Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[Swervy]

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.

so you are saying Pete 'Acne' Smith ,aged 18 ,who plays cricket for Chumley On Plumpton 4th team on Saturday afternoons once a week, (but doesnt half watch the test matches when they are on TV) has as much insight regarding a test match between England and Australia played at lords on the fifth day with England chasing 350 to win with Warne ripping the ball square as a former test player!!!!!????

Yes thats right Richard..of course he has!!!!!!

 

[Richard]

No - I am saying me, Richard Dickinson, who watches every cricket match he can possibly get his eyes on, with great attention-to-detail, taking in every moment judiciously and recording it both in his mind and in personal match-reports where he feels like it, often recording footage where he can get highlights, sometimes just setting a tape to record a whole one-day match or Test-match day when he gets a feeling that the match is going to be a good-'un, and watches that whenever he is bored (common, when at work or not getting drunk with friends, either out or in), and who finds professionally-produced videos of famous games, or montages, and watches them time and again when eating.
I am saying he, and people similar to him, are every bit as likely to be able to analyse live cricket with punch as someone who happens to have been a reasonably good player and has been lucky enough to get himself into the TV or radio com-box or a job with The Express.

 

[Swervy]

No - I am saying me, Richard Dickinson, who watches every cricket match he can possibly get his eyes on, with great attention-to-detail, taking in every moment judiciously and recording it both in his mind and in personal match-reports where he feels like it, often recording footage where he can get highlights, sometimes just setting a tape to record a whole one-day match or Test-match day when he gets a feeling that the match is going to be a good-'un, and watches that whenever he is bored (common, when at work or not getting drunk with friends, either out or in), and who finds professionally-produced videos of famous games, or montages, and watches them time and again when eating.
I am saying he, and people similar to him, are every bit as likely to be able to analyse live cricket with punch as someone who happens to have been a reasonably good player and has been lucky enough to get himself into the TV or radio com-box or a job with The Express.

well you really are talking ******** then...you can watch as much film of cricket as you want, you wont pick up on many of the little things that happen in a game.

So are you talking about someone who analyses the game on TV or someone who does ball by ball..I take it you think you would be a great analyst a la Simon Hughes....who does use film etc (and a team of people to help him out) to make his points...but then again, you wouldnt even need that, coz your memory is so good.

And anyway..one can watch a lot of porn..but it doesnt make one good at ***...(trust me on that one )

 

[Son Of Coco]

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

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.

I think that's true as well, but if you tell a batsman you're going to bowl a certain delivery you've then cut out certain areas where he could have otherwise expected the ball to pitch. He still has to play it, but you've removed any doubt as to the general direction it'll be going. This is the doubt you are looking to create by doing a certain thing with the ball a large percentage of the time (your stock ball) before attempting to change this to the batsman's detriment. If successful then you've outthought the batsmen. It's the same as when most bowlers (not all, which is stupifying) bowl in general areas where they won't get hit (something you work out for each individual batsman).

I think if you've outclassed a batsman then the dismissal would have been inevitable to some eyes from the very start. As the saying goes, "form is temporary, class is permanent", class suggests that the bowler is a level above the batsman and this is not really going to change.

Why is it better to concede less runs per over? What purpose does this serve?

 

[Swervy]

Why is it better to concede less runs per over? What purpose does this serve?

hehehe..why do i get the feeling these questions are leading somewhere

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Fair enough, and I'm not talking about remembering something that happened a year and a bit ago and noticing it happening again. I'm talking about knowing what happens to good batsmen in pressure situations because you've been there yourself and (possibly) have been a captain in top-class cricket thus knowing what tactics are employed and what is successful/what isn't. There's a lot of articles on the net talking about building pressure on the batsmen etc and a decent amount of them, if not written by former bowlers (the likes of Richard Hadlee, Dennis Lillee etc), are arcticles interviewing current bowlers and in all cases building pressure is mentioned as a pretty much sure fire way of dismissing the batsman. Harbajan Singh has mentioned that he enjoys bowling with another Indian spinner (can't remember his name - will find it if you want) because the pressure is then built at both ends which often results in dismissals - a bit the same as Warne/McGrath etc

Just a question, when you're talking about good batsmen, do you just mean batsmen that are considered to be good in their area (i.e: 1st Grade batsmen in a given area) or are you talking about international standard players, the best there is at the craft?

