Comments on: weakness http://www.cricketwithballs.com/2009/11/26/weakness/ Cricket is like syphilis Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:41:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: batting in ned kelly's helmet http://www.cricketwithballs.com/2009/11/26/weakness/comment-page-1/#comment-25753 batting in ned kelly's helmet Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:17:34 +0000 http://www.cricketwithballs.com/?p=7336#comment-25753 KC, yes gone out does sound a bit archaic. It sounds like it ought to be said with a crack in the voice and a whistle in the teeth like an old guy whose falsies don't quite fit right. Still, it is certainly more correct English than how I would say it, which is 'gotten out'. I'm not sure 'gotten' is even a word and I did a creative writing course once where the teacher banned everybody from ever using the word 'got' in any context. By the way, cheese crackers. KC, yes gone out does sound a bit archaic. It sounds like it ought to be said with a crack in the voice and a whistle in the teeth like an old guy whose falsies don’t quite fit right. Still, it is certainly more correct English than how I would say it, which is ‘gotten out’. I’m not sure ‘gotten’ is even a word and I did a creative writing course once where the teacher banned everybody from ever using the word ‘got’ in any context.

By the way, cheese crackers.

]]> By: King Cricket http://www.cricketwithballs.com/2009/11/26/weakness/comment-page-1/#comment-25750 King Cricket Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:26:19 +0000 http://www.cricketwithballs.com/?p=7336#comment-25750 How come you say 'gone out'? Does anyone else say 'gone out'? How come it's 'our' book? How many of you are there? Why would you talk like there's more than one of you? That's mental. Our vote's for Phil Jaques, by the way. .-= King Cricket´s last blog ..<a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/co/yPPe/~3/IkL0faev8-M/" rel="nofollow">Cricinfo article about variation in bowling and English leg spinners</a> =-. How come you say ‘gone out’? Does anyone else say ‘gone out’?

How come it’s ‘our’ book? How many of you are there? Why would you talk like there’s more than one of you? That’s mental.

Our vote’s for Phil Jaques, by the way.
King Cricket´s last blog ..Cricinfo article about variation in bowling and English leg spinners

]]> By: Hewy http://www.cricketwithballs.com/2009/11/26/weakness/comment-page-1/#comment-25731 Hewy Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:04:26 +0000 http://www.cricketwithballs.com/?p=7336#comment-25731 Ned, all I remember of Hilditch was that ugly hook shot he constantly got out to. Watson seems to have a mental/concentration issue. These lbws and bowleds seem to occur very early or after a milestone or a break in play. Ned, all I remember of Hilditch was that ugly hook shot he constantly got out to.

Watson seems to have a mental/concentration issue. These lbws and bowleds seem to occur very early or after a milestone or a break in play.

]]> By: batting in ned kelly's helmet http://www.cricketwithballs.com/2009/11/26/weakness/comment-page-1/#comment-25727 batting in ned kelly's helmet Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:17:09 +0000 http://www.cricketwithballs.com/?p=7336#comment-25727 Everyone forgets that Hilditch himself was a 'manufactured' opener. I remember watching him bat in the early eighties and he was clearly a natural number 9. Maybe 10. His stats will back me up here. Hewy, good summary of what is going on with Hughes. But surely someone that young who clearly has that much talent (replace the word talent with 'a good eye and determination' if you wish - its the same thing) will find a solution to the problem sooner rather than later. And sooner still the better attack he gets to face. Then he will be a world beater. Watson right now is as good as he is going to get. Hius 'technical weakness' is the ball bowled at the stumps. There is no getting over a flaw like that. Everyone forgets that Hilditch himself was a ‘manufactured’ opener. I remember watching him bat in the early eighties and he was clearly a natural number 9. Maybe 10. His stats will back me up here.

Hewy, good summary of what is going on with Hughes. But surely someone that young who clearly has that much talent (replace the word talent with ‘a good eye and determination’ if you wish – its the same thing) will find a solution to the problem sooner rather than later. And sooner still the better attack he gets to face. Then he will be a world beater.

Watson right now is as good as he is going to get. Hius ‘technical weakness’ is the ball bowled at the stumps. There is no getting over a flaw like that.

