Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[Richard]

amazing how bowlers can get more than half of their 800 wickets by luck! yet other bowlers cant. and its no coincidence that both those bowlers happened to be the most accurate bowlers for a long long time.....

Curtley Ambrose was every bit as accurate. So, believe it or not, is Chaminda Vaas.
And yet Curtley was capable of taking his wickets in conditions that don't suit seam through good bowling. So is Chaminda.
Pollock and McGrath, on the other hand, just tend to be rather lucky.

oh its quite likely that no one of considerable pace and accuracy(how often do we see that?) has ever tried to bounce lara early on.

Brett Lee has tried it twice (and yes, he does tend to be a bit more accurate in occasional short spells where he's aiming for the chest and head). I can't conceive Wasim, Waqar or Shoaib have never tried it. Donald was quite likely to have tried it. Who knows, even Andre Van Troost might have tried it in 1998 (that was a joke, I am perfectly well aware of the fact that he was one of the most wayward bowlers you'll ever see at the top level).

maybe he isnt susceptible, and face it when did i say he was? but it does not take away the fact that good quality short pitch bowling for 3-4 balls followed by a well pitched up ball troubled him throughout the series, and is very likely to trouble any other good batsman, even if it is only for a short period of time.

Yeah, well lets see what happens in the almost-inevitable event that Harmison and Flintoff try it against Graeme and co. (and Langer and co., and Sachin and co.)

and yet you twist your arguments around again....when have i ever said that slow scoring rates=pressure? im sorry but thats you just putting words in my mouth that ive never said before because ive always said that accuracy , or rather bowling in the right places gets you wickets, not slow scoring rates.

So you bowl in the right place, accurately, but the batsmen play like Chris Gayle plays occasionally and repeatedly hit perfectly decent balls through the covers for boundaries. Is there still pressure then?
Sorry, it's just like Nasser's comment 2 years ago, after Anderson's 10-6-12-1: "I don't care about statistics, what I like is the length he bowled". Yeah, Nasser, that accuracy would have been oh so important if Bevan and co. had decided to run down the pitch and smash him for 5-an-over!
Accuracy is no use without economy, though the two almost always go hand-in-hand in the First-Class game. (And in the one-day game the great skill is making accurate bowling expensive)

stop trying to get your way out of an argument, you know very well what i mean by that, good batsmen dont feel pressure crap that you've been coming up with. so explain yourself.....

I have - in my experience good batsmen don't let a slow scoring-rate get to them - they know it's not relevant.

i havent had any problems against you at all, except the fact that someone who quite clearly is losing an argument keeps trying to twist around his own statements to try to save face.

Or rather, that you try to twist them around for me, but you can't find a way to, so have to resort to saying you have.

 

[Richard]

Which doesn't answer the question I asked you.

If it is so easy, how come he averages 58?

Oh, yes, it does answer the question - where I said:

But very few bowlers around in the present day are capable of bowling with the consistency neccessary.

In that I said that bowlers are capable of revealing his weakness, but not using it to get him out, like bowlers of the past were.

 

[Richard]

And you know what?

The harder they try, the luckier they get.

I doubt it.
They probably try equally hard every ball - it doesn't alter the chances of the batsmen playing poor shots.

 

[Richard]

I very much doubt that.

Fine, doubt it if you want, you don't have to tell me that you do, it's very clear by the fact that you insist pressure must happen because of slow scoring-rates.
But what you doubt doesn't change what I've experienced.

 

[Richard]

So it's all coincidence?!

Very convenient for you that is.

No, it's not all coincidence - there are just two instances.
It is perfectly conceivable that both are mere coincidence.

 

[Richard]

That is not the point I'm making.

I felt immense pressure when on stage, where I don't normally when playing concerts.

That pressure was in spite of an audience all willing me to do well.

Now transfer that to an International Cricket Ground where a proportion of the crowd want you to fail.

And you think you'd know what the pressure then is like despite never having experienced it?

And this is not the point I'm making.
You have played in front of this crowd all willing you to do well. You have been part of this crowd all willing someone else to do well. You got two different feelings.
This is not comparable to the difference (or otherwise) of feeling between being on a cricket-playing field and feeling the emotions felt there, and being in the audience watching the cricket, and feeling the emotions felt there.
As far as I can tell, the emotions of the crowd in cricket are far more comparable to those of the players: in a concert, the two groups (performers and spectators) are much different.

