India in Asia cup

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Sorry, I'm not taking the bait on this notion of guys routinely being past it by their mid 30s - I'm trusting that's just a wind up and you don't really believe it. You are, after all, old enough to have followed (amongst others) both Gooch and Steve Waugh.. and well enough versed in the greats of the past to be unaware of the achievements of, say, Len Hutton.

I have not set any bait,Gooch played in another era,and certainly Len Hutten did,I will go further,and mention Tom Graveny,he batted well into the late 30s,if not 40.
But Rachael these players where not playing today,with all the stresses of over scheduling,different game then.
Steave Waugh had lost the plot,if you are being honest,the Australian board tried for a season or to,to ditch him,but he hung on.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Even you, as the great advocate of the well timed bludgeon, must appreciate that the art of batting is first and foremost to do with excercising the judgement (which generaly improves with age) as to what shot you (given the form you are in, how well you are seeing the ball.

Well a few points here,I take it you are talking about the likes of Flintoff and or Botham,yes they peak the same as any other player,but are more likely to not to be playing at 35,than say Thorpe or vaughan.
Botham burned out,he was pityfull the last couple of years before he retired,and Flintoff will suffer the same fate,over work,playing in every match that will make a buck for the ECB.
I like any good player Rachael,Rob Key,how would you rate him?an innings builder,with all the cricket,can you see him playing at 35/36

Is Brian lara as good now as he was 5 years ago?no he is not,same with a lot of players they are not as hungry for the game,I doubt Tendulkar is the player he was 5 years ago,Time takes it's toll,not every player can play with an average liker Gooch did,about 42 I think,but he was not playing that well before he retired,he was over the hill,IMHO.
Yes I like the well timed drive of Flintoff,but I dont enjoy him any more than I did Clive lloyd when he played for Lancs,or Tom Graveny,he was some player him and Basil D.when they played for England,dont know if you ever saw them play together.
Not so sure Viv Rchards or any of the players mentioned where playing top notch cricket,after the age of 36/38.
Yes you are right,I think a player needs to reach a certain age,before thier timing is honed to perfection,and the same with judgment and resposability,my point being the speed of things today,natural aging becomes even more apparent,and more so the players who play all the formats.
Thorpe has had the good sence to play only Test cricket,Stewart visably aged,would you not agree,Atherton did not stay that long,not sure what age Boycott retired.

Originally Posted by ernest

Wasim Akram seemed to go on forever,I was a big supporter of Wasim,he did lots,and then more for Lancs,but you could see him slowing down.

Of course I was privelaged to see the best of Wasim at lancashire,and F Engineer,and big Clive Lloyd,and believe me Rachael,it was a privelage.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Maybe he slowed down. If so.. big deal: it may have limited what he COULD do (that's prety debatable given that he never really lost the variation and disguise that were his most potent weapons).. .but as with Ambrose... he understood (brilliantly) that what mattered was what he (given his range of options) SHOULD do. That's why even today he would have been a preferable option to Harmison or Flintoff: he would have had the wit to use his abilities to the greatest effect.

Tell you where IMHO you are wrong Rachael,he went slower and slower,until he was inefective,and do you know what his most potent weapons where Rachael,peppering batsmen with short balls,then getting them with a yorker,Flintoff bowls a little like the both of them,and is as accurate.

I am not saying players have never been able to play in thier late 30s,but IMO,those days are over.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by ernest

But Rachael these players where not playing today,with all the stresses of over scheduling,different game then. Steave Waugh had lost the plot,if you are being honest,the Australian board tried for a season or to,to ditch him,but he hung on.

Steve Waugh didn't lose the plot, Ernest... he ended his career as the fulcrum of a great batting order and batting at intelligently and adhesively as he'd ever batted in his life: he may not have been quite as flashy as in his younger days and he might even have contributed fewer big scores (I'd want to check that out).. but he WAS the main man in terms of holding an innings together as all around him fell.

It's Steve Waugh's ability to lift his game when it matters that the Aussies miss today.