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.cricketwithballs.com/2009/11/26/weakness/comment-page-1/#comment-25720 Jonathan Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:58:54 +0000 http://www.cricketwithballs.com/?p=7336#comment-25720 CBB, that's how it was put at the time - I really can't understand how it's all been forgotten! .-= Jonathan´s last blog ..<a href="http://rising-of-the-sun.blogspot.com/2009/11/fwt-start-of-480.html" rel="nofollow">FWT: A start of 480</a> =-. CBB, that’s how it was put at the time – I really can’t understand how it’s all been forgotten!
Jonathan´s last blog ..FWT: A start of 480

]]> By: Hewy http://www.cricketwithballs.com/2009/11/26/weakness/comment-page-1/#comment-25718 Hewy Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:46:13 +0000 http://www.cricketwithballs.com/?p=7336#comment-25718 Yeah he did - leg glancing out of position, swiping across the line with feet out of postion. And obviously the tour games bookending the first two tests really highlighted the problem. Right, I think we're talking in circles here. I'm going to shut up about Hughes - except to say that from what I saw this week, he seems to be trying to make some changes to his technique. I hope it works because his offside play is probably some of the best in Oz. Yeah he did – leg glancing out of position, swiping across the line with feet out of postion. And obviously the tour games bookending the first two tests really highlighted the problem.

Right, I think we’re talking in circles here. I’m going to shut up about Hughes – except to say that from what I saw this week, he seems to be trying to make some changes to his technique. I hope it works because his offside play is probably some of the best in Oz.

]]> By: jrod http://www.cricketwithballs.com/2009/11/26/weakness/comment-page-1/#comment-25706 jrod Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:22:05 +0000 http://www.cricketwithballs.com/?p=7336#comment-25706 Hewy, Hughes never got the chance to go out to them in test cricket, not leg glancing or caught in the cordon off the short one aimed at him. It was decided he had these problems, and he was dropped, others with worse records get a chance to prove themselves. I'm also not saying he should come in, I am saying any one of three qualified openers could come in. I give taylor alot of credit, and onions, and broad. All of them bowled well to exploit Watson's flaw, if he went out to the short ball the way he has gone out to these LBs, he wouldn't be opening now. Hewy, Hughes never got the chance to go out to them in test cricket, not leg glancing or caught in the cordon off the short one aimed at him. It was decided he had these problems, and he was dropped, others with worse records get a chance to prove themselves. I’m also not saying he should come in, I am saying any one of three qualified openers could come in. I give taylor alot of credit, and onions, and broad. All of them bowled well to exploit Watson’s flaw, if he went out to the short ball the way he has gone out to these LBs, he wouldn’t be opening now.

]]> By: Hewy http://www.cricketwithballs.com/2009/11/26/weakness/comment-page-1/#comment-25705 Hewy Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:11:41 +0000 http://www.cricketwithballs.com/?p=7336#comment-25705 Just to clarify, Hughes problem is that his footwork means that he struggles to play the pulllshot or the leg glance - that means that bowlers can bowl short of a length into his body and he has no answers. He's been out to those balls consistently including punching the ball to slip or the keeper, swiping across the line getting edges and caught attempting a leg glance (latest of which just this wednesday). No doubt Watson has an issue but lets give Jerome Taylor some credit. He's bowled him six outswingers which beat him a couple of times and then tossed up the off-cutter 1st ball of the next over when Watson was definately expecting another outie. Just to clarify, Hughes problem is that his footwork means that he struggles to play the pulllshot or the leg glance – that means that bowlers can bowl short of a length into his body and he has no answers. He’s been out to those balls consistently including punching the ball to slip or the keeper, swiping across the line getting edges and caught attempting a leg glance (latest of which just this wednesday).

No doubt Watson has an issue but lets give Jerome Taylor some credit. He’s bowled him six outswingers which beat him a couple of times and then tossed up the off-cutter 1st ball of the next over when Watson was definately expecting another outie.

]]> By: poopsie http://www.cricketwithballs.com/2009/11/26/weakness/comment-page-1/#comment-25704 poopsie Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:21:39 +0000 http://www.cricketwithballs.com/?p=7336#comment-25704 The logic is killing me. You are forgetting jut how good Watson looked padding up yesterday - it was a thing of beauty. Jamie - put your hard earned on McGain eclipsing Krazy The logic is killing me. You are forgetting jut how good Watson looked padding up yesterday – it was a thing of beauty.

Jamie – put your hard earned on McGain eclipsing Krazy

]]>