 

[Son Of Coco]

When the scoring-rate drops to what, exactly?
Maidens are fairly common when the scoring-rate is 2.5-an-over.

I don't have an exact number (like 1.76589) where I can say there'll definately be a wicket when the run rate hits that point Richard. Pressure is built up when a bowler puts a clamp on the run rate, not allowing the batsman to score - not when the run rate hits a certain mark.

If the scoring rate is 2.5 an over, but the overs are maiden, 5, maiden, 5, 3,2, 1,4,5,maiden,2,3 then there's not going to be the opportunity to build a lot of pressure is there? Runs are coming off every second over at least, if not leaking in 2's and 3's.

If however you go maiden, maiden, maiden, maiden, maiden THEN a bit of pressure starts building up to buck the trend - regardless of what has happened up until this point.

 

[Son Of Coco]

5 consecutive maidens is almost unheard of.
But let's say 3 in 6 overs - 0.5-an-over - that is about when you reckon pressure starts to build, then?
Personally I've seen batsmen weather that sort of storm an infinate number of times.

maybe 5 consecutive maidens is almost unheard of there Richard, but two bowlers bowling well in unison only have to bowl 3 from one end and 2 from the other. It's quite easy to tie down a batsman for a number of overs with both bowlers operating well together. A wicket can also fall due to pressure applied at one end (as I've said before - this is how MacGill gets some of his wickets with crap balls) - you're trying to put an exact number on how many overs you have to bowl maidens in a row for, what the run rate has to be etc etc. Pressure happens through good bowling, little run scoring, both, it can happen from both ends, result in a wicket to a seemingly ordinary bowler because the guy at the other end is impossible to get away, it can be built from both ends tying the batsmen down completely. Think a little outside the numerical square - the answer is out there!

 

[marc71178]

Curtley Ambrose was every bit as accurate.

And yet Curtley was capable of taking his wickets in conditions that don't suit seam through good bowling.

Wonder if that's gt anything to with Curtley's faster pace and greater height...

Funnily enough, those are attributes Harmison possesses...

 

[marc71178]

But what you doubt doesn't change what I've experienced.

There's no way you've experienced an infinite number of such incidents...

 

[marc71178]

This is not comparable to the difference (or otherwise) of feeling between being on a cricket-playing field and feeling the emotions felt there, and being in the audience watching the cricket, and feeling the emotions felt there.

How do you know it's not comparable?

Or are you just summising?

At least I have some experience of big crowds and the difference it makes to a performer.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Curtley Ambrose was every bit as accurate. So, believe it or not, is Chaminda Vaas.
And yet Curtley was capable of taking his wickets in conditions that don't suit seam through good bowling. So is Chaminda.
Pollock and McGrath, on the other hand, just tend to be rather lucky.

Brett Lee has tried it twice (and yes, he does tend to be a bit more accurate in occasional short spells where he's aiming for the chest and head). I can't conceive Wasim, Waqar or Shoaib have never tried it. Donald was quite likely to have tried it. Who knows, even Andre Van Troost might have tried it in 1998 (that was a joke, I am perfectly well aware of the fact that he was one of the most wayward bowlers you'll ever see at the top level).

Yeah, well lets see what happens in the almost-inevitable event that Harmison and Flintoff try it against Graeme and co. (and Langer and co., and Sachin and co.)

So you bowl in the right place, accurately, but the batsmen play like Chris Gayle plays occasionally and repeatedly hit perfectly decent balls through the covers for boundaries. Is there still pressure then?
Sorry, it's just like Nasser's comment 2 years ago, after Anderson's 10-6-12-1: "I don't care about statistics, what I like is the length he bowled". Yeah, Nasser, that accuracy would have been oh so important if Bevan and co. had decided to run down the pitch and smash him for 5-an-over!
Accuracy is no use without economy, though the two almost always go hand-in-hand in the First-Class game. (And in the one-day game the great skill is making accurate bowling expensive)

I have - in my experience good batsmen don't let a slow scoring-rate get to them - they know it's not relevant.

Or rather, that you try to twist them around for me, but you can't find a way to, so have to resort to saying you have.

Please explain to me how McGrath and Pollock have been lucky, it's something I've been dying to hear for a while....

There is no pressure if a batsmen scores runs off you at a consistent rate, we've said that before.

