Collymore may miss VB Series

[Richard]

it seems quite clear to me that richard does not have much cricket playing experience(either that or he was really crap!), bowling in the nets is 1000 times different than bowling in the middle, first of all you are bowling to much different batsman, you have a different ball, you actually have a field to bowl to, you have a match situation you have to take into account, it is a much different enviroment and atmosphere, there are so many variables you are failing to take any notice of.

About the only part that makes sense is about me being crap: yes, I'm an average club third-team bowler. And I can't bat for sh*t.
I don't need the experience, however, to know the differences between nets and matches.
Nonetheless, I think I've explained myself pretty well in the last 3 posts.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No, I don't believe bowling well in nets is the same as bowling well in matches, not at all. But nonetheless you can't correct problems in matches, you can correct them in nets only.
If you know the problems are there, you are not going to help eradicate them by playing more games.

Many times the problem is identified whilst playing in a match situation though. See that's the thing about learning, practical experience always helps the process.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

How is someone going to improve by bowling a measly 60 deliveries (or more with wides and no-balls)?
Do you know how much hard work goes into improving as a bowler? It's incredibly difficult.

It's about getting the experience and applying what you've learned from it in those net sessions and the following games. Any cricketer gets better with experience. There's a simple reason for that.

 

[Buddhmaster]

How is someone going to improve by bowling a measly 60 deliveries (or more with wides and no-balls)?
Do you know how much hard work goes into improving as a bowler? It's incredibly difficult.

They do actually. They're not going to bowl all of their balls the same. They will bowl their first few overs, see what happens, and if they got smashed, they will come up with new ideas. As someone else said, you obviously don't know much about the game situation.

 

[marc71178]

How long are you going to hang onto that one for?

Until you actually do/write something to show it to be wrong.

 

[marc71178]

I don't need the experience, however, to know the differences between nets and matches.

In the same way that you don't need to have played International Cricket to fully appreciate the presures involved

 

[Richard]

Until you actually do/write something to show it to be wrong.

And I've done that.
To provide one example (and there are others):
I've said Symonds has quite clearly made a massive improvement as a one-day player, borne-out in his ODI-average up to WC2003 being a massive 23.81 and 56.48 between the 143* and before the three consecutive ducks he's recently acquired.
To say a player cannot make improvement is a quite ludicrous idea and one I cannot believe you could honestly contemplate.

 

[Richard]

In the same way that you don't need to have played International Cricket to fully appreciate the presures involved

Nope - you don't.
Otherwise there would be no point in anyone trying to form an idea of cricket at any level above that which they've played.

 

[Richard]

They do actually. They're not going to bowl all of their balls the same. They will bowl their first few overs, see what happens, and if they got smashed, they will come up with new ideas. As someone else said, you obviously don't know much about the game situation.

So someone needs to get smashed around to think "hang on - I need to do something different here!"?????
You do not need to get hammered to know you need to bowl better.
You do, however, need to be able to bowl better.
It is not a case that players do not know what they need to do - it is a case of learning to do it.
I really cannot believe so many people fail to see that.

 

[Richard]

It's about getting the experience and applying what you've learned from it in those net sessions and the following games. Any cricketer gets better with experience. There's a simple reason for that.

No, you only get better if you learn from your experiences.
The best experience to learn from is one that doesn't harm your figures and confidence.
Why not learn from the net-sessions, put what you've learnt into practice in the net-sessions, then put it into practice in games?
Does so much less harm to yourself and your team.
And could you please clarify one more thing: you surely do not believe that what Best, Edwards, Rampaul et al need to learn is where to bowl? You surely realise that they know the simple thing: we need to be more accurate.
You realise, surely, then, that what they need to do is learn to bowl more accurately?

 

[Richard]

Many times the problem is identified whilst playing in a match situation though. See that's the thing about learning, practical experience always helps the process.

And net-sessions are not practical experiences because...?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And net-sessions are not practical experiences because...?

Because they aren't match situations. When you see televised international net sessions, then you've got a point.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So someone needs to get smashed around to think "hang on - I need to do something different here!"?????
You do not need to get hammered to know you need to bowl better.
You do, however, need to be able to bowl better.
It is not a case that players do not know what they need to do - it is a case of learning to do it.
I really cannot believe so many people fail to see that.

When you bowl poorly and are consequently dispatched, your faults are exposed. Then you can go and put in all the net sessions you want to try to correct them.

 

[Richard]

Because they aren't match situations. When you see televised international net sessions, then you've got a point.

But why are they not practical experiences?
Why does something have to be televised internationally to be a practical experience.
Personally I've always understood a practical experience to be absolutely nothing to do with being televised internationally.

 

[Richard]

When you bowl poorly and are consequently dispatched, your faults are exposed. Then you can go and put in all the net sessions you want to try to correct them.

But why do you have to have them exposed to want to correct them?
Surely any cricketer with a decent mindset doesn't have to have his faults exposed to want to correct them? Surely he'd prefer correct them before they're exposed?

 

[marc71178]

Nope - you don't.

Oh yes you do - it is impossible to conceive the pressure of 20000 people, as I've already demonstrated with 2000.

 

[marc71178]

But why are they not practical experiences?

For a start, the complete absence of pressure.

 

[Richard]

For a start, the complete absence of pressure.

And where, in the definition of practical experience, does it say "must have the pressure of a Test-match or ODI"?
Come to that, where do you get the idea that there is never the slightest bit of pressure on a net-session?
If important people are watching (national selectors, for instance) don't you think there might just be a teeny bit of pressure on the performer?
Not as much as in a game, obviously, but surely it's not completely absent?

 

[marc71178]

The whole reason why not playing means you don't know.

 

[Richard]

Edit - wrong passage of conversation.