Re: Modes of Dismissal

On 25 Apr 2006 04:50:25 -0700, "FRAN" <fran_beta@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

snip without prejudice

As far as Ponting is concerned, I find his play aesthetically
pleasing, to a fair degree, which was what I was saying above. He has
some nice strokes, the pull and the cut, and even the straight drive.

Some strokes are hard to play in an aesthetically pleasing way. A
straight drive (0r a cover drive) played off the back foot isn't that
graceful a shot, and neither is the pull, but they can both be
thrilling shots to watch. A front foot player finds it a lot easier to
look graceful when he's middling them (though the late cut is also a
very elegant looking shot).

Have you ever seen Greg Chappell bat? He could play the stright drive
off the back foot in really imperious fashion. The ability to play the
straight drive (or the cover drive) of the back foot with elegance has
almost passed out of the game. But both strokes, when played a la Greg
Chappell or Tom Graveney (and I'm also imagining Peter May and Wally
Hammond here) are glorious.

With Ponting, I had a thought that elegance and beauty in cricket (as
with most things, actually) fit into 'masculine' and 'feminine' types.
Ponting has some of the former, and none of the latter, his style is
attractive to most people, but it is of a muscular beauty and is
indeed totally practical. He doesn't waste any movement to concerns of
aesthetics, merely practical results. I think Bradman was similar- I
don't find what I have seen of his batting to be ugly, but it is very
practical and methodical without having the sheer brutal power of the
modern Australians (inc. Ponting). As far as the more 'feminine' type
of elegance, Martyn since his recall fits into that category, although
at times his natural aggressive inclinations and style (which have
been subsumed in an effort to eliminate risks) bubble to the surface.
Gower was another very pretty player to watch. Greg Chappell (and
perhaps his protege Dravid has this balance as well) was more m/f in
the aesthetics of his play.

Maybe you could compare Beethoven with Chopin. Not all find Beethoven
particularly beautiful, however there is considerable beauty behind
the rugged service. It is beauty in power. Not that he couldn't be
tender, just as Chopin can be vehement and violent, but usually Chopin
has a pretty surface.

He isn't a pretty player, but he isn't agricultural, at least not
usually. Langer OTOH, I find horrible, his feet don't really move at
all, and the face of the bat is just flung in the direction of the
ball much of the time. And the angle of the bat to the ball seems
completely random. To me, just from looking at the visual evidence of
his strokeplay, I find it hard to credit his success.


He does have a nice straight drive off the front foot though.

I hate tp watch his batting, I find it irredeemably ugly, even if
occasionally exciting. Gilchrist as well I find ugly, he barely plays
a single proper cricket stroke as I grew up understanding them. But he
plays those personal strokes very effectively, and is also an
excitement machine.

I think the point is that aesthetic appreciation can be a very
subjective thing, although there may be a consensus or a majority
opinion.


Now you often
seem to run him down, whereas his record is really outstanding. Now
you are clever enough not to come out explicitly and say, 'Ponting is
crap', but there seems to be a consistent tone of denigration of him
in your posts. Still, you may hold Ponting in high regard, but I
really don't think so and point to your posts as evidence. Maybe you
can clarify this.


See above. He's highly effective and does the job at or above the
standard needed. That ought to be good enough. Aesthetics is one of
those nice-to-have things, as is being a gentleman on the field, being
able to compare the ideas of major philosophers and so forth. If
Ponting can't make insightful observations about the distinctions
between Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard or can't play strokes in the
fashion of Gower, well then too bad.


Personally I like to contrast Nietzsche with Kierkegaard, since both
are nominally 'existentialist', although their world views are almost
diametrically opposed. Just to get OT

But then, that wouldn't trouble Nietzsche, would it?


Not a lot would, right now. I propose a hybrid of Monty Python's
'decomposing composers' song and the Philosopher's song.
Did you know that Immanuel Kant was a real pissant?

.
I think that decent on-field behaviour is essential, and Ponting
hasn't always measured up in that regard. I'm sorry I thought you were
making some overarching point dissing Ponting with your various posts
attacking aspects of his cricket. I am glad that you have clarified a
little bit further for my edumacation.


OK ... no worries ... we'll just move on.

OTOH for me to be truly consistent, I should bag Alvey for explicitly
rubbishing Bung even when he has done well. Now I'm not the biggest
Bung fan around, but he has performed well over the last year and
Alvey is churlish in not admitting this. I suppose I just expect that
from him.


He has certainly performed better in tests since the start of The Ashes
than I imagined. His batting has gone up a notch, which given the
decline in the Aussie middle order and at 7 is no bad thing.


He started pretty well in 99, he has returned to reasonably close to
that form over the last year. Actually not quite a year, his Ashes
performance with the ball was less than acceptable.

I think it was rather better than acceptable, all things considered.

