Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[Richard]

* Notes absence of a FC average *

So what's the difference between a First-Class average and a Sunday-XI average?
They're both equally constant, just at different levels!

 

[Richard]

Not one quite so quick and lifting on the batsman.

Yeah! Right! Look back, you'll see plenty (in the two summers where he was so "unlucky") which were quicker and bounced higher. Which were played as easily as pie.

 

[Richard]

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.

Back to? You fool. Do you understand that you can "go back to" something only once you've left ITFP? Which I've never done.
Richardson has scored almost all his runs of his career on flat pitches. Yes, that doesn't automatically mean he can't play on seaming or turning wickets, but so far as far as I'm concerned there's nothing like the evidence it's assumed there is to suggest he's as brilliant a player as some brand him.

 

[Richard]

actually it goes to show how much you know about cricket.

Haha, yeah. You judge on generalisation and assumption far more than I do.

believe me the chances of getting a good batsmen out early is only 50%

Er, eh?

and if you can come up with a way to get a batsmen out 25% of the time then why wouldnt you do it?

Because there are better ways that work far more often.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

You've actually out-thought and outclassed the batsman. As a bowler you've summed up what the batsman expects after the last three deliveries you've bowled (inswingers) and then decided that an inswinger is the best option for the next ball. If, as a bowler, you're not trying to work out what the batsman expects and then trying to throw in the element of surprise you might as well not be there. Part of the art of bowling is to make the batsman believe he knows what's coming next before, hopefully, having the variation to prove him wrong. A bowler takes a look at a batsman, works out what's most effective, then implements a plan to get him out, if this works then the batsman can consider himself "out-thought".

I can only come to the conclusion that you're not a bowler Richard, and hope that you never have the opportunity to attempt to try and coach someone in the art, it could be a disaster! haha If good batsmen were as bullet-proof as you suggest then there'd be no point bowling to them.

 

[Richard]

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!

Er, yes, obviously.
But it's highly unlikely that the batsman wasn't thinking of it, just not able to cope with it when it happened.

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?

Er, no. No-one can be proven then become unproven. However, someone can be a proven failure then become a proven success, and vice-versa, we've seen it plenty of times. It is more a case of, yet again, you are trying to put words onto my keyboard to make yourself look better. And failing.

 

[Richard]

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.

Given that it's massively in the minority, it suggests to me that it's not enough.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Haha, yeah. You judge on generalisation and assumption far more than I do.

Er, eh?

Because there are better ways that work far more often.

Like what?

So your statistics etc you've bought up as far as percentages batsmen fall to pressure bowling etc haven't been generalisations and assumptions based on what you consider to be the chance of it happening? They're just made up, and have no factual basis what-so-ever. On the other hand, the evidence for pressure bowling causing wickets to fall is quite compelling - commentators (who have actually played cricket at the highest level) are advocates for its effect, but I'm not about to trot out a dodgy set of figures calculated in my head, as I don't know exactly what percentage of players think it's effective.

 

[Richard]

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.

And it's not happened far more often. And supposed experts on cricket don't note that very often.

 

[Richard]

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

And given that I don't "not like" any bowlers (with the exception of Tino Best - I genuinely dislike him) that theory goes bang out of the window.

 

[Richard]

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.

Wrong.
More dismissals than not will simply exemplify that good batsmen don't play good shots every ball. Far more often there will be no apparent "build-up" than there will be.

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 almost every batsman will look a bit uncomfortable against the odd short-ball. Lara's done it countless times. He's not often got out to it, though, and there was something wrong in that series because he regularly had problems with it. And he's hardly ever done so before.

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.

It's never happened - what a ridiculous claim.

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

Or rather, you can't get around it so "it makes no sense" is the only recourse left to you.

 

[Richard]

Like what?

