished 5th
	Reply
Decentric	Decentric Posted 5 Years Ago #2869766
Legend Group: Awaiting Activation Posts: 22K, Visits: 0	+x MikeR - 9 Jan 2020 6:37 AM +x Decentric - 8 Jan 2020 11:41 PM IOn one site Mike posted, it had an a article with Justin Langer appraising facets of the Aussie team. JL thinks Paine is currently the best keeper in the world. The Australian coach thinks the Australian keeper is the best in the world. I would never have expected that. I wonder who Mark Boucher, the head coach of South Africa, and arguably the best wicket keeper to ever play the game would say? Quinton de Kock maybe. I think I'll go with de Kock on that one given he's only 27 and I won't even consider the 5 test centuries the 14 ODI centuries, just based on the wicket keeping alone. Here is what most say about him "Quinton de Kock's fearless striking and handy glovework have earned him comparisons to greats of the game like Adam Gilchrist and Mark Boucher" Here is what is written about Paine "It had looked as though Paine would perhaps never play for Australia again, for at times, as his career progressed, he was not even the first-choice gloveman for Tasmania." Not trolling DC just pointing out that just because an Australian says something about another Australian that there may be just a little shade of bias in what is said. Doesn't necessarily make it true it's just an opinion unless of course Langer did point out quantifiable factual comparisons that leads him to say that. Opinions mean nothing unless you can provide quantifiable facts to support those opinions, you're a teacher you should know that, unless you're a, I shudder to write it, a Humanities teacher It could be the case JL is biased, but he selects him. At 30 Tests Paine has taken 131 dismissals, which is the highest in history. Although not perfect, dismissals probably indicate some degree of success as a keeper. Elsewhere there has been discussion on forums that Paine should be dropped. I'd contend he is one of the first selected. The Tasmanian selectors got it wrong. The Tas selection panel and coach were replaced and Tasmania has enjoyed more success since, last year making the Shield Final.
	Reply
Decentric	Decentric Posted 5 Years Ago #2869759
Legend Group: Awaiting Activation Posts: 22K, Visits: 0	+x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 1:18 PM +x MikeR - 8 Jan 2020 11:16 AM +x Decentric - 8 Jan 2020 9:23 AM +x MikeR - 8 Jan 2020 9:04 AM +x baggygreenmania - 3 Jan 2020 11:55 AM +x Keyboard Warrior - 3 Jan 2020 11:22 AM As Wagner comes on to bowl I thought I saw something recently where Cummins 59 wickets, Lyon and Wagner next at 45 and 43 respectively, were the three most successful wicket takers in world cricket for 2019. Wagner has a world class record. But we are now 0-38 off 13 overs. Yes but he aint world class. Take away those he got with his leg side 'rib ticklers' and his record is mediocre. LOL Baggers Wagner 46 tests 200 wickets Baggers How's Josh going? 52 tests still not at 200.....amazing and he can't even be relied on to do his stretching, 1 over breaks down.....didn't stretch! Mike your obsession with Josh H is a joke, mate. In recent times, in England he played 3 - 4 Tests, and took over 20 wickets. Against Pakistan he was brilliant. Josh H may not have got to 200 wickets yet, with a lean Test year in 2018, but Geoff Boycott argues he and Cummins are one of the best opening attacks he has seen on English soil from the 2019 Ashes. I can't get over how fixated you have become on denigrating Josh H. He may not be as successful with the old ball as some of his teammates, but in the last 6 months I don't think I've heard any former Test player pundit describe his bowling as less than brilliant. Wagner is in the top three as most successful bower in Tests in the last year in the world. Cummins is first, with Wagner or Lyon second. I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. It's not an obsession DC, what I have a problem with are the ridiculous arguments put forward to claim Hazlewood is a superior bowler to everyone else. Total Rubbish. 1 This site criticised Wagner's line so much so calling it cheating and boring. Really? A line that forces a batsman to play a shot is boring? Isn't that what the game is about a battle between bat and ball. What is boring is a line so far outside off stump that the batsman doesn't have to play with no threat to his wicket, they can let them go all day. That is exactly what Hazlewood does and it becomes boring and is negative bowling. Thus why Hazlewood's strike rate is so high, a lot of rubbish. That is why against SA and India he had a 40 and a 36 average, they can play test cricket. Against sides that will throw the bat they chase his wide deliveries and he is successful to a point. Against England the team that was built to win a World Cup by their own admission, a team that told us they will throw the bat from start to finish with disregard to the end result, the 4 tests Hazlewood played England won 2 Australia 1 and 1 draw which was a defeat for Australia looming. One of those defeats saw England need 50 runs only 1 wicket left, they took Pattinson off when Stokes was having trouble getting him away bought on Cummins and Hazlewood and they scored the runs in just over 4 overs, it was pathetic by both bowlers. 