*Congratulations* Brian Lara 10,000 Test Runs!

[tooextracool]

No, but he still bowled plenty of very, very good deliveries - either Jaffas or wicket-taking balls - incidentally, he created more chances than his figures show.

amazing this, for most of this thread(and several other threads) you've been arguing about how certain bowlers didnt deserve their wickets because they didnt come off wicket taking balls, and then right here you say that he deserved them because he bowled plenty of jaffas and wicket-taking balls in between and created many chances.....
and the fact was that while he did bowl a few jaffas, just like most slow turning wickets do produce, he didnt bowl anywhere near 'several' and the batsmen definetly didnt have any signifcant problems playing him....

Yes, but it does mean that the ease of the pitch cannot be assumed nearly so easily when looking at the scores..

yes and if they were no dropped catches then many many big scores would end up being about half of what they actually were.

Vaughan scored 31* off 64 balls - striking at less than 50.
He played for himself, when there was not much left to play for with the team.
Fortunate for him that he did, too. I'm glad.

doubt it, 31 off 64 isnt all that slow given the nature of the wicket and that the entire team only managed an RR of 3.08. what must also be considered was that they were also losing wickets, and so he couldnt afford to take the risk of getting himself out and not batting till the end.

Sadly, Ramprakash would have been castigated if he'd scored 53 off 130 balls. In spite of the fact that that innings would have been better remembered in the long-term, once it had faded into almost-obscurity.

yes because his 50s came about once in every 6 innings and he rarely ever converted them into 100s or even big 50s.

He almost certainly would have. Never know, it might even have inspired him to play better than he did in New Zealand.
Nonetheless, he'd done more than enough to keep himself in the side in the previous 5 games..

just about, but after those 5 games he hadnt done enough to keep himself in the side, which is all that counts.

Yes, he was accurate in the sense of keeping the runs down. But too often he bowled too far down leg-side, instead of either attacking leg-stump (as he had for much of the first-innings) or bowling round-the-wicket (which he also did sometimes in the first-innings).

rubbish, giles was attacking the leg stump for most of that first innings and the match because that was where the tough was, it was englands plan on that dead wicket, frustrate the players and get wickets rather than bowl wicket-taking balls to get them out. if was in fact what got DDG out, sweeping a ball on leg stump straight to the fielder that hussain brilliantly positioned for him. and everyone remembers how tendulkar was frustrated throughout that first innings by the negative ashley giles line. incidentally 3 out of ashley giles 5fer came by cleaning up the indian tail, not like that requires anything brilliant...

It does - Giles didn't bowl as well, the pitch got slower - that's ample reason for India finding batting easier. They also batted better than they had in the first-innings - Dravid not trying to defend balls that were nowhere near the line of the stumps and all.

giles didnt bowl the negative line as well you mean? rubbish giles bowled the same line he did in the first inning

 

[tooextracool]

I've never contradicted a match-report of a match I didn't see. Because I don't have any evidence to contradict it on.
I do, however, whenever I see a mistake.

yet despite the fact that a match report and another person contradicts you on a match that even you admit that you have only watched live, you still wont accept that its your mistake.

It's not small - it's about 50:50. Of course, batsmen can do things that lower the chances of some balls carrying; equally, they can do nothing about others..

are you saying that 50% of the times edges carry to the fielder?are you out of your mind?
and yes i know that batsmen can lower the chances by playing with soft hands, and they can do that more effectively off swinging balls than they can off short quick ones.

It might mean something - if they were in fact not wrong.
Sadly, they are wrong...

its more likely that you are wrong though...

Yes, there are. Full credit to those.
Some, however, have got so bored with our 20-quote posts that they've stopped taking any notice of them.

yes of course they are, cant blame them either.

 

[Richard]

pressure is caused by bowling every ball at the right places at the right pace, the places can often shift depending on weaknesses etc.....

