Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[Richard]

If he knows what's coming and he's as good a batsman as you suggest then he will be prepared for it. Any batsman that would be considered good at international level, if told that Lee or Akhtar were going to bowl an inswinging yorker (I'm just using them because of the pace) would have no trouble digging it out. On the other hand, if you or I were told the same thing there'd still be problems due to pace etc (the fact that, seemingly, neither of us can bat! haha).

Hmm, I reckon it'd be harder than that!
IMO there are some balls that you can't play if the bowler tells you he's going to bowl it. No-one can ever know the exact line of a ball, be it bowler or batsman.

I, on the other hand, don't think the term "out-thinking" implies cricketers are stupid. It's talking about a specific occasion when the bowler has trumped the batsman. You've set him up, making him believe something is going to happen, before delivering something entirely different. This doesn't mean the player invloved is stupid, just that the bowler was the more wiley of the two on this occasion. To me "outclassed" means that the bowler was a level above the batsman from the outset, his dismissal was inevitable. a bit like what happens when some of the top International teams play against the up and comers.

I just think it means that, on this occasion, the bowler was better than the batsman.
Outclassed doesn't, to me, mean anything's inevitable.

What would be your reasoning behind teaching kids to bowl accurately?

Because it's better to go for 2.5-an-over than 3.5-an-over.
Fairly obvious, I would have thought.
The fewer runs you concede, the better you are.

 

[Richard]

but Richard you seem to only consider people with the same opinion as you to have valid points concerning the game...your thought processes appear to be far to rigid, you sometimes make valid points, but these are offset by an inflexibilty which suggests that you dont have a TRUE understanding of the game...the game has so many intangibles that your generalisations about player or teams etc just become silly.

A good journo sees things from as many view points as possible,and is constantly taking on board the opinions of others.

If you didn't take on board the opinions of others you'd never have anything to form your opinions with.
Personally I think fixed ways of looking at things are the better, rather than using certain things in some regards and others in others, leading to inconsistency. And I pride myself on never resorting to generalisation and stereotyping. Find me an occasion where I have, please, and I'll retract it.
And I really wish people would realise that if someone's opinion contradicts your own, you are going to disagree. Whoever you are. That doesn't mean others' opinions "don't matter" or aren't worth taking on board, but if you've formed something through thorough consideration and someone suggests, I'm sorry, but anyone in their right mind will stick to their guns.

 

[Richard]

There's things that happen in the game though that you can't have any knowledge of unless you are in close contact with the players and have intimate knowledge of the tactics used. When watching, you can only presume as to what is happening, when the reality might be quite different. I would think that these ex-players, now commentators, would have a more intimate knowledge of what it takes to get a good batsman out (and by good I mean world-class) than either of us would. I take the fact that some of them are ex-captains into account - you'd presume they would know what tactics they used to employ to get batsmen out, and when they mention pressure having an effect then I presume they know what they are talking about.

Why is it so much more important to have played while it's happening?
IMO all you need to do is watch closely, from wherever quarters, and you'll learn what you need to learn.
I personally think I'd make a good international captain, if I were anywhere near a good enough player, and I don't think that's blowing my own trumpet at all - I regularly pick-up things and remember things that commentators don't.

I'm not suggesting a batsman worries too much about the teams run rate, but individually not scoring runs plays on a batsmans mind. If he's tied down for a while he starts to wonder how he's going to go about getting some runs, which often leads to a false shot and a dismissal. Obviously, in situations where you are playing for a draw from the outset then it's probably not going to be a problem, however playing and missing and not being able to contend with a bowler puts another set of doubts in the batsman's mind that put him under pressure again - how many times have we seen batsman simply trying to survive against Warney etc failing miserably.

Every bit as often as we see that fizzing leg-break making a fool of someone trying to score off it when they have no right to.
Any good batsman knows that slow runs are better than no runs, they always have. Everyone knows that, no matter how good the bowler, the bad balls will come eventually.