 

[Son Of Coco]

hehehe..why do i get the feeling these questions are leading somewhere

haha, shhhhhhhh!

 

[marc71178]

You seriously think it was too quick for him?

It was too quick for him, he couldn't get out of the way if it.

In spite of the fact that he has proved time and again that nothing is too quick for him? That good batsmen do not get beaten for pace except in exceptional circumstances.

Seeing as it beat him for pace, it must be an exceptional circumstance then (much like I've been saying all along)

And you still haven't managed to find a way around the fact that Flintoff has bowled identical balls and similar spells, without similar results.
The only difference is that this particular one had a wicket against it's name and no amount of you saying "it was too good for one of the best players in The World" will change that.

Flintoff has not bowled identical balls that pitch like that and take off so much, and I'm not the only one with the same view of that ball, or do you (yet again) think you know more than the rest of us?

 

[marc71178]

Keep trying to spin it around, it might work for you one day!

I know who I'd listen to more out of someone who has experience Cricket in the middle all round the world, and someone who has only watched it on TV.

 

[marc71178]

Yeah! Right! Look back, you'll see plenty (in the two summers where he was so "unlucky") which were quicker and bounced higher. Which were played as easily as pie.

I very much doubt they were quicker seeing as this summer he's been bowling quicker than before (owing to the fact he's bowling better and better as time goes on)

 

[marc71178]

So what's the difference between a First-Class average and a Sunday-XI average?

First Chance

 

[marc71178]

Er, yes, obviously.
But it's highly unlikely that the batsman wasn't thinking of it, just not able to cope with it when it happened.

So a batsman thinks about every possible delivery he could receive next for every ball?

If that is the case then he should never get out as he knows what to expect and therefore can deal with it appropriately.

 

[marc71178]

And it's not happened far more often. And supposed experts on cricket don't note that very often.

"Supposed experts"

You mean people who've played the game (so know about it from the inside) and can clearly observe what is happening?

They of course know nothing about the game do they?

 

[marc71178]

Because it would be terrible quality cricket if he did.
I'd much prefer see Nel knocking over the poles and Trescothick and Strauss getting on with the stuff that matters.

Erm, if Harmison were dismissed, it would be Smith and Gibbs batting.

 

[marc71178]

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.

No you don't, you comment on the matter at hand, and leave that sort of thing for the analysis either in the interval or between overs.

 

[marc71178]

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.

So you could say that by bowling that ball, Fernando out-thought him?

 

[Richard]

well you really are talking ******** then...you can watch as much film of cricket as you want, you wont pick up on many of the little things that happen in a game.

So are you talking about someone who analyses the game on TV or someone who does ball by ball..I take it you think you would be a great analyst a la Simon Hughes....who does use film etc (and a team of people to help him out) to make his points...but then again, you wouldnt even need that, coz your memory is so good.

Simon Hughes is different - he analyses in general little things, not big trends and patterns very often. Though his work is unwaveringly excellent and has taught me a massive amount.
You can pick-up on all that matters in most games with cameras - what with interactive stuff nowadays it's even better.
And a few visits to the odd ground here and there, added to the odd specific piece here and there (like by Jonty Rhodes on the art of fielding) will teach you most of the little things that you won't otherwise notice.

And anyway..one can watch a lot of porn..but it doesnt make one good at ***...(trust me on that one )

Well, I flatter myself I don't need that, either. Never go near the stuff.

 

[Richard]

I think that's true as well, but if you tell a batsman you're going to bowl a certain delivery you've then cut out certain areas where he could have otherwise expected the ball to pitch. He still has to play it, but you've removed any doubt as to the general direction it'll be going. This is the doubt you are looking to create by doing a certain thing with the ball a large percentage of the time (your stock ball) before attempting to change this to the batsman's detriment. If successful then you've outthought the batsmen. It's the same as when most bowlers (not all, which is stupifying) bowl in general areas where they won't get hit (something you work out for each individual batsman).