And if the ball is being bowled in the right place constantly but runs are still being scored at, say, 3-an-over?
Is the batsman still expected to feel under pressure then?

and that rarely ever happens, the batsman might still end up getting a big score, but anyone who watches that innings would see that he looked extremely jittery during and a short while after that period. the bowler deserves as much credit for getting his wicket later, even if it wasnt a wicket taking ball, for having frustrated him with good bowling.....

So why, then, does every good batsman (and every conasseur of good batting) say "the key is to forget the previous delivery\deliveries"?
If this is purely theoretical and hardly ever gets applied, why does everyone go on about it so much?
And why does so much watching suggest that all good batsmen apply it? - So however jittery or uncomfortable they might look, they keep their wicket intact.

 

[Richard]

if you say so

I do.
You are the only person who has ever called me a fool or anything similar.

except that whether or not i have evidence doesnt get this argument anywhere, because neither of us can prove it.

No, but if you say you have footage of the matches I'm not instantly going to think "ah, but of course 'e is lying!" like some poeple.

nope he owed it to the wicket, that actually offered something for the bowlers....and as the argument has been made before, just because some of his wickets werent from wicket-taking deliveries, it doesnt make him not deserve those wickets.

From memory one of the wickets was with a wicket-taking ball.
And he could hardly be said to have put the ball in the right place constantly, either.
Nor could he have been said to have extracted something from the pitch which Vaas and Zoysa didn't.

and strangely enough that was the inning which had cloud cover for most of it.....

No, for about 1\3, at the most, of it.
Most of the swing actually came after the sun had come out, too (the Flintoff and Cork wickets being the most prominent examples).

never said anything of the sort, if he cant use those conditions though he cant be considered to be anywhere near as good as you make him out to be.

He can and there are examples of instances where he has.

 

[Richard]

yet despite the fact that a match report and another person contradicts you on a match that even you admit that you have only watched live, you still wont accept that its your mistake.

Because I remember it very well, I remember certain balls (the b-b-b stuff actually makes some decriptions that help, too - it could be said to be contradicting the end-of-day report) clearly, and I don't believe anyone who has made mistakes in the past and someone who has an agenda to pursue.

are you saying that 50% of the times edges carry to the fielder?are you out of your mind?

No, and no.

and yes i know that batsmen can lower the chances by playing with soft hands, and they can do that more effectively off swinging balls than they can off short quick ones.

The fuller the ball, the harder to use soft hands to get a ball down - that's why people say "pitch it up".
Otherwise they'd simply say "pitch it short all day long" because there'd be fewer risks of over-pitching then.

its more likely that you are wrong though...

No, it's not "likely" anything, it's certain that I'm right, because I've watched the incident over and over again.

 

[Richard]

amazing this, for most of this thread(and several other threads) you've been arguing about how certain bowlers didnt deserve their wickets because they didnt come off wicket taking balls, and then right here you say that he deserved them because he bowled plenty of jaffas and wicket-taking balls in between and created many chances.....

All I've ever said is a spell where 5 wickets are taken and not one ball is a wicket-taking one.
If I simply said only wickets taken with wicket-taking balls were worth giving credit for I'd cut wicket tallies by about 3\4s.
I've always said I've no problem with a spell of 6 wickets where 3 were taken with wicket-taking balls and 3 weren't.

and the fact was that while he did bowl a few jaffas, just like most slow turning wickets do produce, he didnt bowl anywhere near 'several' and the batsmen definetly didnt have any signifcant problems playing him....

No, but in the end they had enough problems, however long that took, for them to get out.
And that pitch turned, helping fingerspinners more than any pitch that doesn't turn.

yes and if they were no dropped catches then many many big scores would end up being about half of what they actually were.

Quite a few wouldn't.
But bowlers, and pitches, shouldn't be judged on dropped catches.

doubt it, 31 off 64 isnt all that slow given the nature of the wicket and that the entire team only managed an RR of 3.08. what must also be considered was that they were also losing wickets, and so he couldnt afford to take the risk of getting himself out and not batting till the end.