Originally Posted by ernest

Yes you are right,I think a player needs to reach a certain age,before thier timing is honed to perfection,and the same with judgment and resposability,my point being the speed of things today,natural aging becomes even more apparent,and more so the players who play all the formats. Thorpe has had the good sence to play only Test cricket,Stewart visably aged,would you not agree,Atherton did not stay that long,not sure what age Boycott retired.

You misread me Ernest: I never suggested for one moment that timing improves with age. Tendulkar had fantastic timing at the age of 14.. other have demonstrated it by their late teens and early 20s.. and it strikes me that players who approach the game as Viv Richards, always looking to put bat to ball, will frequently peak, in terms of strokeplay, at a very tender age.. but so what?

Gooch was famously a "method" player: it wasn't really critical to his success that he timed the ball well (though that obvioulsy helped when it happened).. and what mattered most to him was actually his ability to pick deliveries early (read a bowler) and work out what they would do on the way through to him (read the pitch / conditions). His greatest asset was arguably his understanding of where his off-stump was and his judgement in moving the bat inside the line where the strokeplayer might go fishing - neither of which suffered with age.

Originally Posted by ernest

Tell you where IMHO you are wrong Rachael,he went slower and slower,until he was inefective,and do you know what his most potent weapons where Rachael,peppering batsmen with short balls,then getting them with a yorker.

Wasim Akram peppering the batsman with short balls? Not once he'd learnt to do something more effective, Ernest! The Wasim Akram I grew to love stood out for NOT doing that! I detest bowling that attempts to achieve through hostility and aggression what better bowlers manage through control and guile... and where the younger Wasim Akram did, alas, fall into the former camp.. the mature bowler most certainly did not.

It was never Wasim's Gough like variety of deliveries that struck me (they seemed mostly ODI tactics anyway).. but the way he could move the ball either way with what looked to all intents and purposes like the same action... the way he could make the batsman play at virtually every ball he released: his Pollock / late-Ambrose like mastery of an art that no-one watching the young tearaway of a decade earlier could ever have imagined witnessing.

[Ernest]

The thing is with Steve Waugh,Australia though he had reached the end of the line,I agree with what you say,Australia do miss him,but Rachael,they miss him at his best.I liked the Waugh brothers,there was something about them that put them a cut above the rest.
Did you see that interview with Glen Mcgrath today, he was pathetic,by that I mean he is not the McGrath we know,and a lot love to hate,he has had surgery for an ankle spur I think,he was comparing his condition,to Flintoffs condition,INO he is finished,as a top rate wicket taker.

When I said timing improves with age,i meant from the early Twenties onwards,getting a little ringcraft.

I was a big supporter of Gooch,long before he became England captain,I am a bit surprised he was your cup of tea,because in his younger days,he used to hit that balll hard,he was caught on the boundary more than once.
He was a fine player,well anyone who finishes with an average over 40 is,I remember he had one weakness,early on in his innings,he played his shots,and could be vunerable to being LBW.
He was one of the few players that did learn with age,because IMO he did learn as he went ahead in his career,he was a little adventurous,in the early Gooch days.

Wasim was a mixed bag,believe me Rachael he was not afraid to let the ball rip,short of a length,you are correct though he could move that ball either way,yes he was a very clever bowler,and a great yorker to boot.
He was not like Harmison sending 6 short balls down an over,(and I dont like the way Flintoff is copying him),but if he was in the mood,he could and would rough a batsman up,then send a devastating yorker.

I am not saying that was the norm,but I have seen a bit of Wasim,and there was always something happening,I wont mention his batting,except to say,he could hit that ball.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by ernest

I was a big supporter of Gooch,long before he became England captain,I am a bit surprised he was your cup of tea.

Ernest: I detest the guy with a passion.. and have done for longer than I care to remember.. dating, I belive, to well before his bust up with Gower and his (to my mind) blundering efforts to shape English cricket in his own image... but that's pretty irrelevant: what the guy did on the cricket field demands a level of recognition that not even his most ardent critics should deny him.

Curiously.. I actually found myself going out of my way to listen to what he had to say on TMS today: I'd normally do quite the oposite.. but he seems to be winning me around... which is (I fear) more than Gower has been doing of late!