Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[Linda]

I have been assigned the task of suggesting that Richard should be referred to as Plato.
The one who assigned shall remain undisclosed.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I have been assigned the task of suggesting that Richard should be referred to as Plato.
The one who assigned shall remain undisclosed.

Pluto? (Sorry mate, no offence! haha It's been an interesting debate.)

 

[Linda]

Yeah... I dont know what it means either.

 

[Richard]

I have been assigned the task of suggesting that Richard should be referred to as Plato.
The one who assigned shall remain undisclosed.

tooextracool, I shouldn't wonder.
Either way, you can refer to me as whatever, I don't especially give a f**k.

 

[Richard]

yeah why not Harmison at the top of the order ?

I don't know how many people here remember or were around to see that match, but it was one of the freakiest i have ever seen....it was 1989 and India was playing England in the Nehru Cup at Kanpur and chasing a total of some 250+ runs, Srikanth(then Indian captain) sent Chetan Sharma to come in at 4 instead of his normal spot at 9, and he blasts 101* to win the match for India with few overs to spare. He never scored even a 40 before or since.

And because of this one anomaly, we can try a tactic that works about... oh.. 5% of the time.
Brilliant...

 

[Richard]

they've played on far more wickets than you have at the international level and therefore if anyone knows about wickets it would be them(despite the fact that it isnt very hard to decide whether a wicket is flat or not)

Yes, of course, so now you have to play on wickets to be able to analyse them...
It's not very difficult to decide whether a wicket is seaming, turning, flat or uneven.
Let's leave it at that, shall we?






No, thought not.

 

[steds]

And because of this one anomaly, we can try a tactic that works about... oh.. 5% of the time.
Brilliant...

Leave him alone, he can't help it...he's American (or at least, living in America)

 

[Neil Pickup]

Deciding on a wicket is easy, depending who you are.

If you're TEC - did Tendulkar score on it? If so, then it's flat.
If you're Richard - did Richardson score on it? If so, then it's flat.

 

[Richard]

Oh no it was not, that ball was too good for the batsman - he couldn't get out of it, and just about every commentator / pundit who saw it said that.

And so no-one noticed that he lost sight of it? Haha, yeah! That's a good one! Everyone noticed, it was kinda obvious.
You still haven't managed to find a way around the fact that the only difference was that Lara lost sight of it, and Flintoff (and many more bowlers, incidentally) has bowled many, many balls of identical line, length and pace which batsmen haven't lost sight of and haven't had any trouble with.

 

[Richard]

Deciding on a wicket is easy, depending who you are.

If you're TEC - did Tendulkar score on it? If so, then it's flat.
If you're Richard - did Richardson score on it? If so, then it's flat.

Except for the anomalies, of course...
Like Richardson in New Zealand-India 2002\03.

 

[Richard]

If the pressure doesn't build then the bowler gets no credit, he's obviously bowling crap.

Or, quite possibly, the bowler is bowling the way conventional wisdom would have it that his feeling under pressure is a must, but instead the batsman is thinking the way most good batsmen think and is not worrying about the scoring-rate, because it's irrelevant.
Does the bowler get the same amount of credit if the batsman doesn't feel pressure when he supposedly should and isn't, as when he supposedly should and is?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Except for the anomalies, of course...
Like Richardson in New Zealand-India 2002\03.

If you're anyone else, did Richard score on it? If so, use it as an ironing board.

 

[Richard]

are you out of your mind? if i had a chance of getting a 'good' batsmen out 25% of the time using a certain method i would give up all other modes of attack and focus on that one!

Just goes to show how good you are at judging how to bowl, then.

 

[Richard]

If you're anyone else, did Richard score on it? If so, use it as an ironing board.

Oh, no, not at all - only you and me on this board know how useless I am with the willow.
Equally, it's hardly fair to say "if I scored runs on it" - that would reduce the qualifying pitches to zero.
Everyone else who wanted to judge would just have to use statistics (my season's average of 1.58 and top-score of 4), and we all know how incredibly reluctant we all are to do that, don't we?!!