What exactly is your experience Richard? I have a feeling that you're not very old, I know you haven't played a high level of cricket, your experience comes down to watching a lot of cricket on TV - so you're basically an armchair expert.

 

[Richard]

I don't have an exact number (like 1.76589) where I can say there'll definately be a wicket when the run rate hits that point Richard. Pressure is built up when a bowler puts a clamp on the run rate, not allowing the batsman to score - not when the run rate hits a certain mark.

If the scoring rate is 2.5 an over, but the overs are maiden, 5, maiden, 5, 3,2, 1,4,5,maiden,2,3 then there's not going to be the opportunity to build a lot of pressure is there? Runs are coming off every second over at least, if not leaking in 2's and 3's.

If however you go maiden, maiden, maiden, maiden, maiden THEN a bit of pressure starts building up to buck the trend - regardless of what has happened up until this point.

Listen - I do understand what you're saying about overall innings scoring-rates being not the matter in question.
So you are saying that in your experience, 2.5-an-over is not sufficient to cause the batsman to feel under pressure. That's fine. But in my experience, that's about the rate that commentators start perceiving the batsmen to be feeling under pressure.

 

[Richard]

maybe 5 consecutive maidens is almost unheard of there Richard, but two bowlers bowling well in unison only have to bowl 3 from one end and 2 from the other. It's quite easy to tie down a batsman for a number of overs with both bowlers operating well together. A wicket can also fall due to pressure applied at one end (as I've said before - this is how MacGill gets some of his wickets with crap balls) - you're trying to put an exact number on how many overs you have to bowl maidens in a row for, what the run rate has to be etc etc. Pressure happens through good bowling, little run scoring, both, it can happen from both ends, result in a wicket to a seemingly ordinary bowler because the guy at the other end is impossible to get away, it can be built from both ends tying the batsmen down completely. Think a little outside the numerical square - the answer is out there!

I'm not trying to put an exact number on it - but there must be an approximate, denominate number.
Personally I just think it is far more often perceived that the batsman is feeling under pressure when he is not, anyway, you know that.

 

[Richard]

Wonder if that's gt anything to with Curtley's faster pace and greater height...

Funnily enough, those are attributes Harmison possesses...

No, it's got to do with the fact that he could bowl off-cutters and leg-cutters to order.
Funnily enough, that's the reason why comparisons between Harmison and Ambrose, which have happened for donkey's years, since the very first time I ever saw a televised match in which Harmison was bowling (Durham, 1999, Championship, can't remember the opposition), are a huge insult to the great West Indian. Hell, Harmison's not even as good at exploiting seam-movement as Ambrose was (not that many of the Test-pitches Harmison has bowled on have offered that much seam).

 

[luckyeddie]

I'm not trying to put an exact number on it - but there must be an approximate, denominate number.
Personally I just think it is far more often perceived that the batsman is feeling under pressure when he is not, anyway, you know that.

Didn't you say in another thread that a bowler who takes a wicket with a bad ball deserves no credit - irrespective of how many great balls he has delivered before in the spell?

Your reason was that the bastman should be able to put those out of his mind if he's any good.

I'd be interested to know why, you think, the same batsman is not able to mentally suppress how badly he is scoring. Why should there be ANY pressure?

 

[Richard]

There's no way you've experienced an infinite number of such incidents...

No, "infinate" is an exaggeration, used commonly by many people in all sorts of contexts.
It just, basically, means "on more occasions than I can put a number on".

 

[Richard]

How do you know it's not comparable?

Or are you just summising?

At least I have some experience of big crowds and the difference it makes to a performer.

Except that it's a totally different type of performance.

 

[Richard]

Didn't you say in another thread that a bowler who takes a wicket with a bad ball deserves no credit - irrespective of how many great balls he has delivered before in the spell?

Your reason was that the bastman should be able to put those out of his mind if he's any good.

I'd be interested to know why, you think, the same batsman is not able to mentally suppress how badly he is scoring. Why should there be ANY pressure?

I do think exactly that - no batsman should be worried about how slowly he is scoring.
I am talking about when people commonly perceive him to be feeling worried by that.

 

[luckyeddie]

No, "infinate" is an exaggeration, used commonly by many people in all sorts of contexts..

...used commonly by an infinite number of people in an infinite distribution of contexts, surely?