Yes, he couldn't - 3.08-an-over was an impressive enough scoring-rate on that pitch.
Nonetheless, it needed to be more if England were to get into a better position - and thus Ramprakash was expected to sacrifice his wicket to try and increase the scoring-rate to a rate he hadn't really got much chance of attaining.
Vaughan, meanwhile, simply played the conditions. And he benefited from it.

yes because his 50s came about once in every 6 innings and he rarely ever converted them into 100s or even big 50s.

And that in the end was his undoing - as well as the two poor New Zealand series.

just about, but after those 5 games he hadnt done enough to keep himself in the side, which is all that counts.

No, he hadn't - and it was indeed.

rubbish, giles was attacking the leg stump for most of that first innings and the match because that was where the tough was, it was englands plan on that dead wicket, frustrate the players and get wickets rather than bowl wicket-taking balls to get them out. if was in fact what got DDG out, sweeping a ball on leg stump straight to the fielder that hussain brilliantly positioned for him. and everyone remembers how tendulkar was frustrated throughout that first innings by the negative ashley giles line. incidentally 3 out of ashley giles 5fer came by cleaning up the indian tail, not like that requires anything brilliant...

Nonetheless the Kumble ball was quite brilliant and almost identical to that which dismissed the far superior batsman Inzamam-Ul-Haq a year previously.
Tendulkar might have been frustrated but nonetheless he didn't give it away like he did in the next match.

giles didnt bowl the negative line as well you mean? rubbish giles bowled the same line he did in the first inning

If you say so.
Which is why all the commentators also commented on how differently he was bowling, how much further outside leg.
And IIRR he bowled about 5 overs round-the-wicket in the second-innings, not quite as many as he bowled in the first-innings. Or in Pakistan and Sri Lanka the previous winter.

 

[marc71178]

So why, then, does every good batsman (and every conasseur of good batting) say "the key is to forget the previous delivery\deliveries"?

So why if they all say it, do they not practise it at all times?

 

[Richard]

Because nothing is invariable.
Humans are humans and sometimes make mistakes - like worrying about what they need not worry about.

 

[tooextracool]

And if the ball is being bowled in the right place constantly but runs are still being scored at, say, 3-an-over?
Is the batsman still expected to feel under pressure then?

it depends how the runs are scored, if a batsman is living dangerously and edging over slips i dont see any reason even at 5 an over why he wouldnt be under pressure. of course if hes scoring freely then it would suggest that he isnt bowling in the right places in the first place.

So why, then, does every good batsman (and every conasseur of good batting) say "the key is to forget the previous delivery\deliveries"?
If this is purely theoretical and hardly ever gets applied, why does everyone go on about it so much?

you mean the same people who dont know anything about cricket whenever convenient? like when you go against everyone about fingerspinners?
and the reason why anyone would say that is because that is the best way to play, to play each delivery on its merit, but as we've seen time and time again, it doesnt happen that way, its something you can only do to an extent, certain players have better temperaments like steve waugh for instance, but it only means that he is likely to make less mistakes under pressure than someone with a poor temperament would. which is why many,many people have said that the key to a good player is a good temperament and which is why someone like strauss is such a great find.

And why does so much watching suggest that all good batsmen apply it? - So however jittery or uncomfortable they might look, they keep their wicket intact.

and the fact that they look jittery in itself suggests that they are feeling the pressure, indeed on several occasions they get out playing a poor shot, something that you fail to give credit to the bowler and are unable to account for. a good batsman only tends to make those mistakes far less often than someone else would, a good batsman would usually not get out to a long hop wide outside the off stump under pressure for example.

 

[tooextracool]

No, but if you say you have footage of the matches I'm not instantly going to think "ah, but of course 'e is lying!" like some poeple.

but if i had footage you'd still be arguing over whether i had been watching closely enough, much the same way that i argue it with you.

From memory one of the wickets was with a wicket-taking ball.
And he could hardly be said to have put the ball in the right place constantly, either.

no but enough times in a spell to be given credit for the wicket.....

Nor could he have been said to have extracted something from the pitch which Vaas and Zoysa didn't.

and given that vaas and zoysa have both failed on several occasions on similar wickets in the past, its quite possible that he did.