2 Hazlewood is better than Starc because Starc takes tailenders and Starc should be the one dropped? Starc takes 31% of his wickets are tailenders, Hazlewood is 26% same as Cummins, but Pattinson is only 15%. 5% difference equates to 5 wickets per 100 and makes no significant difference to SR, average etc It is a difference when comparing to Pattinson who only takes top order wickets at a vastly superior SR because his strike rate is against top order only very little padding using Tail enders wickets. 3 Australia needs Hazlewood as the economical line and length bowler and he's our best. Complete and absolute BS. Cummins is!!!! Don't believe me. Starc 40% + are bowled and LBW. James Pattinson 40% are bowled and LBW. Those two are the attacking bowlers that all sides need, they attack the stumps and do it well and have the SR to prove they do it quickly. Josh Hazlewood 28% are bowled or LBW Cummins is 20% Cummins line is the line that gets batsmen playing and of the 80% caught half are caught behind, unlike Hazlewood who has 35% of catches caught behind. Economy rates for both are equal 2.76 for Cummins, 2.78 for Hazlewoood. So Cummins is the economical line and length bowler with an amazing SR bowling the right line. Hazlewood bowls too wide of off and is purely a negative bowler And with batsmen world wide severely under performing due to the call of performing in T20 where the money is. I believed I proved by this as the milestones of current bowlers is falling for the majority of bowlers, low averages, extremely low SR all except Hazlewood that is. And with test cricket popularity declining because it has been boring to watch especially, sides that come to Australia, just to do their duty, including England, do we really need to play a boring negative line bowler to try and keep test cricket alive. If you want to that's fine, but watch the crowds turn away. Watching a bowler run in throw the ball wide of off and the batsmen lets it go through to the keeper, is not exciting. They're getting more spectators to the Big Bash than what went to the test cricket. Sydney are getting 40,000 to a Sixers or Thunder game but only 30000 to a day at the test. The Gabba got 30,000 to one big bash game, that is more than what went to the test in total. But keep players like Josh in the side by all means, and may test cricket rest in peace. I love the research and arguments you put up Mike, but Cummins 80% of his catches are caught behind? But given 56% of Cummins' wickets are from short balls and he went 2 years without an lbw, I thought there was something wrong about your 80% claim. And there is. http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerDismissBowlGraph.asp?PlayerID=3909 43% of his catches are caught behind or 35% total wickets. And some of those are still short balls through to the keeper. But I agree with you that Cummins is very economical, and very accurate. Esp to RHB, he gives away nothing. Good post.
	Reply
Decentric	Decentric Posted 5 Years Ago #2869758
Legend Group: Awaiting Activation Posts: 22K, Visits: 0	Mike, we’ve generally had a pretty respectful forum. Since you’ve resurfaced with an adversarial tone towards Baggers in particular, a few polite posters have co-incidentally disappeared. We have also enjoyed female participation too. Fantastic that you are willing to research all those articles to substantiate your opinions, but one can let others decide how they interpret them. I would hate to see the friendly, polite folk of the forum disappear and the general convivial camaraderie also disappear. Nobody needs a PHD in cricket, but it is good to find like-minded people to have a friendly online chat. Edited 5 Years Ago by Decentric
	Reply
MikeR	MikeR Posted 5 Years Ago #2869743
Hacker Group: Forum Members Posts: 478, Visits: 0	+x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 5:02 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 4:19 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 2:24 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 2:18 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:42 PM I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. Figures can lie DC. imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it. How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee... One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening... Unauthodox, unique whatever. None of those bowlers listed bowl the way he does. In fact I dont know anyone outside of the England team of 1932/33 that employ this tactic. It shud be banned.. then Wagner will revert to being the in/out bog ordinary trundler that he was. You don't remember Johnson, Thommo, the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. The real difference with Wagner is twofold; 1 his stamina to keep it going for longer and repeatedly than Johnson et al could muster, but then he is a lot slot slower, so that will help his stamina levels and 2, his accuracy in keeping it below the head, not that the WI quartet or Thomo Lillee et al had to worry about that rule which was brought in to negate the WI tactics of the 1970's and 1980's in 1994. What I find most amusing, is that batsman are allowed to walk outside leg or bat in front of their stumps,... The batsman seems to be allowed the entire crease, but the bowler not. Hardly seems fair. You don't remember