Watson chucks!

Watson chucks!

Post by Nirvana » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:00:41


Or did he?
If possible look at balls 75.2, 75.3, and 75.4: 2 of those 3
deliveries looked like he chucked. Or maybe it was just an
illusion...did anyone feel he was chucking?
 
 
 

Watson chucks!

Post by John Hal » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:21:43

In article

Quote:

>Or did he?
>If possible look at balls 75.2, 75.3, and 75.4: 2 of those 3
>deliveries looked like he chucked. Or maybe it was just an
>illusion...did anyone feel he was chucking?

I haven't seen them, but given the quality - or lack of it - of his
bowling, I don't suppose that England will be too worried.
--
John Hall
                "Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
                 But you *need* an ***, once in a while."
                                               Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

 
 
 

Watson chucks!

Post by Nirvana » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:53:57


Quote:
> In article


> >Or did he?
> >If possible look at balls 75.2, 75.3, and 75.4: 2 of those 3
> >deliveries looked like he chucked. Or maybe it was just an
> >illusion...did anyone feel he was chucking?

> I haven't seen them, but given the quality - or lack of it - of his
> bowling, I don't suppose that England will be too worried.
> --
> John Hall
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? "Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?But you *need* an ***, once in a while."
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

I am not sure on that at least for those few overs that he
bowled...the guy was doing 87/88 regularly and the "chucked' ones went
over 91...he was bowling to Broad and coming around the
wicket...difficult angle it seemed. Oh well, whateva aaiiiggghhhhh!

 
 
 

Watson chucks!

Post by alve » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:24:47

Quote:

> Or did he?
> If possible look at balls 75.2, 75.3, and 75.4: 2 of those 3
> deliveries looked like he chucked. Or maybe it was just an
> illusion...did anyone feel he was chucking?

Haven't seen him bowl yet. Will keep an eye out.

But you'd be one of the very few to notice if there was any elbow-bending
with Watto. Everyone else is watching his hammies/back/knees etc...

alvey

 
 
 

Watson chucks!

Post by Bob Duber » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:56:26


Quote:
> Or did he?
> If possible look at balls 75.2, 75.3, and 75.4: 2 of those 3
> deliveries looked like he chucked. Or maybe it was just an
> illusion...did anyone feel he was chucking?

He was only put on to bowl because he's a big, heavy guy who will dig
up some rough.
 
 
 

Watson chucks!

Post by John Hal » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:12:48

In article


Quote:

>> Or did he?
>> If possible look at balls 75.2, 75.3, and 75.4: 2 of those 3
>> deliveries looked like he chucked. Or maybe it was just an
>> illusion...did anyone feel he was chucking?

>He was only put on to bowl because he's a big, heavy guy who will dig
>up some rough.

That's the last thing that Australia want, given that they will have to
bat last (assuming they don't win by an innings).
--
John Hall
                "Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
                 But you *need* an ***, once in a while."
                                               Ogden Nash (1902-1971)
 
 
 

Watson chucks!

Post by Lawrence Logi » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 07:14:45


Quote:
> Or did he?
> If possible look at balls 75.2, 75.3, and 75.4: 2 of those 3
> deliveries looked like he chucked. Or maybe it was just an
> illusion...did anyone feel he was chucking?

You're looking for something that simply isn't there.  There's absolutely
nothing to suggest that any delivery even resembled a chuck.

Are you like one of those oversensitive people with their racism detector
that sounds an alert when "black hole" or "***rdly" gets mentioned?  We're
talking chucks and not race, of course, but you're crying "chuck" at the
slightest wobble.  It's doubtful that his arm straightened 5 degrees, let
alone 15.

--
Lawrence
"Strike me down while you can, but it won't make your dried up ovaries any
more fertile." - Eric Cartman - 3 May 2006

 
 
 

Watson chucks!

Post by Bob Duber » Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:07:49


Quote:
> In article


> >He was only put on to bowl because he's a big, heavy guy who will dig
> >up some rough.

> That's the last thing that Australia want, given that they will have to
> bat last (assuming they don't win by an innings).

Yes. And of course that thought came to me about .1 of a second after
I hit the "Send" button. So Ponting must have been operating on the
theory that Watson is useful as a bowler. Which he can be, but wasn't
yesterday.