Basic questions

[rodk]

'Sports psychology' wouldn't be a professional field if players never came under pressure. You have been saying many absurd things and this is no different.

Psychologists are for people from any walk of life who have mental complexes, not for athletes who get stage fright, are intimidated or can not cope with the stress of going to work. Please stop insulting me.

If you want to see a pretty much lone example of a team falling apart at the seams, check out this one. Between a combination of bad playing, bad luck, good hitting, an angry crowd, and some amount of taunting, the Rangers lost their way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V8W6_bD7bE But you will notice that the Blue Jays had bad luck too and did not let it affect them at all.

Also same video addresses the poster who said there is not much variety in the outcome of baseball games. He could not be further off.

 

[Burgey]

I’m wondering how rodk is meant to be a Septic but uses colloquialisms like “I had a gander”, which are anything but.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Psychologists are for people from any walk of life who have mental complexes, not for athletes who get stage fright, are intimidated or can not cope with the stress of going to work. Please stop insulting me.

If you want to see a pretty much lone example of a team falling apart at the seams, check out this one. Between a combination of bad playing, bad luck, good hitting, an angry crowd, and some amount of taunting, the Rangers lost their way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V8W6_bD7bE But you will notice that the Blue Jays had bad luck too and did not let it affect them at all.

Also same video addresses the poster who said there is not much variety in the outcome of baseball games. He could not be further off.

Psychological stress and pressure is a huge factor in professional sport. It can be a large part of what separates the great players from the good players, or the good players from the not good enough players.

Your attitude would be poor even if you were right, it's even worse given you complete and utterly wrong you are.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Rodk= CW's new *****

 

[Dan]

I find that really surprising that you'd get reaction, it's great when opposition bat like that. It can single-handedly win you the game when some spud makes 50 (200) in an 85 over game. Genuinely consider deliberately dropping a catch if he hits it.

The only situation I could imagine it getting frustrating is going for a second innings win but that is pretty rare

Yeah, I've had a fair few situations where I was doing this in an attempt to avoid the outright loss, and another where we'd given up the chase and batting for rain (in a semi-final where we'd go through in event of a draw).

 

[Dan]

On the Starc Q, this is the absolute gold standard for showing the benefit of bowling in the channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKpThWWgoM8

 

[cnerd123]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BrDfN-cF3TZ/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=63frc3xjcx9p

 

[cnerd123]

What is the development system?

Varies nation to nation. Lots of age-groub club, state, zonal, school and even International cricket all around the world. Each nation runs their own programmes. U-19 Cricket is a big deal internationally.

Success in junior cricket isn't a strong indicator of success in senior cricket. Cricketers are very raw at this age, how they are developed after this stage is more important.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BrDfN-cF3TZ/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=63frc3xjcx9p

jdallys in the comments:

"If this was the real case, Then Virender Sehwag could have never score almost 3 triple hundreds"

 

[TheJediBrah]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BrDfN-cF3TZ/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=63frc3xjcx9p

Great innings, but that's a load of rubbish. Maybe it's true for his game, but certainly not in general

 

[weldone]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BrDfN-cF3TZ/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=63frc3xjcx9p

This is just for rodk. Test match batting 101 from one of the very best today

 

[weldone]

Great innings, but that's a load of rubbish. Maybe it's true for his game, but certainly not in general

It's true for Rohit, Maxwell, Dhawan and many others. You often see batsmen clearly struggling and trying to hit their way out. That may work once in a blue moon, but players who always walk that path haven't matured as test batsmen yet.

Still remember in Australia's last tour to India there was an attacking Australian lower-middle order partnership in 4th innings against Ash and Jadeja that added quite a few runs (50+). Don't remember who the batsmen were but definitely not top-drawers like Smith etc. In the post-match presentation Kohli said something like Pujara's words here - that he was always very confident of breaking that partnership because those two were not reading the spin and trying to hit their way out, that they didn't have the confidence to play a solid technically correct maiden over.

 

[weldone]

Rodk= CW's new *****

Lol no. The difference between rodk and ***** is like the difference between baseball and cricket.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Lol no. The difference between rodk and ***** is like the difference between baseball and cricket.

Precisley. My point exactly.

I'm sure

 

[weldone]

What Zaheer Abbas once said about Umar Akmal is also relevant in this discussion. "Each time he goes out there it seems that Umar Akmal wants to break the cricket ball into pieces by hitting it hard. Somebody should tell him that it's not about how hard you hit it but for how long you can keep hitting it." Baseball fans won't understand that nuance.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

What Zaheer Abbas once said about Umar Akmal is also relevant in this discussion. "Each time he goes out there it seems that Umar Akmal wants to break the cricket ball into pieces by hitting it hard. Somebody should tell him that it's not about how hard you hit it but for how long you can keep hitting it." Baseball fans won't understand that nuance.

That doesn't fit into the philosophy of Yogi Berra

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's true for Rohit, Maxwell, Dhawan and many others. You often see batsmen clearly struggling and trying to hit their way out. That may work once in a blue moon, but players who always walk that path haven't matured as test batsmen yet.

Still remember in Australia's last tour to India there was an attacking Australian lower-middle order partnership in 4th innings against Ash and Jadeja that added quite a few runs (50+). Don't remember who the batsmen were but definitely not top-drawers like Smith etc. In the post-match presentation Kohli said something like Pujara's words here - that he was always very confident of breaking that partnership because those two were not reading the spin and trying to hit their way out, that they didn't have the confidence to play a solid technically correct maiden over.

I understand what he's trying to say, it's just not always true. In fact the opposite is often the case, in all forms of cricket. Plenty of batsmen get bogged down not playing shots (which puts the game firmly in the bowler's control) and end up getting out as a result whereas someone coming out playing their shots can take control of the game

 

[cnerd123]

It's true for Rohit, Maxwell, Dhawan and many others. You often see batsmen clearly struggling and trying to hit their way out. That may work once in a blue moon, but players who always walk that path haven't matured as test batsmen yet.

Still remember in Australia's last tour to India there was an attacking Australian lower-middle order partnership in 4th innings against Ash and Jadeja that added quite a few runs (50+). Don't remember who the batsmen were but definitely not top-drawers like Smith etc. In the post-match presentation Kohli said something like Pujara's words here - that he was always very confident of breaking that partnership because those two were not reading the spin and trying to hit their way out, that they didn't have the confidence to play a solid technically correct maiden over.

I understand what he's trying to say, it's just not always true. In fact the opposite is often the case, in all forms of cricket. Plenty of batsmen get bogged down not playing shots (which puts the game firmly in the bowler's control) and end up getting out as a result whereas someone coming out playing their shots can take control of the game

It's a constant balance of attack and defence from all individuals, and it's all about absorbing and exerting pressure. This isn't even including the captaincy strategy (bowling changes, field placements), or reading the pitches and conditions. There is a whole range of possibilities and outcomes, and if you watch cricket long enough, you'd have seen everything happen. It's a crazy ****ing game. There are no right or wrong strategies, or right or wrong answers. There are bluffs, double bluffs, triple bluffs. The 'smart' decision can fail, the 'dumb' one can succeed. Some cricketers have thrived being aggressive and counter attacking, others have thrived being patient and gritty.

You're welcome.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You're welcome.

Also, water is wet

 

[Spark]

It's also mostly because the risk/reward is so tilted in Test cricket. One bad ball means very little in the point run, but one bad shot can be massively game changing most of the time. When the margins are so fine - literal millimetres - it means your decision making has to be exceptional at top level cricket.