the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. No. I watched quite a deal of them so surely I'd have remembered any condemnation of Bodyline tactics. Wagner is given the whole crease. The batsman is not trying to kill you with a hard leather ball. So totally fair. Who apart from Australia have called Wagner's attack bodyline? There are rules against Bodyline that are enforced by the umpires and at no stage did any umpire including the off ground officials say there was a problem. Or are you saying Baggers that you are more intelligent and more knowledgeable about the rules of cricket even more so than those that are paid to enforce those rules? NZ were always within the rules. In the 46 tests that Wagner has played and in any of the 200 wickets he has taken, has he ever been accused of Bodyline tactics up until Australia. Australia has a problem because Wagner showed up Smith and it is only Smith that had the problem. Even Wagner pointed out what is the point of pitching it up to Smith he can play those deliveries. Are you so upset that it was Smith and how dare anyone show that Smith has a weakness? Here's a thought learn to play a hook and pull shot. I also don't recall anytime that the NZ captain said "Get ready for a broken arm". That sort of idiotic comment by a puerile individual proves intent of an action of causing bodily harm. Just because this childish behaviour has occurred in the past, doesn't automatically mean that it is the intention of all to do this, and still I don't believe it was Johnson's intention to ever deliberately harm a player, he's too nice a guy for that. No it was just the comment of one infantile individual that leads us to believe that is what the bowler is trying to do, but it is not the case. Personally I think that those that call it Bodyline and cheating, are unjustly trying to divert the attention away from the fact that there are only one set of proven cheats in world cricket at the moment. Edited 5 Years Ago by MikeR
	Reply
MikeR	MikeR Posted 5 Years Ago #2869738
Hacker Group: Forum Members Posts: 478, Visits: 0	+x Decentric - 8 Jan 2020 11:39 PM +x baggygreenmania - 7 Jan 2020 4:14 PM Reckon our victorious Baggy Greens will cherish the extra day handed to them by knocking out the Kiwis a day early.. as they head off to India the day after tomorrow. Wow that is one tight schedule. Going all that distance at the Australian cricket paying public's expense for three needless ODIs. Why are we playing three needless ODIs? Why do teams bother playing in Australia? Really are we so superior that we don't need to support other teams around the world, by heaven forbid actually earning their money by actually playing cricket. They're not needless in the eyes of India are they. Edited 5 Years Ago by MikeR
	Reply
MikeR	MikeR Posted 5 Years Ago #2869737
Hacker Group: Forum Members Posts: 478, Visits: 0	+x Decentric - 8 Jan 2020 11:41 PM IOn one site Mike posted, it had an a article with Justin Langer appraising facets of the Aussie team. JL thinks Paine is currently the best keeper in the world. The Australian coach thinks the Australian keeper is the best in the world. I would never have expected that. I wonder who Mark Boucher, the head coach of South Africa, and arguably the best wicket keeper to ever play the game would say? Quinton de Kock maybe. I think I'll go with de Kock on that one given he's only 27 and I won't even consider the 5 test centuries the 14 ODI centuries, just based on the wicket keeping alone. Here is what most say about him "Quinton de Kock's fearless striking and handy glovework have earned him comparisons to greats of the game like Adam Gilchrist and Mark Boucher" Here is what is written about Paine "It had looked as though Paine would perhaps never play for Australia again, for at times, as his career progressed, he was not even the first-choice gloveman for Tasmania." Not trolling DC just pointing out that just because an Australian says something about another Australian that there may be just a little shade of bias in what is said. Doesn't necessarily make it true it's just an opinion unless of course Langer did point out quantifiable factual comparisons that leads him to say that. Opinions mean nothing unless you can provide quantifiable facts to support those opinions, you're a teacher you should know that, unless you're a, I shudder to write it, a Humanities teacher Edited 5 Years Ago by MikeR
	Reply
MikeR	MikeR Posted 5 Years Ago #2869735
Hacker Group: Forum Members Posts: 478, Visits: 0	+x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 1:18 PM +x MikeR - 8 Jan 2020 11:16 AM +x Decentric - 8 Jan 2020 9:23 AM +x MikeR - 8 Jan 2020 9:04 AM +x baggygreenmania - 3 Jan 2020 11:55 AM +x Keyboard Warrior - 3 Jan 2020 11:22 AM As Wagner comes on to bowl I thought I saw something recently where Cummins 59 wickets, Lyon and Wagner next at 45 and 43 respectively, were the three most successful wicket takers in world cricket for 2019. Wagner has a world class record. But we are now 0-38 off 13 overs. Yes but he aint world class. Take away those he got with his leg side 'rib ticklers' and his record is mediocre. LOL Baggers Wagner 46 tests 200 wickets Baggers How's Josh going? 