No, for about 1\3, at the most, of it.
Most of the swing actually came after the sun had come out, too (the Flintoff and Cork wickets being the most prominent examples)..

err that would be half the innings then wouldnt it?

He can and there are examples of instances where he has.

no there arent, there is the odd occasion but by and large he has failed.

 

[tooextracool]

Because I remember it very well, I remember certain balls (the b-b-b stuff actually makes some decriptions that help, too - it could be said to be contradicting the end-of-day report) clearly, and I don't believe anyone who has made mistakes in the past and someone who has an agenda to pursue..

and everyone has made mistakes in the past including yourself....and i too remember that match very well indeed. i could bet everything i had and safely say that it was not a turner.

No, and no...

"It's not small - it's about 50:50."

The fuller the ball, the harder to use soft hands to get a ball down - that's why people say "pitch it up".
Otherwise they'd simply say "pitch it short all day long" because there'd be fewer risks of over-pitching then....

no the shorter balls are harder to keep down, so often we've seen batsman spoon them in the air. swinging balls are the ones that can be played with soft hands and kept down.

No, it's not "likely" anything, it's certain that I'm right, because I've watched the incident over and over again.

and im certain too....that doesnt get us anywhere.

 

[tooextracool]

All I've ever said is a spell where 5 wickets are taken and not one ball is a wicket-taking one.
If I simply said only wickets taken with wicket-taking balls were worth giving credit for I'd cut wicket tallies by about 3\4s.
I've always said I've no problem with a spell of 6 wickets where 3 were taken with wicket-taking balls and 3 weren't.

yes and by your theory kumble didnt deserve most of his wickets, since they werent of wicket taking balls....hence the wicket was not a turner

No, but in the end they had enough problems, however long that took, for them to get out...

how can he cause enough problems and yet take 51 overs to get his wickets??

And that pitch turned, helping fingerspinners more than any pitch that doesn't turn..

err yes i know when did i deny that it didnt turn? for the umpteenth time it was slow turn, and slow turn does not get quality batsmen out. it takes poor shots for them to get out, and that is shown quite clearly in all of kumbles wickets.

Quite a few wouldn't.
But bowlers, and pitches, shouldn't be judged on dropped catches...

no they should be judged on how they bowl, but since 'how they bowl' is subjective we have to look at stats to come up with any sort of facts.

Yes, he couldn't - 3.08-an-over was an impressive enough scoring-rate on that pitch.
Nonetheless, it needed to be more if England were to get into a better position - and thus Ramprakash was expected to sacrifice his wicket to try and increase the scoring-rate to a rate he hadn't really got much chance of attaining.
Vaughan, meanwhile, simply played the conditions. And he benefited from it....

err no, ramprakash didnt need to sacrifice his wicket,he could very well have played the vaughan innings but he just chose to not do so for whatever reasons

Nonetheless the Kumble ball was quite brilliant and almost identical to that which dismissed the far superior batsman Inzamam-Ul-Haq a year previously.
Tendulkar might have been frustrated but nonetheless he didn't give it away like he did in the next match..

nicely evading the issue again....

If you say so.
Which is why all the commentators also commented on how differently he was bowling, how much further outside leg.
And IIRR he bowled about 5 overs round-the-wicket in the second-innings, not quite as many as he bowled in the first-innings. Or in Pakistan and Sri Lanka the previous winter.

and look carefully and decide how many of his wickets came by bowling over the wicket in the first innings....the rough was outside the leg stump and given that the pitch didnt offer turn and bounce he had to bowl into the rough to be anywhere near threatening. it worked in the first innings because he managed to frustrate batsmen, it didnt in the 2nd though.

 

[Richard]

it depends how the runs are scored, if a batsman is living dangerously and edging over slips i dont see any reason even at 5 an over why he wouldnt be under pressure.

Batsmen don't give a damn how their runs are being scored - as long as they're scoring them. We've seen God-knows-how-many innings where batsmen edge loads when they first come to the crease and go on to play a substantial innings.
However, if someone is repeatedly edging stuff it does suggest that they're living dangerously and that one of those edges could go to hand at any point.

of course if hes scoring freely then it would suggest that he isnt bowling in the right places in the first place.

