Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[Richard]

You've said before Richard that you think good batsmen wouldn't be troubled by pressure, but then these same batsmen can't concentrate for every ball. I think the secret is to concentrate on the delivery and then turn off. It's a bit similar to a golfer not being able to concentrate for 4 and a half hours, but being able to concentrate for the 20-30 seconds it takes to play each shot.

What exactly are they doing if they're not concentrating when the ball is being bowled?

Trying to concentrate.
Of course the secret is to concentrate on the delivery and turn off between, all batsmen will tell you that.
If batsmen could concentrate for every ball only RUDs would ever take wickets, and totals of 700 would abound.

 

[marc71178]

No, the batsman's mistaken thought-process.
Worrying about the scoring-rate when he need not.

And how does the slow scoring rate come about?

 

[Richard]

How it comes about is obvious and totally irrelevant, because the batsman need not worry about it.

 

[marc71178]

So why do they then?

Because the pressure does grow, and the ones to be creditted are the bowlers that build it.

 

[Richard]

So you still say unneccessary pressure happens more often than it doesn't.
Because I refute that and I always will.
You can credit the bowlers for doing what caused it - I will simply discredit the batsman for feeling pressure when he need not.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Trying to concentrate.
Of course the secret is to concentrate on the delivery and turn off between, all batsmen will tell you that.
If batsmen could concentrate for every ball only RUDs would ever take wickets, and totals of 700 would abound.

No, because even if a batsman is concentrating to the best of his ability this has no bearing on the quality of the next delivery. If a good bowler delivers a cracker of a delivery to a good batsman then he is going to dismiss him on at least some occasions - however well or otherwise the batsman is concentrating has absolutely no bearing on what delivery the bowler comes up with - you seem to be assuming that if a batsman concentrates on every delivery this makes him impossible to dismiss, when there's so many other factors that make up the game - concentration does not mean knowing exactly where the ball is going before it is released. You can take everything you can possibly think of into account, and still get cut in half by a good one, the secret then being to re-focus on the next ball and do it all over again.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So you still say unneccessary pressure happens more often than it doesn't.
Because I refute that and I always will.
You can credit the bowlers for doing what caused it - I will simply discredit the batsman for feeling pressure when he need not.

The batsman is in a position where they have to score runs on most occasions, that's why they'll generally feel like they're under pressure if they are tied down for quite a few overs. If you block the **** out of it for 20 overs and then are eventually dismissed for 4 (not through pressure of course, just a lazy shot) then the pressure moves from yourself onto the following batsmen as you've now put them in a position where they have to score quickly to be competitive (this is in a country where there's no such thing as a winning and losing draw!haha).

If a bowler is tying down at one end you'll often find that wickets fall at the other (if not both) if that bowler is reasonably tight too as they realise that runs have to come from somewhere and will eventually play a rash shot and get themselves out. Refuting the idea that this actually happens is slightly ridiculous as it is something that has been witnessed at all levels of the game for quite some time. I've always been told that building pressure by tying down batsmen leads to wickets. The difference between what you think should happen and what actually does is rather large on this occasion.

 

[Richard]

No, because even if a batsman is concentrating to the best of his ability this has no bearing on the quality of the next delivery. If a good bowler delivers a cracker of a delivery to a good batsman then he is going to dismiss him on at least some occasions - however well or otherwise the batsman is concentrating has absolutely no bearing on what delivery the bowler comes up with - you seem to be assuming that if a batsman concentrates on every delivery this makes him impossible to dismiss, when there's so many other factors that make up the game - concentration does not mean knowing exactly where the ball is going before it is released. You can take everything you can possibly think of into account, and still get cut in half by a good one, the secret then being to re-focus on the next ball and do it all over again.

What did you think I was saying?
I said, didn't I, that wickets would only fall to RUDs, not that they'd never fall at all?
However, it is far more common for the batsman to be - even if only partially - at fault for his dismissal than for it to be unavoidable.
So IMO totals of 700 would abound if all batsmen could concentrate perfectly.
And I'm a huge believer in the "forget the last ball and concentrate on the next one" theory - that's why I don't believe good batsmen feel pressure just because they're being beaten a few times.

 

[Richard]

The batsman is in a position where they have to score runs on most occasions, that's why they'll generally feel like they're under pressure if they are tied down for quite a few overs. If you block the **** out of it for 20 overs and then are eventually dismissed for 4 (not through pressure of course, just a lazy shot) then the pressure moves from yourself onto the following batsmen as you've now put them in a position where they have to score quickly to be competitive (this is in a country where there's no such thing as a winning and losing draw!haha).

If a bowler is tying down at one end you'll often find that wickets fall at the other (if not both) if that bowler is reasonably tight too as they realise that runs have to come from somewhere and will eventually play a rash shot and get themselves out. Refuting the idea that this actually happens is slightly ridiculous as it is something that has been witnessed at all levels of the game for quite some time. I've always been told that building pressure by tying down batsmen leads to wickets. The difference between what you think should happen and what actually does is rather large on this occasion.