52 tests still not at 200.....amazing and he can't even be relied on to do his stretching, 1 over breaks down.....didn't stretch! Mike your obsession with Josh H is a joke, mate. In recent times, in England he played 3 - 4 Tests, and took over 20 wickets. Against Pakistan he was brilliant. Josh H may not have got to 200 wickets yet, with a lean Test year in 2018, but Geoff Boycott argues he and Cummins are one of the best opening attacks he has seen on English soil from the 2019 Ashes. I can't get over how fixated you have become on denigrating Josh H. He may not be as successful with the old ball as some of his teammates, but in the last 6 months I don't think I've heard any former Test player pundit describe his bowling as less than brilliant. Wagner is in the top three as most successful bower in Tests in the last year in the world. Cummins is first, with Wagner or Lyon second. I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. It's not an obsession DC, what I have a problem with are the ridiculous arguments put forward to claim Hazlewood is a superior bowler to everyone else. Total Rubbish. 1 This site criticised Wagner's line so much so calling it cheating and boring. Really? A line that forces a batsman to play a shot is boring? Isn't that what the game is about a battle between bat and ball. What is boring is a line so far outside off stump that the batsman doesn't have to play with no threat to his wicket, they can let them go all day. That is exactly what Hazlewood does and it becomes boring and is negative bowling. Thus why Hazlewood's strike rate is so high, a lot of rubbish. That is why against SA and India he had a 40 and a 36 average, they can play test cricket. Against sides that will throw the bat they chase his wide deliveries and he is successful to a point. Against England the team that was built to win a World Cup by their own admission, a team that told us they will throw the bat from start to finish with disregard to the end result, the 4 tests Hazlewood played England won 2 Australia 1 and 1 draw which was a defeat for Australia looming. One of those defeats saw England need 50 runs only 1 wicket left, they took Pattinson off when Stokes was having trouble getting him away bought on Cummins and Hazlewood and they scored the runs in just over 4 overs, it was pathetic by both bowlers. 2 Hazlewood is better than Starc because Starc takes tailenders and Starc should be the one dropped? Starc takes 31% of his wickets are tailenders, Hazlewood is 26% same as Cummins, but Pattinson is only 15%. 5% difference equates to 5 wickets per 100 and makes no significant difference to SR, average etc It is a difference when comparing to Pattinson who only takes top order wickets at a vastly superior SR because his strike rate is against top order only very little padding using Tail enders wickets. 3 Australia needs Hazlewood as the economical line and length bowler and he's our best. Complete and absolute BS. Cummins is!!!! Don't believe me. Starc 40% + are bowled and LBW. James Pattinson 40% are bowled and LBW. Those two are the attacking bowlers that all sides need, they attack the stumps and do it well and have the SR to prove they do it quickly. Josh Hazlewood 28% are bowled or LBW Cummins is 20% Cummins line is the line that gets batsmen playing and of the 80% caught half are caught behind, unlike Hazlewood who has 35% of catches caught behind. Economy rates for both are equal 2.76 for Cummins, 2.78 for Hazlewoood. So Cummins is the economical line and length bowler with an amazing SR bowling the right line. Hazlewood bowls too wide of off and is purely a negative bowler And with batsmen world wide severely under performing due to the call of performing in T20 where the money is. I believed I proved by this as the milestones of current bowlers is falling for the majority of bowlers, low averages, extremely low SR all except Hazlewood that is. And with test cricket popularity declining because it has been boring to watch especially, sides that come to Australia, just to do their duty, including England, do we really need to play a boring negative line bowler to try and keep test cricket alive. If you want to that's fine, but watch the crowds turn away. Watching a bowler run in throw the ball wide of off and the batsmen lets it go through to the keeper, is not exciting. They're getting more spectators to the Big Bash than what went to the test cricket. Sydney are getting 40,000 to a Sixers or Thunder game but only 30000 to a day at the test. The Gabba got 30,000 to one big bash game, that is more than what went to the test in total. But keep players like Josh in the side by all means, and may test cricket rest in peace. I love the research and arguments you put up Mike, but Cummins 80% of his catches are caught behind? But given 56% of Cummins' wickets are from short balls and he went 2 years without an lbw, I thought there was something wrong about your 80% claim. And there is. http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerDismissBowlGraph.asp?PlayerID=3909 43% of his catches are caught behind or 35% total wickets. And some of those are still short balls through to the keeper. But I agree with you that Cummins is very economical, and very accurate. Esp to RHB, he gives away nothing. Sorry Paddles I wrote half of his catches are caught behind and half of 80% is 40%, "brain distraction", but you are right I should have been more accurate and said 43% gives more accuracy.