It would suggest so, and 49 times out of 50 it'll be the case - but not invariably. In these rare instances, the bowler is still bowling in the right place. But is there pressure? No. The perception of pressure is caused by the slow scoring-rate brought-about by the bowler putting the ball in the right place.

you mean the same people who dont know anything about cricket whenever convenient? like when you go against everyone about fingerspinners?

No, when I go against you and one or two others.
And I've never claimed once that anyone "doesn't know anything about cricket" - it would be convenient for you if I had, but I haven't. I've deliberately not said so, in fact. Because anyone writing or commentating on cricket will inevitably know a hell of a lot. They will not, however, invariably know better than me.

and the reason why anyone would say that is because that is the best way to play, to play each delivery on its merit, but as we've seen time and time again, it doesnt happen that way, its something you can only do to an extent, certain players have better temperaments like steve waugh for instance, but it only means that he is likely to make less mistakes under pressure than someone with a poor temperament would. which is why many,many people have said that the key to a good player is a good temperament and which is why someone like strauss is such a great find.

And had Strauss not got the shot-selection, eye and technique he'd be no good, either.
Yes, of course you need a good temperament, but really temperament is something that is rather overrated - it's not like it's a 18446744073709551616-shades-of-grey thing. It's a simple matter of "has he got it or not"?

and the fact that they look jittery in itself suggests that they are feeling the pressure

Or that they are being outbowled.

indeed on several occasions they get out playing a poor shot, something that you fail to give credit to the bowler and are unable to account for. a good batsman only tends to make those mistakes far less often than someone else would, a good batsman would usually not get out to a long hop wide outside the off stump under pressure for example.

Exactly - not many will.
And they'll get out to an average, nothing-special ball far less often than you seem to think, too.

 

[Richard]

but if i had footage you'd still be arguing over whether i had been watching closely enough, much the same way that i argue it with you.

Even you'd struggle to get something wrong having watched it 50 times.

no but enough times in a spell to be given credit for the wicket.....

Enough times that he went for all-but 4-an-over...

and given that vaas and zoysa have both failed on several occasions on similar wickets in the past, its quite possible that he did.

It would be quite possible - if I didn't know otherwise.

err that would be half the innings then wouldnt it?

No, it wouldn't.

no there arent, there is the odd occasion but by and large he has failed.

Maybe he's failed far more than he should have, but that does not mean he can't bowl seam and swing.
You put Chaminda on the pitches of the New Zealand-India series 2 winters ago and you see if he doesn't cause havoc. Or, indeed, those at Christchurch and Eden Park the winter before, against England.

 

[Richard]

and everyone has made mistakes in the past including yourself....and i too remember that match very well indeed. i could bet everything i had and safely say that it was not a turner.

In which case we've reached a dead-end.
Because I would quite happily do the same.

"It's not small - it's about 50:50."

Yes, if batsmen don't try to keep it down.
If they do (and fairly obviously they do) it goes down a bit.

no the shorter balls are harder to keep down, so often we've seen batsman spoon them in the air. swinging balls are the ones that can be played with soft hands and kept down.

Often we've seen batsmen spoon short-balls in the air, yes.
No, not often at all.
And it's almost impossible to play a full, swinging ball with sufficiently soft hands to keep it down.

and im certain too....that doesnt get us anywhere.

Except that you've watched it maybe 5 or 6 times.

 

[Richard]

yes and by your theory kumble didnt deserve most of his wickets, since they werent of wicket taking balls....hence the wicket was not a turner

Yet he turned the ball plenty, and did deserve enough of his wickets to be credited with an excellent spell.

how can he cause enough problems and yet take 51 overs to get his wickets??

Err, because sometimes you have to bowl lots of overs - it happens to everyone.

err yes i know when did i deny that it didnt turn? for the umpteenth time it was slow turn, and slow turn does not get quality batsmen out. it takes poor shots for them to get out, and that is shown quite clearly in all of kumbles wickets.

