Quote:
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>>> There's nothing very special about his bowling: it's just good line
>>> and length at 75 mph, but he was getting it to wobble about a bit and
>>> finding edges commensurately.
>> For what more could you ask from a bowler of his type?
>>> It rather reminded me of when Mark Butcher and Anthony McGrath ran
>>> riot at Lord's.
>> Come now! Surely you can come up with a more generous analogy than
>> *that* for Sammy did yesterday!
> I'm sure I could come up with a more "generous" comparison, but I
> don't really understand the point of doing so.
The point of doing so would be to demonstrate that, as a bowler, Sammy
is really a touch superior to the likes of Butcher and McGrath.
Comparing a cricketer who has made it at Test level mainly for his
bowling to two modest dibbly-dobblers (who are, at best, part-timers)
isn't the most generous thing in the world, you know.
Quote:
>>> it would be unfortunate if this seven-fer hung a huge
>>> weight of expectation round his neck because he's not really the sort
>>> of bowler who will do this at all often.
>> Regrettably, it's only to be expected that this will come to be
>> considered the point of reference from which all of Sammy's subsequent
>> performances will be judged. It's only natural.
> Ah, I see. That's the point of coming up with something more
> "generous". We can use it to add to the lorryloads of unrealistic
> expectation which will be heaped on Sammy so that he can more quickly
> acquire the label of mediocrity who failed to live up to his early
> promise. Very constructive, I'm sure. (Or, to placate certain cynics
> from other climes, very Indian.)
Pulling no punches as ever, eh, Mike? You're mistaken, though: I was not
defending that "very Indian" practice; quite the reverse, in fact: I was
lamenting the almost inevitable course that it will take with Sammy.
Quote:
> I'm assuming that you took the comparison with Butcher and McGrath as
> some kind of insult
Not quite, but I'm convinced that you could have thought of a few better
comparisons than those two.
Quote:
> although it was not meant as such. Mark Butcher
> especially was a pretty good purveyor of medium-pace dibblies which
> wobbled about a bit
Indeed, but he was only ever a very good part-timer. Sammy, conversely,
is a front-liner (in the West Indies team, at least) -- and one, at
that, who has just taken seven wickets on debut. Yes, I agree -- we
shouldn't read too deeply into that --, but we oughn't just discard it
altogether either.
Quote:
> although England usually had rather better
> bowlers available, some of us thought he was a little underused. And
> for quite some time last year McGrath had better bowling figures for
> Yorkshire than Jason Gillespie
Crikey! I didn't know that! I'm not sure, though, whether that says any
more about McGrath than it does about Gillespie.
Quote:
> Sammy himself is billed as an "all-rounder"
...leaning more towards the bowling side, though, I reckon.
Quote:
> From what I saw
> yesterday, the player he most resembles is Mark Ealham, who took 4-21
> in the second innings on debut against India in 1996 but spent the
> rest of his career getting 1-41 or 2-56. Since Ealham never did better
> than that 4-21, the nearest equivalent to him running through a side
> with a seven-fer that I could think of was the combined effort of
> Butcher and McGrath.
I see. You can't deny, though, that it is a bit of a raw deal to offer
somebody after so wonderful a performance as this one.
Quote:
> If I'd thought for longer, perhaps I would have
> remembered Roger Binny, who once took 6-56 at Calcutta and had a 5-40
> at Headingley and a couple of three-fers as well in his career of
> about 30 Tests.
That I'd much prefer.
Quote:
> Another reference might be Mudassar Nazar, another dibbly with a
> golden arm, although he tended to generate more swing than Sammy has
> done.
And that.
Quote:
> You perhaps begin to get my drift.
> I have no wish to disparage Sammy,
...although, however unintentionally, you have (well, in my opinion, at
least).
Quote:
> and particularly not his seven-fer, but let us get his achievement
> into perspective before making silly comparisons with the great
> bowling performances of all time and making Sammy out to be the next
> saviour of West Indian bowling.
He's nothing special, but he's a decent enough bowler (by modern West
Indian standards, at least) to go on to have a half-decent career at
this level -- provided, of course, that he sticks to the basics (which,
really, are his limitations as well).
Quote:
> This is exactly what I was discussing the other day with Roshan in
> terms of spotting talent and promise and how you can't do it from
> scorecards. The scorecard-readers would no doubt have us believe that
> Sammy's performance was as good as, say, Garth McKenzie's 7-66 to
> skittle India at the MCG in 1967 and that we can therefore expect
> Sammy to be as good a bowler as McKenzie. That seems unrealistic and
> therefore unfair on Sammy.
Indeed -- but, then, so is comparing him to Butcher and McGrath! :-)
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
My Blog: http://crickets-rich-tapestry.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
by