Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[Son Of Coco]

Of course that happens too, I've just seen it slightly less.
2 good overs to a batsman who's flogging the rest around, followed by dismissing him, followed by 2 more good overs at the new player. Not unusual at all.

No, it's not unusual, you babble on about these "good batsmen" all the time yet seem to fail to even consider the fact that there's these guys called "good bowlers" who can make life extremely difficult for these willow-weilding supermen! So far you've just dismissed this as luck on most occasions.......

What you've seen is a combination of what appeared in front of your eyes and your interpretation based on your experiences of what that means. If you haven't had experience in a certain situation then your interpretation may well be slightly skewed.

 

[marc71178]

I've experienced a crowd wanting a player\team to fail when I want that player to succeed every bit as badly as the player himself does.
That is the best I can explain it as.

Firstly there is no way on Earth you can want someone's success as much as they do.

Secondly, even if you came close, you're still sat in the stands and there's not thousands of people willing you to fail.

Why can't you accept that watching is no way of gauging the intensity in the middle?

 

[Richard]

A bouncy wicket offers far more to the bowlers than a wicket with lowish bounce (balls that skim along the ground etc. excluded). Anyone who has watched cricket for more than 5 minutes would know this.

Err, no, they might think that by generalising and assuming.
In fact it merely offers a little bit more.
An uneven wicket, of course, offers plenty to any bowler.
A slow, low, seaming wicket will be exploited by good bowlers.
A quick, bouncy, seaming wicket will be exploited even better by good bowlers.
The more bounce and pace, the better for good bowlers - but equally, a pitch with little of either isn't a problem for a good bowler.

 

[Richard]

No, it's not unusual, you babble on about these "good batsmen" all the time yet seem to fail to even consider the fact that there's these guys called "good bowlers" who can make life extremely difficult for these willow-weilding supermen! So far you've just dismissed this as luck on most occasions.......

Of course they can - especially in the one-day-game, good bowlers will always control the game.
In the First-Class-game the batsmen have a bit more leeway because they don't have to score at a certain rate. And no bowler, no matter how good, can concede no runs - they all go for some eventually. If you wait long enough, you'll get runs eventually.
But in the one-day-game, there is only one option left in the end if you aren't getting balls you can score off easily - take risks. If the bowling continues to be good, the chances are you'll pay for these risks before too long.

What you've seen is a combination of what appeared in front of your eyes and your interpretation based on your experiences of what that means. If you haven't had experience in a certain situation then your interpretation may well be slightly skewed.

Of course it might be - but so might anyone else's.
Are you really saying I should simply accept that people who have played must be right, even if what I see contradicts that? Because I don't really see what the point in even bothering to think about this sort of thing is if that's the case.

 

[Richard]

Firstly there is no way on Earth you can want someone's success as much as they do.

Secondly, even if you came close, you're still sat in the stands and there's not thousands of people willing you to fail.

Why can't you accept that watching is no way of gauging the intensity in the middle?

Because I believe there is.
Just because you do not does not mean I have to accept that.

 

[Swervy]

Err... Ambrose, Walsh?
Are you talking about the last to start a career or finish one?

to start a career

 

[marc71178]

Because I believe there is.
Just because you do not does not mean I have to accept that.

Just because the rest of the board can clearly see that there's a difference between watching and playing (as shown by my music example as an example of the pressure of being in front of a big crowd) - you still think you know better?

 

[aussie_beater]

Yeah Bish was a great bowler...the last one WI produced I think (correct me if I am wrong on that one)

Yep I would fully agree. He was the last among the Windies greats, but with his career being cut down, he just didn't make it big like the others.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm not attempting to set a threshold - indeed, for good batsmen there is none - but I'm just saying that's generally round about the mark that commentators start to perceive it's in place.
No-one ever seems to talk about pressure because you're nicking loads of balls over the slips - personally I'd just call that living dangerously.

and if you are 'living dangerously', would you not be under pressure? seriously lets say that you got a death threat from a terrorist saying that you would be dead tomorrow(wouldnt be surprised if that happened too), would you then be able to focus on say your homework the same day?
seriously any batsman who nicks a few over slip or just plays and misses is bound to be extremely 'edgy' on the next delivery.....