 

[Richard]

because it had to do with the build up before that ball?
im assuming you are not a very big fan of 'out thinking the batsman' then?

Given that not many batsmen are stupid, no.
I don't believe for a second that bowlers don't know exactly where they should be bowling every ball, I don't believe for a second that batsmen aren't guessing what's possibly coming down next ball.
Equally, I don't see how bowling three inswingers followed by an outswinger which takes a wicket is "out-thinking the batsman" - it's just outclassing him.
Because not being able to know for certain what's coming next doesn't mean either batsman or bowler is thinking harder.

 

[Richard]

you just said that even the good batsmen feel pressure 25% of the time.....

And I've said bowlers deserve credit for that resulting in wickets where...?

 

[Richard]

no but you totally denied the fact that accuracy doesnt get good players out.

Rubbish, I've simply said bowlers deserve no credit if it happens to, because the wicket-taking ball is not one that has merited it.

so beating the bat and hitting someone on the body is not pressure then? the whole point of this lara-flintoff debate is that lara as good as he is, was under severe pressure and couldnt deal with it on this occasion....therefore pressure bowling can lead to wickets, even off good batsmen, something that you believe the batsmen should be blamed for instead of the bowler being credited for it.

The Lara-Flintoff debate is irrelevant because the only reason Lara was out is because he lost sight of the respective ball. Not due to any pressure in his mind.
And no, beating the bat and hitting the body won't put the best batsmen under pressure - how many times have we seen batsmen come through this to play superb knocks? That's what batting is all about - forgetting the last ball, which can do you no harm unless you worry about it - and concentrating on the next.
If you can't do that you're not going to do that well, even today.

then obviously the bowler doesnt deserve the wicket....which is pretty much what anderson's wickets are all about. whats your point though?

My point is not relative to bowlers like Anderson (who bowl accurately enough to supposedly create pressure very, very rarely).
My point is that:

Does the bowler get the same amount of credit if the batsman doesn't feel pressure when he supposedly should and isn't, as when he supposedly should and is?

Because what he's doing is the same, whatever the batsman is doing.

 

[Richard]

Thing it's a guesstimate.

It's certainly more accurate than his previous thoughts on the subject (that it never happens)

Find me a post where I've said it never happens and I'll retract the statement.
However, if, on the other hand, I've only ever said the bowler doesn't deserve credit when it does happen, I'll say I haven't changed my view one ayota.
And yes, it's a total guesstimate - could be far less for all I know.

 

[steds]

You've posted 6 in a row, Richard. I reckon the others have given up even trying to argue with you

 

[Richard]

Richard... ive seen one smart comment by you on these eight pages... and ive forgotten whatever the hell it was because of all the CRAP you posted! Like Flintoffs ball being crap... how about "no"?? It was shorter with more bounce and Lara was pressured into playing at it.

So Flintoff has never bowled a similar ball?
Rubbish, he's bowled many, many of the things - and plenty have been smacked through mid-wicket like they deserve to be. Even more have been dabbed down harmlessly at the feet - what would almost certainly have happened to this one had Lara not lost sight of it at the crucial point.

And when you said that you should "forget the last ball and think about the next one"... a good theory for ROBOTS or ALIENS

So that's why it's bandied-about by everyone who knows anything about cricket, then?
It's a theory that you need to put into practice if you want to become a good batsman.
If you worry about what cannot hurt you you're not going to get very far.
If you learn from it, however, you're going to get much further.

i agree with Marc saying that "95%" or whatever of batsmen have got out because of pressure, be it becuase of bowling, fielding or both. Please Richard (and everyone else... maybe) dont be pig-headed but actually believe and ADMIT that you could be wrong.

I very much disagree - I'd say it's as close to 100% as anything ever is (99.9999999 or whatever).
But it doesn't change the fact that he needn't be feeling that pressure.
And no, I won't admit that I'm wrong that he shouldn't be feeling pressure because of that, sorry.