Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[Richard]

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

And if you guys hadn't interrupted it would be more.
tooextracool will never give-up, so I need to show the same relentlessness if I'm to live with myself.

 

[Richard]

If the batsman feels no pressure and plays no poor stroke then he doesn't get out does he! But you keep talking about evidence suggesting that good batsmen don't feel pressure, what evidence is this exactly? Obviously pressure won't lead to a wicket every time, you have to rely on the chances created actually being taken etc etc But if you bowl in the right spots and the batsman is having trouble scoring then those chances are more likely to come.

More likely, obviously, but still far less often than more.
From what I can surmise, bowling that supposedly leads to pressure actually does about a mere 25% of the time.

MacGill is being debated quite a bit on one of the other threads, and I think that one of the reasons he gets a lot of his wickets is due to pressure being built up at the other end, MacGill is an outlet for the batsmen as he is a bit wayward even at the best of times so at one end you have McGrath piling on the pressure with 6 balls on the spot (or Warne for that matter) and on a lot of occasions MacGill benefits from this. A specific example is a test both Warne and MacGill played in OZ some years ago where MacGill took 12 wickets, and Warne took 1 yet Warney bowled far the better of the two. Warne benefits more bowling with McGrath and the likes because pressure is built up from both ends with good quality bowling.

IMO MacGill has got the wickets he's got because of the fact that if you bowl enough deliveries you'll get poor strokes played against you eventually - and you'll bowl the odd good one here and there, obviously. But what matters is how many runs you concede in the meantime. MacGill concedes far too many runs most of the time - in the few series he has taken wickets at a decent rate this can be explained as beginner's luck and how extremely poor English batsmen are at playing wristspin.

What you're talking about with outswing/straight balls etc isn't pressure being built, it's setting up the batsmen within the space of 3 or 4 balls.

I know - and that is good bowling.

Pressure is finding a batsman weakness and then bowling there consistently so it limits his ability to score and means that one of the only shots he has at his disposal to score is one he dislikes/is not as good at. You might eventually decide to offer him an outlet by putting the ball in an area he likes, but a little wider than normal etc and that's when you get your chance. The chance may or may not be taken if it's a catch, but good pressure bowling led to it in the first place.

Yes, I know that - but what if the batsman plays no poor stroke? IMO that happens in infinately more cases than it doesn't.

 

[marc71178]

And so no-one noticed that he lost sight of it? Haha, yeah! That's a good one! Everyone noticed, it was kinda obvious.

Everyone except the people who actually watched it I presume.

The ball was simply too good for Lara - he tried to not play it, but it was too quick for him (part of a spell where Flintoff was cranking it up, but you still don't think that a spell get's a player out, only one ball in isolation)

 

[marc71178]

Everyone else who wanted to judge would just have to use statistics (my season's average of 1.58 and top-score of 4)

* Notes absence of a FC average *

 

[marc71178]

So Flintoff has never bowled a similar ball?

Not one quite so quick and lifting on the batsman.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I know - and that is good bowling.

So when a bowler puts a batsman under pressure, setting him up by bowling accurately before eventually getting him out, this is good bowling too!?

 

[tooextracool]

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

if i had to call you a name
a) i wouldnt come up with something as lame as 'plato'
b)i'd say it to directly to you instead of getting someone else to do it for me.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

err what? i said that someone who has played on all types of international wickets would know far more about wickets and would be less likely to be wrong about a wicket as you are. not that it matters because almost anyone can judge whether a wicket is a seamer,turner,flat or uneven just by watching and i think if several people did that its quite likely that they are right and you are just making up the typical crap of yours to try and save your face.

 

[tooextracool]

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

and i c you are back to your b/s....i've already shown you other occasions on which richardson succeeded on wickets that werent flat, like the 3rd test against england and the 2nd test in SL. in fact you were the one who couldnt come up with enough times at which richardson failed on non-flat wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

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

actually it goes to show how much you know about cricket. believe me the chances of getting a good batsmen out early is only 50%, and if you can come up with a way to get a batsmen out 25% of the time then why wouldnt you do it?

 

[tooextracool]

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.

thats stupid.....if you manage to do something that the batsmen didnt think you were going to do then surely you out-thought the batsman!
are you trying to modify the meaning of words again?just like when you said that certain players were proven for a year and then became unproven?

 

[tooextracool]

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

thats the point.... if creating pressure has led to getting good batsmen out 25% of the time.....thats good enough to suggest to me that the bowler deserves credit in doing so.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

no they deserve credit if they've bowled 4-5 good balls before that that didnt get the batsman out. unless the next is absolutely appalling i dont see any reason why the bowler doesnt deserve credit for the wicket. you seem to think that a bowler must only get a batsmen out with wicket taking deliveries, yet if you take a look at some of the best players' dismissals you will see that they've got out far more often by balls that werent wicket taking but the build up to which was good enough to get them out.

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 that would show how much of that series you actually watched....any fool could see that lara wasnt his assured self when flintoff was bowling, and he was done in by some good quick short balls prior to getting out.

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.

and we've seen the contrary happen far more often....because even the best players tend to have days when they get out due to the pressure. in a perfect world you would hope that every batsmen would forget the last ball and focus on the next, but the fact is that it has never happened because all batsman are human and while they have been occasions where they've somehow managed to fight around it and survive the pressure it doesnt mean that they did not feel it whatsoever.

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

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

and that makes absolutely no sense.......

 

[tooextracool]

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.

you really need to get over the fact that balls dont have to be wicket-taking for a bowler to deserve a wicket....its the build up that mattters, its happened so many times now that any expert on cricket knows about it.

 

[tooextracool]

And if you guys hadn't interrupted it would be more.
tooextracool will never give-up, so I need to show the same relentlessness if I'm to live with myself.

thats 9 in a row now for me....

 

[tooextracool]

So when a bowler puts a batsman under pressure, setting him up by bowling accurately before eventually getting him out, this is good bowling too!?

no, when a bowler richard doesnt like bowls well he just cant live with himself.....

 

[Richard]

Everyone except the people who actually watched it I presume.

The ball was simply too good for Lara - he tried to not play it, but it was too quick for him (part of a spell where Flintoff was cranking it up, but you still don't think that a spell get's a player out, only one ball in isolation)

You seriously think it was too quick for him?
In spite of the fact that he has proved time and again that nothing is too quick for him? That good batsmen do not get beaten for pace except in exceptional circumstances.
Such as, for instance, when they lose sight of the ball at a crucial point.
And you still haven't managed to find a way around the fact that Flintoff has bowled identical balls and similar spells, without similar results.
The only difference is that this particular one had a wicket against it's name and no amount of you saying "it was too good for one of the best players in The World" will change that.

 

[Richard]

So when a bowler puts a batsman under pressure, setting him up by bowling accurately before eventually getting him out, this is good bowling too!?

Haha.

 

[Richard]

if i had to call you a name
a) i wouldnt come up with something as lame as 'plato'
b)i'd say it to directly to you instead of getting someone else to do it for me.

Maybe, just maybe, it was a joke.

 

[Richard]

err what? i said that someone who has played on all types of international wickets would know far more about wickets and would be less likely to be wrong about a wicket as you are. not that it matters because almost anyone can judge whether a wicket is a seamer,turner,flat or uneven just by watching and i think if several people did that its quite likely that they are right and you are just making up the typical crap of yours to try and save your face.

Keep trying to spin it around, it might work for you one day! You have tried to say things have happened the way they haven't time and again, and you are the one who's tried to make-up the crap, because you have brought-up all the cases of wickets that supposedly didn't turn when anyone who'd actually watched properly could see that they did.