	Reply
Decentric	Decentric Posted 5 Years Ago #2869688
Legend Group: Awaiting Activation Posts: 22K, Visits: 0	On one site Mike posted, it had an a article with Justin Langer appraising facets of the Aussie team. JL thinks Paine is currently the best keeper in the world.
	Reply
Decentric	Decentric Posted 5 Years Ago #2869687
Legend Group: Awaiting Activation Posts: 22K, Visits: 0	+x baggygreenmania - 7 Jan 2020 4:14 PM Reckon our victorious Baggy Greens will cherish the extra day handed to them by knocking out the Kiwis a day early.. as they head off to India the day after tomorrow. Wow that is one tight schedule. Going all that distance at the Australian cricket paying public's expense for three needless ODIs. Why are we playing three needless ODIs?
	Reply
Paddles	Paddles Posted 5 Years Ago #2869596
Semi-Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 1.5K, Visits: 0	+x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 5:02 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 4:19 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 2:24 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 2:18 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:42 PM I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. Figures can lie DC. imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it. How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee... One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening... Unauthodox, unique whatever. None of those bowlers listed bowl the way he does. In fact I dont know anyone outside of the England team of 1932/33 that employ this tactic. It shud be banned.. then Wagner will revert to being the in/out bog ordinary trundler that he was. You don't remember Johnson, Thommo, the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. The real difference with Wagner is twofold; 1 his stamina to keep it going for longer and repeatedly than Johnson et al could muster, but then he is a lot slot slower, so that will help his stamina levels and 2, his accuracy in keeping it below the head, not that the WI quartet or Thomo Lillee et al had to worry about that rule which was brought in to negate the WI tactics of the 1970's and 1980's in 1994. What I find most amusing, is that batsman are allowed to walk outside leg or bat in front of their stumps,... The batsman seems to be allowed the entire crease, but the bowler not. Hardly seems fair. You don't remember the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. No. I watched quite a deal of them so surely I'd have remembered any condemnation of Bodyline tactics. Wagner is given the whole crease. The batsman is not trying to kill you with a hard leather ball. So totally fair. Haha - you missed the the WI Bodyline tactics that lead to helmets and chest guards and bouncer rule changes. When they copied THommo. Gotcha. Wagner has the whole crease. i agree. I'm done on this thread. Take care Baggers :) Meet you in the new one. Edited 5 Years Ago by Paddles
	Reply
BaggyGreens	BaggyGreens Posted 5 Years Ago #2869449
Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 4.1K, Visits: 0	+x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 4:19 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 2:24 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 2:18 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:42 PM I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. Figures can lie DC. imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it. How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee... One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening... Unauthodox, unique whatever. None of those bowlers listed bowl the way he does. In fact I dont know anyone outside of the England team of 1932/33 that employ this tactic. It shud be banned.. then Wagner will revert to being the in/out bog ordinary trundler that he was. You don't remember Johnson, Thommo, the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. The real difference with Wagner is twofold; 1 his stamina to keep it going for longer and repeatedly than Johnson et al could muster, but then he is a lot slot slower, so that will help his stamina levels and 2, his accuracy in keeping it below the head, not that the WI quartet or Thomo Lillee et al had to worry about that rule which was brought in to negate the WI tactics of the 1970's and 1980's in 1994. What I find most amusing, is that batsman are allowed to walk outside leg or bat in front of their stumps,... The batsman seems to be allowed the entire crease, but the bowler not. Hardly seems fair. You don't remember the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. No. I watched quite a deal of them so surely I'd have remembered any condemnation of Bodyline tactics. Wagner is given the whole crease. The batsman is not trying to kill you with a hard leather ball. So totally fair. Edited 5 Years Ago by baggygreenmania
	Reply
Paddles	Paddles Posted 5 Years Ago #2869436