No, it's not - slow turn is exploitable by good bowlers, such as Giles and Kumble. They bowled enough wicket-taking balls to be said to have exploited the pitch.

no they should be judged on how they bowl, but since 'how they bowl' is subjective we have to look at stats to come up with any sort of facts.

And if a bowler's bowled 3 good deliveries and created 3 chances, and had the lot of them missed, the commonly-used statistics are rather misleading.

err no, ramprakash didnt need to sacrifice his wicket,he could very well have played the vaughan innings but he just chose to not do so for whatever reasons

The reasons probably being that he'd have been widely castigated if he'd scored 51 off 140 balls.

nicely evading the issue again....

Yes, of course - evading the issue that no matter how frustrated Tendulkar was, it didn't cause him to give his wicket away.

and look carefully and decide how many of his wickets came by bowling over the wicket in the first innings....the rough was outside the leg stump and given that the pitch didnt offer turn and bounce he had to bowl into the rough to be anywhere near threatening. it worked in the first innings because he managed to frustrate batsmen, it didnt in the 2nd though.

The rough? Were you not taking any notice that, on a pitch with very low clay content, everyone was talking about how little or no rough was forming? Did you not notice it anyway?
He managed to apparently frustrate, meanwhile, that great blocker Deep Dasgupta - what an achievement. The ball looked for-all-intents-and-purposes like it was there to sweep, yet it dipped and turned, causing the top-edge.

 

[tooextracool]

Yet he turned the ball plenty, and did deserve enough of his wickets to be credited with an excellent spell

yet when bowlers like mcgrath do the same they dont deserve their wickets and you call them lucky.....
and kumble didnt look anywhere near threatening in that match, if he did, it would have taken far less than 51 overs and a score far less than what england eventually got.

Err, because sometimes you have to bowl lots of overs - it happens to everyone.

yes thats either when you're not bowling well or when the wicket is flat.....obviously if they batted so long against him and that he didnt deserve about half his wickets he wasnt threatening......

No, it's not - slow turn is exploitable by good bowlers, such as Giles and Kumble. They bowled enough wicket-taking balls to be said to have exploited the pitch..

rubbish, it takes poor batting for a bowler to exploit slow turn, if they were so good then they would have exploited it by taking wickets with wicket taking balls then, when in fact they didnt.

And if a bowler's bowled 3 good deliveries and created 3 chances, and had the lot of them missed, the commonly-used statistics are rather misleading.

and because it happens almost every game then every game is misleading

The reasons probably being that he'd have been widely castigated if he'd scored 51 off 140 balls.

2 things....
1)that SR is far worse than vaughans...he certainly would have been credited if he had scored 51 off 100 balls.
2)had he scored 51 not out he might have saved his career, only a jackass would go after the bowling when hes struggling to score runs, for a place in the side and when wickets are falling at the other end.

Yes, of course - evading the issue that no matter how frustrated Tendulkar was, it didn't cause him to give his wicket away..

which if you could read is not the issue in the first place.....the issue was that giles bowled negatively for most of the first innings too.....just like he did in the 2nd innings.

The rough? Were you not taking any notice that, on a pitch with very low clay content, everyone was talking about how little or no rough was forming? Did you not notice it anyway?

OMG are you accusing me of not watching?
did you not see kumbles wicket?the ball turned and bounced significantly because it landed in the rough in the first place!!

He managed to apparently frustrate, meanwhile, that great blocker Deep Dasgupta - what an achievement. The ball looked for-all-intents-and-purposes like it was there to sweep, yet it dipped and turned, causing the top-edge.

do you have a point here? or are you trying to contradict yourself?

 

[tooextracool]

In which case we've reached a dead-end.
Because I would quite happily do the same..

fine then, lets leave it that way...

Yes, if batsmen don't try to keep it down.
If they do (and fairly obviously they do) it goes down a bit.

rubbish we see edges between slip,over slip,through gully etc far more often than we see them go to the hands of the fielders.