 

[Swervy]

Why is it so much more important to have played while it's happening?
IMO all you need to do is watch closely, from wherever quarters, and you'll learn what you need to learn.
I personally think I'd make a good international captain, if I were anywhere near a good enough player, and I don't think that's blowing my own trumpet at all - I regularly pick-up things and remember things that commentators don't.

now that is damned funny.

just because you MAY remember things that these commentators dont (that again is up for debate) doesnt make you the stuff of a good international captain...what about leadership skills,man management skills,communication skills, fast thinking whilst still treating people as individuals etc.....you have said some things in the past Richard which are strange, but this one takes the biscuit

 

[Richard]

Because that's not all there is to it - tactics is the single most important thing in a captain, we've seen that time and again with Ganguly. If he was tactically excellent he'd be one of the best captains of all-time. But because he's not he's merely pretty good.
I don't think I'd be an especially bad man-manager (involving communication) and certainly I think I'd be brilliant at treating people as individuals (all part of tactics, anyway - and man-management) for the very reasons I've already mentioned.
And in any case, being a good commentator is all about making incisive comment at the vital second - if you notice that Michael Vaughan's dismissal at SSC in the second-innings was an action-replay of his only dismissal at Old Trafford 1-and-a-half years previously on the dot (which I did) you say it at that second. Not in the highlights when everyone's already gone over it 100 times and the producers have helped-out. So if you have noticed it and you don't remember it, I'm afraid as far as I'm concerned you've no right saying the commentators might have remembered it and I didn't outdo them at their own trade - because I did, and I have done many, many times.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Because that's not all there is to it - tactics is the single most important thing in a captain, we've seen that time and again with Ganguly. If he was tactically excellent he'd be one of the best captains of all-time. But because he's not he's merely pretty good.
I don't think I'd be an especially bad man-manager (involving communication) and certainly I think I'd be brilliant at treating people as individuals (all part of tactics, anyway - and man-management) for the very reasons I've already mentioned.
And in any case, being a good commentator is all about making incisive comment at the vital second - if you notice that Michael Vaughan's dismissal at SSC in the second-innings was an action-replay of his only dismissal at Old Trafford 1-and-a-half years previously on the dot (which I did) you say it at that second. Not in the highlights when everyone's already gone over it 100 times and the producers have helped-out. So if you have noticed it and you don't remember it, I'm afraid as far as I'm concerned you've no right saying the commentators might have remembered it and I didn't outdo them at their own trade - because I did, and I have done many, many times.

Vaughans always had a problem with playing at balls that are just too wide...but for someone who plays that shot so well i guess its hard to tell him to stop it all together.

 

[Swervy]

Because that's not all there is to it - tactics is the single most important thing in a captain, we've seen that time and again with Ganguly. If he was tactically excellent he'd be one of the best captains of all-time. But because he's not he's merely pretty good.
I don't think I'd be an especially bad man-manager (involving communication) and certainly I think I'd be brilliant at treating people as individuals (all part of tactics, anyway - and man-management) for the very reasons I've already mentioned.

have you ever captained a team before???

Have you ever been in a situation where you have had to 'lead' a group of adults (many with strong opinions about how things should/could be done) towards a set goal??

Have you ever been in a position where one of the people under you is a good performer but actually is doing more harm to the team unit...or have you had to deal with someone who is suffering from a major confidence shortage about themselves or their performance.

These are skills that are developed over time, with experience of those situations...how anyone can say 'I would be a good international captain' without a) playing international cricket b)playing even that good a standard of cricket is beyond me.

 

[Swervy]

Because that's not all there is to it - tactics is the single most important thing in a captain, we've seen that time and again with Ganguly. If he was tactically excellent he'd be one of the best captains of all-time. But because he's not he's merely pretty good.

yes and I am sure we all think we could be tactically aware if we had the privilage of playing international cricket, and yes it is easy to make the calls when watching in the comfort of your living room with the TV on....but when the game is your living, you have 20000 people in the stadium watching you,and a few million on TV watching, the media waiting for you to make a mistake so they can jump in for the kill, normal thought processes almost go out the window....its the good captains that can take that pressure and make tactical decisions in that calm way which most of us would find difficult in those situations.

You cant just say I could do that without having even the slightest idea of the conditions are that you would have to play in.

 

[Richard]

So from now on the only people who are permitted to comment on how an international captain is going is those who know at first hand how difficult it really is - anyone else is simply criticising someone for a job they have no concept of how difficult it is.
The best players (and remember, captaincy is part of playing) are those who take this sort of thing in their stride, who don't let it affect them.
If it really affected Tendulkar that there were however-many million Indians upon whose hopes and dreams he was pinned every time he walked to the crease do you think he would ever score a run? I don't, personally. But it doesn't affect him and it's never affected anyone who's ever performed consistently well on the big stage - it's called having a good temperament.

 

[Richard]

Vaughans always had a problem with playing at balls that are just too wide...but for someone who plays that shot so well i guess its hard to tell him to stop it all together.