 

[tooextracool]

And hence I've done neither. I've not "shown total disregard" - I've simply pointed-out why there is likely to be bias and assumption. And also that I know that this bias is wrong, given that I've watched the match and been able to get the truth of the matter first-hand.

no you've simply said that every finger spinner in the history of the game has only managed to take wickets on spinner friendly wickets....given that you've probably only watched half oh those games, that is the biggest generalization ive ever seen.

It was a reasonable performance - had he been good enough, however, he would have repeated that in the Second Test

because now you have to bowl well on every flat pitch now to be a good bowler dont you? every bowler has good days and bad days, and even your beloved chaminda vaas bowled poorly in one match of that series, so maybe he should also not be considered 'good' then?

and, given that bowlers tend to be unlucky only for short periods, got the figures

yet people like mcgrath and pollock can be lucky for infinite periods of time then?

I've watched Paul Wiseman bowl, and believe me even on turners he'll usually struggle to take wickets. The fact that he got 4 in the first-innings is very probably due to poor batting only.
However, I have now looked at a few accounts of that pitch and by the sounds of it you are right about it being a turner and I am willing to concede that I was over-hasty in insisting it couldn't possibly have been. Sri Lanka should still have won, though, even with all the time lost to rain.

so yet again you have been proved wrong then? so lets just add that to the list of 'non flat' wickets that richardson has played well on.....

 

[tooextracool]

And you've also been asking me to show that Ealham has bowled lots in the first 15.
I've said why I want you to do it.

err you are the only one who believes that richardson can only score on flat wickets, so if you are going to make a stupid claim like that you are going to have to back it up. ive already shown you instances where he has scored on non flat wickets, id like to see times that he has failed....

 

[tooextracool]

Fine - let's leave it at you already think he's conquered his problems with spin, I won't until he plays a few more good innings against good spinners with the ball turning.
And no, if he does play those innings, neither he nor you will have "proven me wrong" because I never said it's inconceivable that he has made improvements, it was certainly always clear that he had the ability to. So let's get that one out of the way.

of course not, you only state that you dont think something will happen, in other words whatever you say can never be 'proved' wrong as such, but it can be said that what you thought turned out to be incorrect, which is precisely what harmison and several other have done.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm not talking about playing - you can never learn an eye, concentration, a fast arm or accuracy from watching (well, you can actually, but only to a small extent).
But you can learn everything about analysis.

hold on a second here....you might not learn to get a good eye but thats not what you desperately need to be a good batsman in any case(there have been several batsman who dont). obviously you can improve your concentration level, and indeed if you actually watch every ball as closely as you say you do then surely you must have good concentration. surely you can learn a lot about technique if you watch a lot of cricket and analyze ever dismissal and considering you dont believe in 'pressure' and will probably never be led into a poor shot, i dont see any reason why you should be failing as a batsman.....

 

[tooextracool]

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..

are you seriously out of your mind? chaminda vaas is as accurate as curtly ambrose? have you watched anything of curtly ambrose bowling? sure vaas has had times when hes been extremely accurate but hes had many more periods when hes been absolutely wayward. even in the spells in which hes been extremely accurate he hasnt been anywhere near as accurate as ambrose who could infact bowl every ball in the same spot.
and i know ambrose can take wickets in any conditions, just like mcgrath can and has done so consistently. again the reason why ambrose got more than 400 wickets was because he too was deadly accurate.

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).

rubbish, brett lee and accurate? he couldnt bowl 3 balls in the same spot if he tried to.

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).

its quite likely that they didnt try it, and im not talking about bouncing it towards their head, its quite easy to get out of the way of those, im talking about bowling into the body at considerable pace and then following it up with a well pitched up ball....no its quite conceivable that they didnt try it to the extent that flintoff did, just like bowlers havent exploited haydens weakness?

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.

we shall indeed see....

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)

err no, because no batsman, no matter how good he is can consistently smash good balls for 4(unless they include edges thro slip etc, and even thats unlikely), not gayle, not anyone else.