Semi-Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 1.5K, Visits: 0	+x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 2:24 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 2:18 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:42 PM I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. Figures can lie DC. imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it. How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee... One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening... Unauthodox, unique whatever. None of those bowlers listed bowl the way he does. In fact I dont know anyone outside of the England team of 1932/33 that employ this tactic. It shud be banned.. then Wagner will revert to being the in/out bog ordinary trundler that he was. You don't remember Johnson, Thommo, the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. The real difference with Wagner is twofold; 1 his stamina to keep it going for longer and repeatedly than Johnson et al could muster, but then he is a lot slot slower, so that will help his stamina levels and 2, his accuracy in keeping it below the head, not that the WI quartet or Thomo Lillee et al had to worry about that rule which was brought in to negate the WI tactics of the 1970's and 1980's in 1994. What I find most amusing, is that batsman are allowed to walk outside leg or bat in front of their stumps,... The batsman seems to be allowed the entire crease, but the bowler not. Hardly seems fair. Edited 5 Years Ago by Paddles
	Reply
BaggyGreens	BaggyGreens Posted 5 Years Ago #2869431
Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 4.1K, Visits: 0	+x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 3:38 PM +x Decentric - 8 Jan 2020 8:42 AM +x MikeR - 8 Jan 2020 7:45 AM +x baggygreenmania - 7 Jan 2020 3:58 PM Anyone that talks about technical correctness in batting, is living in a make believe world, no such thing especially when up against world class bowlers, you don't have time to be "perfect". Mike talking twaddle as usual. Those that dont have time to be perfect with technique dont deserve to be playing Test cricket. They are the inconsistent batsmen that proliferate among nations.. mostly nurtured on white ball cricket. Mike wants a Test player to be see ball hit ball. That may work in T20 but it wont in the five day game. Twaddle Baggers??? https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cricket/story/if-steve-smith-was-indian-his-technique-would-be-accepted-coach-woodhill-1600447-2019-09-18 "Lamenting Australian cricket's "aversion" to embrace unconventional styles, Steve Smith's formative coach Trent Woodhill observed that his famous ward's uniqueness would be accepted in the Indian system, where it is "all about the output"." https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/steve-smith-technically-different-statistically-better-20190808-p52f8l.html "Steve Smith: technically different, statistically better" Don't get me wrong Technique is important, but I'm not going to be an armchair expert saying Burns, Wade and Head have "technical problems" and have no business being in the Australian side to do so is pretending to have superior knowledge to others, which I don't, everyone on here have some very good points but some comments just purely promote their favourites and make stupid comments under the gist of being of superior intelligence. To single out those 3 and not mention Warner and Smith who are both unconventional players is purely hypocrisy. What matters is runs scored and whilst the player is scoring runs they do have a right to be in the Australian side. When the runs dry up and it may be due to poor technique against certain deliveries then they should be dropped. But in saying that would you drop Smith if the world's bowlers start bouncing him and the runs dry up? Based on this summers performances with the bat if Burns, Wade and Head are problems then surely Smith has to be included as well. You've raised some good points again, Mike, substantiated by cricket experts to back up your views, but Baggers has also acknowledged that Warner is unorthodox with incredible hand eye - and - should be selected in home Tests. We also have an issue with Warner in that he has had a long career. He has outstanding success at home with an average of circa 60, but he has an overseas average of circa 33 ( the same as wicket keeper Paine's overall average). This is almost a failure overseas as a specialist opener. Talking about cricket experts, Ian, a former Tas Vice Captain and Tas selector, argues that Smith's unorthodox technique could fail as soon as he loses a fraction of his hand eye, whilst other more orthodox technicians can succeed In Tests for longer. If Smith continues with his current batting average of 26, after the Archer short ball incident, I think he should be dropped. I think the proposition that Burns, Head and Wade are struggling with their current width between bat and pad, given their varied results, is fair. They may be the best we have, but they may not be good enough to survive test cricket proposition teams analysts and coaches scrutinising their weaknesses. Also, Baggers, Fly Slip and I have all