Often we've seen batsmen spoon short-balls in the air, yes.
No, not often at all.
And it's almost impossible to play a full, swinging ball with sufficiently soft hands to keep it down..

yes we've seen it several times, times that you call lucky wickets....
and swinging balls are far easier to keep down thats why people say play with soft hands....

Except that you've watched it maybe 5 or 6 times.

and just because youve watched it more times, it doesnt mean that you cant be wrong.....ive watched it enough times to make my opinion about it, watching it a million times more wouldnt make a difference

 

[tooextracool]

Even you'd struggle to get something wrong having watched it 50 times..

yes i would, you wouldnt though....

Enough times that he went for all-but 4-an-over.....

how many times do i have to say it? ER doesnt bare any relation to how accurate or how well a bowler bowls in a test match! and he could quite easily have had 2-3 good spells where he deserved a shedload of wickets and then had a few poor ones.

No, it wouldn't..

the sun came out sometime after stewart got out yes? stewart got out on over 58, and england only batted 73 overs.....where do you come up with such b/s?

Maybe he's failed far more than he should have, but that does not mean he can't bowl seam and swing.

and if he hasnt been performing on seamer friendly conditions that is what we must assume.....thats like saying just because someone like james kirtley has failed in his international career so far, it doesnt mean that he cant bowl....

You put Chaminda on the pitches of the New Zealand-India series 2 winters ago and you see if he doesn't cause havoc. Or, indeed, those at Christchurch and Eden Park the winter before, against England.

and his past record suggests that he probably would have.....not like speculating what you believe is going to prove something.....

 

[tooextracool]

Batsmen don't give a damn how their runs are being scored - as long as they're scoring them. We've seen God-knows-how-many innings where batsmen edge loads when they first come to the crease and go on to play a substantial innings.
However, if someone is repeatedly edging stuff it does suggest that they're living dangerously and that one of those edges could go to hand at any point..

OMG how many times do you keep bringing up the same old rubbish?
yes i know that there have been times where batsman have gone on to score despite struggling....and take a look smart ass at how many times they've failed, its far more often that they've failed.....

It would suggest so, and 49 times out of 50 it'll be the case - but not invariably. In these rare instances, the bowler is still bowling in the right place. But is there pressure? No. The perception of pressure is caused by the slow scoring-rate brought-about by the bowler putting the ball in the right place...

and now you continue to put words on my keyboard.....no pressure is not slow scoring rates, its frustrating the batsman by putting the balls in the right places. of course if you could stop the scoring rate against someone like sehwag or gilchrist then you'd obviously be putting them under pressure, indeed if you had watched any amount of the lords test vs new zealand you would have seen that fleming got out due to the slow scoring rate....the ball that jones bowled to get him out was ordinary.....but the bowling prior to that was brilliant.
and no on that occasion in SA the bowlers where not putting the balls in the right places....

No, when I go against you and one or two others.
And I've never claimed once that anyone "doesn't know anything about cricket" - it would be convenient for you if I had, but I haven't. I've deliberately not said so, in fact. Because anyone writing or commentating on cricket will inevitably know a hell of a lot. They will not, however, invariably know better than me....

and if they can be wrong then so can you, however its extremely unlikely that 2 of them can be wrong.....

And had Strauss not got the shot-selection, eye and technique he'd be no good, either

yes but his eye is ordinary as is his technique, in fact he carries a flaw in his technique.

Yes, of course you need a good temperament, but really temperament is something that is rather overrated - it's not like it's a 18446744073709551616-shades-of-grey thing. It's a simple matter of "has he got it or not"?

nope there are different amounts of temperament, indeed someone like steve waugh or hussain had a much better temperament than someone like tendulkar does....but then would you say that tendulkar doesnt have a temperament?

Or that they are being outbowled.

yes which is the point im making, to be under pressure you are usually outbowled, therefore anyone who gets a wicket from a poor shot must receive credit for outbowling the batsman in the first place.

Exactly - not many will.
And they'll get out to an average, nothing-special ball far less often than you seem to think, too.

yet they've gotten out extremely often, you've just put it down to luck on most occasions.