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

OMG how many times do i have to say it?can you please show me where i have said that slow scoring rates leades to pressure in tests? i've consistently said that you need to bowl every ball in the right areas at the right pace.....

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.

nope, ive never needed to twist them for you, you are already twisted.....

 

[tooextracool]

The fact that it was 4 years ago is, rather than a detriment to this argument, a forethrust for it - he struggled 4 years ago, and he had made no improvement whatsoever over the following 3 years, and showed exactly the same faults.
He then got 2 Test-matches just 1 year later where he scored runs. It's perfectly conceivable that he might have improved his play against spin in that time, especially having got through his 2nd season with The SCG as his home-ground. But it is not certain because of 2 Test-matches.

1) id like to hear what these faults were that he showed....
2) id like to see proof that he actually struggled against spin in the first place....even i can make up stuff and say that in the last 3 years he didnt show any problems against spin in domestic cricket.

Such as in the cases of....

like the time about the run rates and wickets in ODI cricket, marc will tell you more about that.....

Nowhere near enough.

so therefore any bowler who pick up wickets when there is no seam or swing should be considered lucky then?

Let me assure you they do, because all batsmen, no matter how good, are vulnerable when the ball ends-up somewhere they don't expect it to go. It's far easier when it goes where you expect.

oh no more often than not they just keep playing and missing, edging it and getting it to go safely or sometimes even managing to adjust to the swing and playing it. indeed its far more likely that a few balls later the bowler picks up a wicket off a ball that didnt swing or move off the seam but was just outside the off stump......

 

[tooextracool]

just one thing, Richard and TEC.

No wicket EVER offers swing.

That's a by-product of atmospheric conditions, although you could argue that the greenness of the wicket could prevent the ball scuffing, thus preserving the shine and lengthening the duration of 'conventional' swing. Conversely, the abrasiveness of a wicket can accelerate ball scuffing, thus accelerating the onset of reverse swing.

yes you are right, its a slip of the tongue, or in this case the slip of the keyboard and besides its a lot easier to write " how many wickets offer seam and swing" than it is to write " how many wickets offer seam movement with conditions that encourage swing bowling"

 

[tooextracool]

If you ask you, that is.
If you ask me other methods get batsmen out far more often. And yes, those methods do just include bowling ball after ball, knowing that eventually you'll have a poor shot played against you.

exactly, your method requires that you bowl ball after bowl in the hope that a batsman will make a mistake, therefore by your counts the bowler doesnt deserve credit in the first place. which is the same thing as a bowler bowling short and into the body, which is far more likely to get wickets if you ask me when there is no seam or swing......

 

[tooextracool]

Harmison is a totally different bowler to Pollock and McGrath - McGrath used to be a genuine quick bowler, but he was never as quick as Harmison. Pollock was genuinely quick only perhaps for the first year of his career; certainly since 1998, which is the only time we can know for certain, he's always been medium-fast bordering on fast-medium.
Why, if it is so easy to get batsmen out the way Pollock and McGrath supposedly do on flat wickets, are there so few bowlers who have ever done it?

because it requires impeccable accuracy, and there have been only a few bowlers who have been able to be that accurate and have pace/height....harmison certainly seems to be improving leaps and bounds in terms of accuracy of late....

 

[tooextracool]

Harmison has taken wickets with all sorts of length deliveries. And it's clearly visible for anyone who watched - properly - that the batsmen could easily have avoided dismissal with most of them. Not could-have-done-if-they-had-played-the-ball-with-perfection - could-have-easily.

nope harmison has taken wickets by bowling genuinely good deliveries ie wickets that have moved off the seam and by getting extra bounce off wickets, neither of which can be avoided easily by any means.
regardless certain bowlers get wickets off balls that move away from the batsman just outside the off stump...technically the batsman could just have left the ball alone so the bowler didnt deserve the wicket in that case too

 

[tooextracool]

And given that the batsman is probably expecting most things he knows the bowler is capable of bowling but can never possibly guess exactly when they are coming, that means batsmen are outthought very infrequently.

oh you can be outthought not just by inswing/outswing, you can be outthought by line and length. it might not happen very frequently but when it happens the bowler must be credited for it...