Oh, it was nothing to do with that - both times he jumped into a drive, both times he was deceived by that Fernando slower-ball that isn't and never will be possible to pick, and both times he hit it straight at the man at shortish mid-off.

 

[Richard]

have you ever captained a team before???

Have you ever been in a situation where you have had to 'lead' a group of adults (many with strong opinions about how things should/could be done) towards a set goal??

Have you ever been in a position where one of the people under you is a good performer but actually is doing more harm to the team unit...or have you had to deal with someone who is suffering from a major confidence shortage about themselves or their performance.

These are skills that are developed over time, with experience of those situations...how anyone can say 'I would be a good international captain' without a) playing international cricket b)playing even that good a standard of cricket is beyond me.

This is what coaches are for.
If captains have to deal with all this they'd never have any time for doing the important stuff - practising their game and dissecting the opposition.
Of course he'll have a part to play in that, but it's most old-fashioned to think of the captain as the main man when dealing with this sort of thing - that's not how it works any more.
Captaincy is becoming more and more on-field orientated - and quite rightly IMO. That's the way other sports do it, I've never seen why cricket is so different.
And that's what makes a good coach - the best coaches have that air of authority that makes players who might otherwise make a nuscience of themselves keep quiet - and they have the nerve and confidence to deal with any particularly obstinate players and get rid of them.
If anyone's ever played Duncan Fletcher up at any team, I'll be amazed. Yet he is as quiet, undemonstrative a public figure as you'll see.
Don't know how much you remember of your schooldays but I'm sure it couldn't have been much different in your day - and I went to one school where there were plenty and plenty in the way of insubordinates. Yet there were some teachers that even the worst students never showed overt cheek to - because you know who you can mess around and who you can't.

 

[Swervy]

So from now on the only people who are permitted to comment on how an international captain is going is those who know at first hand how difficult it really is - anyone else is simply criticising someone for a job they have no concept of how difficult it is.
The best players (and remember, captaincy is part of playing) are those who take this sort of thing in their stride, who don't let it affect them.
If it really affected Tendulkar that there were however-many million Indians upon whose hopes and dreams he was pinned every time he walked to the crease do you think he would ever score a run? I don't, personally. But it doesn't affect him and it's never affected anyone who's ever performed consistently well on the big stage - it's called having a good temperament.

there is a big difference between criticising and saying you could do the job better than say Ganguly (the example player you used)....I also think Ganguly struggles tactically, but I certainly wouldnt say I could do a better job, I would like to think I could be tactically aware on the field, but i would not ever be so arrogant as to say I could do it.

You say that you can recall things from the past with ease where commentators dont...well it is easy to recall certain things that stick in your mind watching infront of a TV with no pressure on you...it certainly doesnt make you a good captain....utterly stupid to even think so.What about the things you cant remember...these are things you dont know about, because the nature of the things you cant remember are that you cant remember them..maybe they are important things that you need to take into consideration as well

 

[Swervy]

This is what coaches are for.
If captains have to deal with all this they'd never have any time for doing the important stuff - practising their game and dissecting the opposition.
Of course he'll have a part to play in that, but it's most old-fashioned to think of the captain as the main man when dealing with this sort of thing - that's not how it works any more.
Captaincy is becoming more and more on-field orientated - and quite rightly IMO. That's the way other sports do it, I've never seen why cricket is so different.
And that's what makes a good coach - the best coaches have that air of authority that makes players who might otherwise make a nuscience of themselves keep quiet - and they have the nerve and confidence to deal with any particularly obstinate players and get rid of them.
If anyone's ever played Duncan Fletcher up at any team, I'll be amazed. Yet he is as quiet, undemonstrative a public figure as you'll see.
Don't know how much you remember of your schooldays but I'm sure it couldn't have been much different in your day - and I went to one school where there were plenty and plenty in the way of insubordinates. Yet there were some teachers that even the worst students never showed overt cheek to - because you know who you can mess around and who you can't.

I was talking about on field stuff there...you still need to manage those types of things whilst playing...nothing the coach can do on field

 

[Richard]

there is a big difference between criticising and saying you could do the job better than say Ganguly (the example player you used)....I also think Ganguly struggles tactically, but I certainly wouldnt say I could do a better job, I would like to think I could be tactically aware on the field, but i would not ever be so arrogant as to say I could do it.

And I never said I definately could, did I? I just said I think I could.