Most bowlers? Nowhere near. Far, far too many bowlers around at international level ATM aren't good enough to bowl with the requistite accuracy.
If bowling accurately really was something you could learn, a "basic", as so many people term it, then everyone who picked-up a cricket ball would be Shaun Pollock, Muralitharan or McGrath. Bowling with exceptional accuracy is something that takes a hell of a lot of skill and it is one of the things that sorts the good from the poor.
If the batsman is not expecting the change, you've outthought him. But IMO a batsman is very stupid if he's not expecting a change - if something is not getting a wicket, the bowler is expected to change before too long. If you're just bowling straight-on, top-of-off deliveries for 6 overs and getting blocked mostly and knocked into the leg-side when you stray a touch, as a spectator I'm thinking "when's that in-swinging Yorker coming?" If, that is, the bowler's known to bowl it. If they're not, you're not expecting it and you shouldn't be.
But most batsmen know most bowlers, they know what they bowl and they know when to expect what.

I think if you've outclassed a batsman then the dismissal would have been inevitable to some eyes from the very start. As the saying goes, "form is temporary, class is permanent", class suggests that the bowler is a level above the batsman and this is not really going to change.

No, not to me.
It just suggests that that particular ball (or the last 3 or 4 balls, inclusive of the wicket 1) was\were too good for the batsman on this occasion.
It doesn't mean the batsman can't outclass the bowler later.

Why is it better to concede less runs per over? What purpose does this serve?

You concede 250 off the 100 overs it takes you to bowl Team X out, instead of 350.
Surely that's incredibly obvious?

 

[Richard]

Fair enough, and I'm not talking about remembering something that happened a year and a bit ago and noticing it happening again. I'm talking about knowing what happens to good batsmen in pressure situations because you've been there yourself and (possibly) have been a captain in top-class cricket thus knowing what tactics are employed and what is successful/what isn't.

You don't have to be playing - it's possible to learn every bit as much by watching. How many times.

There's a lot of articles on the net talking about building pressure on the batsmen etc and a decent amount of them, if not written by former bowlers (the likes of Richard Hadlee, Dennis Lillee etc), are arcticles interviewing current bowlers and in all cases building pressure is mentioned as a pretty much sure fire way of dismissing the batsman. Harbajan Singh has mentioned that he enjoys bowling with another Indian spinner (can't remember his name - will find it if you want) because the pressure is then built at both ends which often results in dismissals - a bit the same as Warne/McGrath etc

The reason there are so many of these things (articles and talk) is because most people genuinely do believe this stuff about slow scoring-rates causing pressure that all-but forces batsmen to play poor strokes. Whoever those peope are.
Added, of course, to what I just said about the slower the scoring-rate, the lower the total.

Just a question, when you're talking about good batsmen, do you just mean batsmen that are considered to be good in their area (i.e: 1st Grade batsmen in a given area) or are you talking about international standard players, the best there is at the craft?

Oh, by the standard of the current competition.
Accurate at First Grade level (or equivalent) is different to the same degree of "accurate" at State Second XI (or equivalent) level. Or State First XI, or international.

 

[Richard]

It was too quick for him, he couldn't get out of the way if it.

And of course that had nothing to do with him losing sight of it at the crucial point, oh no.

Seeing as it beat him for pace, it must be an exceptional circumstance then (much like I've been saying all along)

And of course that exceptional circumstance could not have been that he lost sight of it at the crucial point, oh no.

Flintoff has not bowled identical balls that pitch like that and take off so much, and I'm not the only one with the same view of that ball, or do you (yet again) think you know more than the rest of us?

Yes, if you think you're right and I'm wrong.
Fairly obviously.
And it can be shown conclusively - if Simon Hughes had wanted to (and of course he didn't - everyone wants to give the bowler as much credit as they possibly can) he could have got some HawkEyes out of deliveries in the previous 2 summers. And mark my words there would have been many, many similar.