waxed lyrical about Renshaw's technique of a few years ago being sorely needed. Eventually I see him as an opener for 10 years for Aus. FS and Baggers know a lot more about cricket than me, but since you've been here last, Mike we have former elite rep players, a current grade cricketer, and a former coach, who post here. Also, through TCA contacts, I discuss cricket with people who know a lot about the sport and listen carefully to their analyses. It is a good we've won two successive series. However, but I feel like we are only marginally more likely to succeed on the Subcontinent against Bangla in June. Our Aus pitches, apart from Sydney this summer, didn't encourage spinners bowling spin, or batters batting against quality spin. Warner is unlikely to ameliorate than his previous performances in his career. Our pace attack is used to bounce, although Cummins, Josh H and possibly Starc, could succeed on Subcontinental pitches. We have have no quality back up spin, who've played a lot of FC red ball cricket. Paddles will like this, but I'm telling people off line that the Kiwi team, we've just beaten at home, has performed better in Asia than us in recent times. DC word is CA is looking at hitting the Banglas with our full pace cartel.. perhaps one extra spinner in Swepson. Evidently last time we toured there we took four tweakers.. and lost the series. I fear for Swepson's career as he is unlikely to get a permanent spot until Lyon finally falls out of his wheelchair. Yes DC the fact is.. as you and I have said ad infinitum.. our spinners struggle on the sub cont. as we dont have spinning decks at home on which to practice day in day out.
	Reply
BaggyGreens	BaggyGreens Posted 5 Years Ago #2869427
Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 4.1K, Visits: 0	+x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 2:24 PM +x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 2:18 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:42 PM I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. Figures can lie DC. imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it. How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee... One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening... Unauthodox, unique whatever. You keep comparing Wagners short stuff to those other bowlers you named. These blokes used the short ball as a surprise weapon.. unless you were Thommo and he simply wanted to kill you every ball. Wagner does not use it as a surprise ball but his stock ball. Those others bowled within the stump line mostly.. not a half metre to metre outside leg. None of those bowlers listed bowl the way he does. In fact I dont know anyone outside of the England team of 1932/33 that employ this tactic. It shud be banned.. then Wagner will revert to being the in/out bog ordinary trundler that he was.
	Reply
BaggyGreens	BaggyGreens Posted 5 Years Ago #2869426
Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 4.1K, Visits: 0	+x Decentric - 8 Jan 2020 8:42 AM +x MikeR - 8 Jan 2020 7:45 AM +x baggygreenmania - 7 Jan 2020 3:58 PM Anyone that talks about technical correctness in batting, is living in a make believe world, no such thing especially when up against world class bowlers, you don't have time to be "perfect". Mike talking twaddle as usual. Those that dont have time to be perfect with technique dont deserve to be playing Test cricket. They are the inconsistent batsmen that proliferate among nations.. mostly nurtured on white ball cricket. Mike wants a Test player to be see ball hit ball. That may work in T20 but it wont in the five day game. Twaddle Baggers??? https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cricket/story/if-steve-smith-was-indian-his-technique-would-be-accepted-coach-woodhill-1600447-2019-09-18 "Lamenting Australian cricket's "aversion" to embrace unconventional styles, Steve Smith's formative coach Trent Woodhill observed that his famous ward's uniqueness would be accepted in the Indian system, where it is "all about the output"." https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/steve-smith-technically-different-statistically-better-20190808-p52f8l.html "Steve Smith: technically different, statistically better" Don't get me wrong Technique is important, but I'm not going to be an armchair expert saying Burns, Wade and Head have "technical problems" and have no business being in the Australian side to do so is pretending to have superior knowledge to others, which I don't, everyone on here have some very good points but some comments just purely promote their favourites and make stupid comments under the gist of being of superior intelligence. To single out those 3 and not mention Warner and Smith who are both unconventional players is purely hypocrisy. What matters is runs scored and whilst the player is scoring runs they do have a right to be in the Australian side. When the runs dry up and it may be due to poor technique against certain deliveries then they should be dropped. But in saying that would you drop Smith if the world's bowlers start