It's not a case of what I think should happen - it's a case of what I believe does happen.
I don't believe good batsmen feel pressurised very often by a slow scoring-rate. Of course there are occasions when it will, but as these are anomalies they don't mean much.
Of course, however, it is right to feel scoreboard pressure in any limited-overs game - to say otherwise would indeed be ridiculous.
But at the top level - the First-Class, limitless-over game - scoring-rates don't matter. 450 in 160 overs is still easily enough to win plenty of games.
I don't quite understand the bit about losing draws. If you're talking about grade-cricket, it might be two-day, but of course there's still a need to score at a reasonable pace. In this country, incidentally, there is such thing but only, obviously, in time-games.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It's not a case of what I think should happen - it's a case of what I believe does happen.
I don't believe good batsmen feel pressurised very often by a slow scoring-rate. Of course there are occasions when it will, but as these are anomalies they don't mean much.
Of course, however, it is right to feel scoreboard pressure in any limited-overs game - to say otherwise would indeed be ridiculous.
But at the top level - the First-Class, limitless-over game - scoring-rates don't matter. 450 in 160 overs is still easily enough to win plenty of games.
I don't quite understand the bit about losing draws. If you're talking about grade-cricket, it might be two-day, but of course there's still a need to score at a reasonable pace. In this country, incidentally, there is such thing but only, obviously, in time-games.

So in instances the like of which we see regularly in all forms of cricket from Test matches down when a batsman is tied down for quite a while and then gets himself out playing at a ball he shouldn't, or lashing out etc at a ball he shouldn't have this is not a result of the pressure built up by the bowling team?

THere's not a lot I'm sure of on here Richard, but I am 110% sure about the effect the building up of pressure by limiting the flow of runs has on the batting side. I know you're just saying that you don't believe this to be true, but I'm kind of still unsure as to why you think this wouldn't happen to good batsmen?

 

[tooextracool]

So you still say unneccessary pressure happens more often than it doesn't.
Because I refute that and I always will.
You can credit the bowlers for doing what caused it - I will simply discredit the batsman for feeling pressure when he need not.

and the fact that there has never been a batsman who hasnt felt pressure before means what?
in an ideal world you would love to have a batsman that doesnt feel any pressure yet there has and will forever be batsmen who succumbing to good pressure bowling.

 

[Richard]

So in instances the like of which we see regularly in all forms of cricket from Test matches down when a batsman is tied down for quite a while and then gets himself out playing at a ball he shouldn't, or lashing out etc at a ball he shouldn't have this is not a result of the pressure built up by the bowling team?

Oh, these are the result of feeling undue pressure, but far more often you will find that batsmen manage to hit this bad ball for four and "relieve the pressure".

THere's not a lot I'm sure of on here Richard, but I am 110% sure about the effect the building up of pressure by limiting the flow of runs has on the batting side. I know you're just saying that you don't believe this to be true, but I'm kind of still unsure as to why you think this wouldn't happen to good batsmen?

Because good batsmen know the scoring-rate isn't relevant.
Slow runs are better than no runs.
Of course, there are those who don't understand that, and you can make getting them out likely just by bowling sustained accurate spells at them.
Of course, equally, not all bowlers are capable of doing that.

 

[Richard]

and the fact that there has never been a batsman who hasnt felt pressure before means what?

That all batsmen are human and all humans feel pressure at some stage due to something.
No more than that.

in an ideal world you would love to have a batsman that doesnt feel any pressure yet there has and will forever be batsmen who succumbing to good pressure bowling.

Yes, and there will be far more who won't feel pressure just because the scoring-rate is slow.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Oh, these are the result of feeling undue pressure, but far more often you will find that batsmen manage to hit this bad ball for four and "relieve the pressure".

Because good batsmen know the scoring-rate isn't relevant.
Slow runs are better than no runs.
Of course, there are those who don't understand that, and you can make getting them out likely just by bowling sustained accurate spells at them.
Of course, equally, not all bowlers are capable of doing that.

I wasn't referring to a bad ball being bowled though Richard, as this will quite often see the pressure being relieved due to the fact that it is an easy ball to score from. I was talking about a batsman, who has been tied down for a while, playing a shot at a good ball (perhaps one that he should have left) instead of taking the correct option due to the fact that he's been tied down for so long, often resulting in a dismissal (at least at a high-level where these chances are more likely to be taken).

I'm not so sure that good batsmen do know the scoring rate is irrelevant. If this is the case why have we seen commentators talking about a dismissal being the result of pressure built up by the bowler when watching Test and ODI cricket? Are these batsmen (whilst good enough to represent their countries) actually not that good after all? Or are you just talking hypothetically about what you think should happen?

 

[marc71178]

Yes, and there will be far more who won't feel pressure just because the scoring-rate is slow.

I don't think so - it's always happened over time and I would wager that at least 95% of batsmen have been pressured out at least once in their career.

 

[marc71178]

If this is the case why have we seen commentators talking about a dismissal being the result of pressure built up by the bowler when watching Test and ODI cricket? Are these batsmen (whilst good enough to represent their countries) actually not that good after all? Or are you just talking hypothetically about what you think should happen?

It's the hypothetical - also it's a well-known (to Richard at least) fact that no commentator in the World knows what he's talking about.

 

[tooextracool]

That all batsmen are human and all humans feel pressure at some stage due to something.
No more than that.

and by that count there are no good players then? if all players are human then they are bound to succumb to pressure sometime, only that the best players dont feel it as often as the others, but it doesnt mean that good pressure bowling wont make them feel any pressure at all....and i think the flintoff-lara situation explains that perfectly.

Yes, and there will be far more who won't feel pressure just because the scoring-rate is slow.

no even the best batsmen will at times fall prey to good pressure bowling.....

 

[tooextracool]

I don't think so - it's always happened over time and I would wager that at least 95% of batsmen have been pressured out at least once in their career.

and who is this player who hasnt been pressured out? even the great don bradman was pressured out by the situation in his last test match.....

 

[marc71178]

There's surely been someone who hasn't ever been dismissed!

 

[Richard]

It's the hypothetical - also it's a well-known (to Richard at least) fact that no commentator in the World knows what he's talking about.

Rubbish.
But they don't automatically know more than me, just because they're a commentator.
Same way you believe you know better than a commentator on the inevitable many occasions you disagree with one.