Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[Richard]

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.

Wow, I'd bet it is all but 100%.
It matters not how many times you've felt unneccesarily pressurised by a slow scoring-rate, but how many times you have relative to how many times you haven't.
And I'd bet for all good batsmen it's at least 75-25 in favour of not feeling pressurised.

 

[Richard]

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....

All players will feel pressure very often - but the best batsmen won't feel it very often due to a slow scoring-rate in a First-Class game.
Equally, feeling pressure won't always mean you get dismissed, far from it.

and i think the flintoff-lara situation explains that perfectly.

Yes, Lara played so many poor shots against Flintoff which were clearly directly due to the fact that he wasn't scoring fast, didn't he?!!

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

What you mean is they'll all feel pressure due to a slow scoring-rate and get out.
Yes, they will.
Point being?
Far, far more often, they won't.

 

[Jamee999]

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.

I almost miss-inturpreted that as: They automaticly don't know more than me because they're a commentator :P

 

[Richard]

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).

Well, of course it'll happen sometimes.
Thing is, most people remember when it does happen and don't when it doesn't.
I, on the other hand, remember both and believe me, in my experience the not-getting-out vastly outnumbers the getting-out.

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?

Of course a slow scoring-rate will lead to scoreboard pressure in a limited-overs game - any batsman who doesn't feel pressure when they're scoring at 3-an-over in the 20th over of a 50-over game would be seriously stupid.
And of course it's not the case that anyone who ever feels pressure due to a slow scoring-rate in a First-Class-game is "not that good after all", but someone who regularly gets out due to a slow scoring-rate isn't that good, no.
We regularly hear commentators talking about pressure being caused by a slow scoring-rate because read above: many people get the impression that most batsmen feel pressure because of a slow scoring-rate, when in fact the evidence points to that not being the case.

 

[Richard]

I almost miss-inturpreted that as: They automaticly don't know more than me because they're a commentator :P

Well, some (tooextracool or marc71178) might do that deliberately.
At least here it was an innocent mistake.

 

[Jamee999]

He says....

 

[tooextracool]

All players will feel pressure very often - but the best batsmen won't feel it very often due to a slow scoring-rate in a First-Class game.
Equally, feeling pressure won't always mean you get dismissed, far from it.

well done in trying to reiterate my point.....and yes pressure doesnt mean that a good batsman or any other batsman for that matter will be dismissed, but it would be fairly stupid for a bowler to not try to get a good batsman out by some good pressure bowling.....given that it has worked on many many occasions

Yes, Lara played so many poor shots against Flintoff which were clearly directly due to the fact that he wasn't scoring fast, didn't he?!!

if you could in fact read, i have never said that pressure is always caused by slow scoring rates.....in fact its not really slow scoring rates as much as it is continually bowling in the right spots. in laras case the pressure was caused by some good flintoff bowling in the past, in such a way that lara was totally uncertain about what shot to play when he came in later on.

What you mean is they'll all feel pressure due to a slow scoring-rate and get out.
Yes, they will.
Point being?
Far, far more often, they won't.

and where have i denied this? if even the good batsmen at times tend to get out to good pressure bowling then maybe just maybe a bowler who gets his wickets by creating pressure must actually deserve that wicket irrespective about whether the ball he bowled to him was wicket taking or not?

 

[tooextracool]

Well, some (tooextracool or marc71178) might do that deliberately.
At least here it was an innocent mistake.

oh believe me i dont follow commentators opinions about players either....but it would be kinda stupid to ignore what they thought about the flatness of a wicket because anybody that watches cricket can really decide whether or not a wicket was flat.....especially commentators who on most occasions have actually played cricket in the past

 

[Richard]

well done in trying to reiterate my point.....and yes pressure doesnt mean that a good batsman or any other batsman for that matter will be dismissed, but it would be fairly stupid for a bowler to not try to get a good batsman out by some good pressure bowling.....given that it has worked on many many occasions

And I've said "bowlers should not try to bowl with as much accuracy as they can" where?

if you could in fact read, i have never said that pressure is always caused by slow scoring rates.....in fact its not really slow scoring rates as much as it is continually bowling in the right spots. in laras case the pressure was caused by some good flintoff bowling in the past, in such a way that lara was totally uncertain about what shot to play when he came in later on.

Yes, of course it was.
The number of times Lara failed to pick-up Flintoff in the recent series (in England, when he had no problems with him in West Indies where sightscreens are far inferior) was alarming.
And IMO it certainly caused his dismissal indirectly in The Second Test, first-innings. Obviously, it caused it directly in the Third Test, second-innings.
When have I suggested, either, that batsmen are poor if they worry about what a bowler has done to them in the past? Not, of course, that Lara should have worried about Flintoff in this instance, but if you outswing somone out twice then get them out with a straight ball which cannons into the pad then of course you deserve an enormous amount of credit. Don't think I'd call it "pressure" exactly, though.

and where have i denied this? if even the good batsmen at times tend to get out to good pressure bowling then maybe just maybe a bowler who gets his wickets by creating pressure must actually deserve that wicket irrespective about whether the ball he bowled to him was wicket taking or not?

And if no pressure is created, in the majority of the time?
(Which evidence suggests it isn't)
If the batsman feels no pressure and plays no poor stroke?

 

[Richard]

oh believe me i dont follow commentators opinions about players either....but it would be kinda stupid to ignore what they thought about the flatness of a wicket because anybody that watches cricket can really decide whether or not a wicket was flat.....especially commentators who on most occasions have actually played cricket in the past

And of course because they've played in the past it makes them infinately better to judge than someone who is playing now (like me).

 

[marc71178]

All players will feel pressure very often - but the best batsmen won't feel it very often due to a slow scoring-rate in a First-Class game.

25% of the time is quite often, and that' what you've just said...

 

[marc71178]

And IMO it certainly caused his dismissal indirectly in The Second Test, first-innings. Obviously, it caused it directly in the Third Test, second-innings.

You just cannot bring yourself to credit Flintoff for a superb ball can you?

 

[Richard]

What was so superb about it?
The fact it was short and 88mph or something?
Sorry, I've seen far, far too many of them handled too easily to call any of them superb.

 

[Richard]

25% of the time is quite often, and that' what you've just said...

It is quarter of the time time - hardly often.

 

[marc71178]

What was so superb about it?

The fact that one of the best 2 players of the generation couldn't play it.

Lara had no answer to that ball and was dismissed by it.

 

[marc71178]

It is quarter of the time time - hardly often.

If a batsman got out a quarter of the times he faced a certain method of attack, that would be a weakness.

So what's the difference here?

 

[Richard]

The fact that one of the best 2 players of the generation couldn't play it.

Lara had no answer to that ball and was dismissed by it.

So every ball Lara has given a chance off has to have been brilliant.
Sorry, even the best players play poor shots and I don't judge a delivery as brilliant just because a great player plays a poor shot to it.

 

[marc71178]

He didn't play a poor shot.

He tried to not play any shot, but the ball was too good for him.

 

[Richard]

If a batsman got out a quarter of the times he faced a certain method of attack, that would be a weakness.

So what's the difference here?

It would be a weakness only if he got out to it cheaply.
The fact that three-quarters-ish of the time something doesn't result in a wicket suggests to me it's not something that troubles most batsmen.

 

[marc71178]

Not so long ago you denied it ever happened...