The numbers weren't all that good. They weren't good enough for
Kasper. His batting was important at times, but his bowling was
mediocre.

snip


Perhaps- the average age of current test cricketers in this country is
alarmingly mature. Still, I don't see the point of replacing a good
player with a player not as good.

True, unless you think that over time the incoming player will perform
as well as the one being axed. Perhaps the outgoing player is beginning
to tail off and the incoming guy, once he settles, will play as well or
better and since sooner or later, the outgoing player will have to be
dropped ...

That is the hope. But one must have some evidence to base that hope
on. The replacement of Martyn with Hodge had none of that logic, as
far as I can see, unless it is picking somebody at random and saying
"I hope he'll do real good".


This happened with Martyn- once
again he (and Kasprowicz) was the fall guy, and Hodge who is over 30,
and not as good a player, replaced him. Then, apparently without a
logical reason, Hodge was dumped and Martyn was back. I would like to
see more young players selected, but the difficult reality is that
there aren't many (if any) test class players around under 30.
This is why I wasn'tn terribly convinced of the necessity for SWaugh
to retire when he did. I suppose Clarke may have seemed the goods, but
he must be considered now a failure.

They are also reluctant to realise that some people play better in
some venues than others. People who suffer on fast bouncy pitches may
do better than those who play well on such pitches when going to the
subcontinent. And just because someone has scored a mountain of runs on
some road in Hyderabad or Chittagong doesn't mean they'll play well at
the Gabba against England.


I agree, in principle, with 'horses for courses'. Actually that was
very much in vogue, or so it seemed to me, with the Oz selectors at
one point. Usually as a way of including Bung (or any other NSW
player). The most logical application of that theory would have been
the resting of Warne from all Perth tests, especially early in his
career.


True ... and years ago, I wonder how Bevan would have gone in the
subcontinent, when the Aussies were struggling to win matches there.
Maybe Lehmann or Siddons or Cox could have played there effectively.



I think I am on record as saying that Bevan, although I wasn't a great
fan of him as a test batsman, should have toured India in 2001. I 100%
agree with you- Bevan is an ideal choice for such a tour, since the
ball rarely gets above chest height, and under those conditions he can
bat better than almost anyone, imo. And his bowling, although often
crap, could be useful, better than Colin 'Crap' Miller. And Lehmann I
feel would have been a success as well, obviously Ponting didn't have
a great tour there in 2001. To drop Ponting would have been near
impossible at that stage, although to replace Ponting with Lehmann
would have suited the team's interests.

To me it
takes many types of flowers to populate a garden. Not all can be
roses. In tests, scoring at 70 runs/100 balls (interestingly Bradman's
rate of scoring in the Bodyline series, iirc) is 100% acceptable,
especially with an average in the mid-40s.

Again, it depends. An SR of 70 in a test match is very respectable --
but not so respectable these days in ODIs. Martyn's SR of 51.48 in
tests is very low. His SR of 78 in ODIs is reasonable, but I hate his
running.

Its almost Great. And
Martyn lacks nothing in the aesthetic department. In ODOs, Martyn does
sometimes waste deliveries. But for most of his ODO career, he has
justified his place. He isn't as bad as Bevan towards the end of his
ODO career, still being hailed #1 ODO batsman in the world, who
wantonly wasted deliveries and indeed space.



Yet Bevan did famously make the runs that were needed, more often than
not.


Not towards the end. His batting in the final overs was often
atrocious, patting the ball back to the bowler, taking all those
valuable short singles, and refusing to hit the ball in the air. Even
in earlier days, when he could hit boundaries, I am suspicious that he
may have wasted deliveries just to make himself look more of a hero.


Hard to say. He certainly was a candidate for dropping by the end. Very
sad. Perhaps Bevan is an example of me getting sentimental. He always
struck me as a 100% type of guy. And you have to admit, the couple of
Bevanesque innings he did play were great theatre.


They were. That's what hooked you! You sucker :-)

snip with extreme prejudice


If a
player scores at less than 100% strike rate, this is also bad.

No it isn't -- at least not in my view. It depends on the situation.

And now
being caught a lot is also baaad.

I never said that. I just asked for theories on why it was happening.
Your reading is too superficial


I'm sure the view is nice in a 2
dimensional world.

How are you such an authority on two-dimensional worlds? I thought you
were shallow, and now I know why.


Do tell. In any case, I thought that as an alien I had access to other
worlds other than your own, you primitive earthling.


Not an alien ... more like one of those ghosts inhabiting a picture, as
in Harry Potter.

;-)

Fran


I know that you think I am 2 dimensional, but I'm not as flat as my
photos :-)


Sometimes I get carried away with puns and metaphors. In another life,
I'd be a novelist.

Fran


Maybe you were. I was Honore de Balzac, Emil Zola,Fyodor Dostoevksy,
Gustave Falubert, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, Dickens and
Henry Handel Richardson all at the same time. Shirley MacLaine told me
about it.
I was also the Picture of Dorian Gray, but I stopped because people
were calling me 2 dimensional. Geddit?
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.