You say that you can recall things from the past with ease where commentators dont...well it is easy to recall certain things that stick in your mind watching infront of a TV with no pressure on you...it certainly doesnt make you a good captain....utterly stupid to even think so.What about the things you cant remember...these are things you dont know about, because the nature of the things you cant remember are that you cant remember them..maybe they are important things that you need to take into consideration as well

Maybe. Or maybe not.
The reality of it is, we're never going to find-out so we can do but leave it at I think I would, you think I wouldn't.
Certainly I think I'd make a good captain of any side I was good enough to get into.
And certainly I think I could do as good if not a better job than broadcasters\tabloid-journos of the ones I know. And I think plenty of others I know, some through this board, could do also so that's nothing to do with arrogance.

 

[Richard]

I was talking about on field stuff there...you still need to manage those types of things whilst playing...nothing the coach can do on field

Well, very occasionally, but most of the time things like these:

been in a situation where you have had to 'lead' a group of adults (many with strong opinions about how things should/could be done) towards a set goal??

been in a position where one of the people under you is a good performer but actually is doing more harm to the team unit... had to deal with someone who is suffering from a major confidence shortage about themselves or their performance.

will come-up off the field only.

 

[Swervy]

And I never said I definately could, did I? I just said I think I could.

Maybe. Or maybe not.
The reality of it is, we're never going to find-out so we can do but leave it at I think I would, you think I wouldn't.
Certainly I think I'd make a good captain of any side I was good enough to get into.
And certainly I think I could do as good if not a better job than broadcasters\tabloid-journos of the ones I know. And I think plenty of others I know, some through this board, could do also so that's nothing to do with arrogance.

ok right..so we are narrowing it down to the tabloids..i wouldnt even think of them as knowing that much about the game.

The good broadcasters are the ones who shed a bit of light onto the game, in order for the viewer to actually learn something about the situation...its only the absolute outstanding ones who havent played the game at the top level (by that I mean first class) and yet can pass on knowledge like that to the viewer (the only one I can think of is Tony Cozier, who to me has more knowledge about the internal workings of Carribean cricket, the politics etc, than the actual playing of the game, but I still respect him as a broadcaster).

Ex-players can tell the viewer what kind of thought processes may be going on behind a certain change in bowling or change of tactics or whatever, because they have been in that position before, they have some understanding of what its like....so give me Dermott Reeve over Charles Colville any day of the week

 

[Swervy]

Well, very occasionally, but most of the time things like these:

will come-up off the field only.

why do you think they will only come up off field...sometimes you need to cope with these things right there and then..and those things take a lot of skill,and a lot of the time that skill comes from experience

 

[Richard]

ok right..so we are narrowing it down to the tabloids..i wouldnt even think of them as knowing that much about the game.

The good broadcasters are the ones who shed a bit of light onto the game, in order for the viewer to actually learn something about the situation...its only the absolute outstanding ones who havent played the game at the top level (by that I mean first class) and yet can pass on knowledge like that to the viewer (the only one I can think of is Tony Cozier, who to me has more knowledge about the internal workings of Carribean cricket, the politics etc, than the actual playing of the game, but I still respect him as a broadcaster).

Ex-players can tell the viewer what kind of thought processes may be going on behind a certain change in bowling or change of tactics or whatever, because they have been in that position before, they have some understanding of what its like....so give me Dermott Reeve over Charles Colville any day of the week

Everyone who has a wish to commentate on the game will have played it to some standard.
And as far as I'm concerned situations are comparable anywhere - you can interpret them if you have experienced them at Club Third XI level (and I'd say I have) and you've got the cricketing brain.
And you can offer insight. As long as you've played the game. At whatever level. You can still understand. Situations that occur at international level are no different to those that occur at lower levels.

 

[Richard]

ok right..so we are narrowing it down to the tabloids..i wouldnt even think of them as knowing that much about the game.

Oh, and WRT to the tabloids - some journos know very much what they're talking about. Equally, some don't. Rather similar to the situation in the TV and radio commentary-box.
But some of the greatest sages of the game have been principally tabloid-journos (EW Swanton, John Woodcock, CLR James, John Arlott, Jack Fingleton, Tony Cozier, you can even go back to perhaps the greatest of all Neville Cardus). Only Richie and Johnners of the greats have really been broadcasters first and writers second.

 

[Richard]

why do you think they will only come up off field...sometimes you need to cope with these things right there and then..and those things take a lot of skill,and a lot of the time that skill comes from experience

Always it comes from experience - for some of the lessers, it comes from lots of experience - for the betters, it comes from just a tiny amount of experience, they can pick it up almost instantly.
Most of the time, however, the problems such as you described will need to be dealt with off the field. Almost always, on-field problems involve tactical nous and that alone.