bouncing him and the runs dry up? Based on this summers performances with the bat if Burns, Wade and Head are problems then surely Smith has to be included as well. You've raised some good points again, Mike, substantiated by cricket experts to back up your views, but Baggers has also acknowledged that Warner is unorthodox with incredible hand eye - and - should be selected in home Tests. We also have an issue with Warner in that he has had a long career. He has outstanding success at home with an average of circa 60, but he has an overseas average of circa 33 ( the same as wicket keeper Paine's overall average). This is almost a failure overseas as a specialist opener. Talking about cricket experts, Ian, a former Tas Vice Captain and Tas selector, argues that Smith's unorthodox technique could fail as soon as he loses a fraction of his hand eye, whilst other more orthodox technicians can succeed In Tests for longer. If Smith continues with his current batting average of 26, after the Archer short ball incident, I think he should be dropped. I think the proposition that Burns, Head and Wade are struggling with their current width between bat and pad, given their varied results, is fair. They may be the best we have, but they may not be good enough to survive test cricket proposition teams analysts and coaches scrutinising their weaknesses. Also, Baggers, Fly Slip and I have all waxed lyrical about Renshaw's technique of a few years ago being sorely needed. Eventually I see him as an opener for 10 years for Aus. FS and Baggers know a lot more about cricket than me, but since you've been here last, Mike we have former elite rep players, a current grade cricketer, and a former coach, who post here. Also, through TCA contacts, I discuss cricket with people who know a lot about the sport and listen carefully to their analyses. It is a good we've won two successive series. However, but I feel like we are only marginally more likely to succeed on the Subcontinent against Bangla in June. Our Aus pitches, apart from Sydney this summer, didn't encourage spinners bowling spin, or batters batting against quality spin. Warner is unlikely to ameliorate than his previous performances in his career. Our pace attack is used to bounce, although Cummins, Josh H and possibly Starc, could succeed on Subcontinental pitches. We have have no quality back up spin, who've played a lot of FC red ball cricket. Paddles will like this, but I'm telling people off line that the Kiwi team, we've just beaten at home, has performed better in Asia than us in recent times. DC word is CA is looking at hitting the Banglas with our full pace cartel.. perhaps one extra spinner in Swepson. Evidently last time we toured there we took four tweakers.. and lost the series. I fear for Swepson's career as he is unlikely to get a permanent spot until Lyon finally falls out of his wheelchair. Yes DC the fact is.. as you and I have said ad infinitum.. we do not have spinners the calibre of those on the sub cont. as we dont have spinning decks on which to practice day in day out. Edited 5 Years Ago by baggygreenmania
	Reply
BaggyGreens	BaggyGreens Posted 5 Years Ago #2869406
Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 4.1K, Visits: 0	+x Paddles - 8 Jan 2020 2:18 PM +x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:42 PM I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. Figures can lie DC. imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it. How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee... One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening... Unauthodox, unique whatever. None of those bowlers listed bowl the way he does. In fact I dont know anyone outside of the England team of 1932/33 that employ this tactic. It shud be banned.. then Wagner will revert to being the in/out bog ordinary trundler that he was. Edited 5 Years Ago by baggygreenmania
	Reply
Paddles	Paddles Posted 5 Years Ago #2869400
Semi-Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 1.5K, Visits: 0	+x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:42 PM I would have thought Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is. Figures can lie DC. imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it. How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee... One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening... Edited 5 Years Ago by Paddles
	Reply
BaggyGreens	BaggyGreens Posted 5 Years Ago #2869399
Pro Group: Forum Members Posts: 4.1K, Visits: 0	+x baggygreenmania - 8 Jan 2020 1:43 PM DC please dont mention Hazlewood in the presence of Mike.. please. I posted that Bradman,Smith and ABDV were the exception to the rule Mike. Will add Viv too. Kohli, Ganguly and Gavaskar had good techniques.. Seywag I am putting on the next hand/eye level. Rohit played 32 matches in 6 years.. testament to his inconsistency. The fact is mere mortals aint gonna have a successful Test career with a sloppy technique. Edited 5 Years Ago by baggygreenmania
	Reply

AUS v NZ 3rd Test

AUS v NZ 3rd Test

Select a Forum....

Inside Sport

Search