So your statistics etc you've bought up as far as percentages batsmen fall to pressure bowling etc haven't been generalisations and assumptions based on what you consider to be the chance of it happening? They're just made up, and have no factual basis what-so-ever. On the other hand, the evidence for pressure bowling causing wickets to fall is quite compelling - commentators (who have actually played cricket at the highest level) are advocates for its effect, but I'm not about to trot out a dodgy set of figures calculated in my head, as I don't know exactly what percentage of players think it's effective.

Fine, I'll withdraw the use - because it's not possible to make any calculations, as there is no set run-rate that must cause pressure and anything above that won't.
But believe me, just because commentators say it - they're wrong. They just make assumptions. Watch the stuff, all over everywhere, lots, and you'll see that most good batsmen aren't overtly bothered by a slow scoring-rate more often than not. Even if it's not 75:25.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Fine, I'll withdraw the use - because it's not possible to make any calculations, as there is no set run-rate that must cause pressure and anything above that won't.
But believe me, just because commentators say it - they're wrong. They just make assumptions. Watch the stuff, all over everywhere, lots, and you'll see that most good batsmen aren't overtly bothered by a slow scoring-rate more often than not. Even if it's not 75:25.

So the fact that these commentators are ex-international cricketers (some of whom were batsmen) isn't an indication that they may know a little more about what they're talking about than you? It's not necessarily the slow scoring rate that bothers the batsman, but the fact that they can't get the ball away over a period of time. You might be going at ten an over, then a bowler comes on and puts the screws on and that drops to 7 or 8, and a wicket still falls due to the pressure that bowler put on the batsman.

 

[Richard]

You've actually out-thought and outclassed the batsman. As a bowler you've summed up what the batsman expects after the last three deliveries you've bowled (inswingers) and then decided that an inswinger is the best option for the next ball. If, as a bowler, you're not trying to work out what the batsman expects and then trying to throw in the element of surprise you might as well not be there. Part of the art of bowling is to make the batsman believe he knows what's coming next before, hopefully, having the variation to prove him wrong. A bowler takes a look at a batsman, works out what's most effective, then implements a plan to get him out, if this works then the batsman can consider himself "out-thought".

Even if he knows what is probably coming but can do nothing to prepare for it?
If you have bowled 3 inswingers and the batsman knows you can bowl the outswinger, do you not think he is thinking "when is the outswinger coming"? Personally I think the term "out-thinking the batsman\bowler" implies that all cricketers are stupid.

I can only come to the conclusion that you're not a bowler Richard, and hope that you never have the opportunity to attempt to try and coach someone in the art, it could be a disaster! haha If good batsmen were as bullet-proof as you suggest then there'd be no point bowling to them.

I'm a bowler - believe me, I've got nothing in my batting to commend me to any side!
And I believe I'd make a very good bowling coach, because I place massive importance on accuracy. There's nothing that irritates me more than bowlers who get away with waywardness because of a reasonable strike-rate.
No batsman is bullet-proof, they're all vulnerable to the moving ball. The great bowler always has the advantage because the bowler has the ball in his hand and is the man who controls what happens in the game.

 

[Richard]

So the fact that these commentators are ex-international cricketers (some of whom were batsmen) isn't an indication that they may know a little more about what they're talking about than you?

I have never seen any evidence why this should be the case.
As far as I'm concerned there are plenty on this board, some of 16 years of age or who have been not so long ago (eg myself) who are every bit as competant as cricket correspondants as any ex-international.
It matters not what you have played, but how closely you have watched. IMO you can learn as much as you need to know in a year or two of watching, if you watch properly and have the right way of thinking.

It's not necessarily the slow scoring rate that bothers the batsman, but the fact that they can't get the ball away over a period of time. You might be going at ten an over, then a bowler comes on and puts the screws on and that drops to 7 or 8, and a wicket still falls due to the pressure that bowler put on the batsman.

Hmm, 10-an-over in a First-Class game, sounds likely.
Yes, I know what you mean, before anyone says that (4-an-over dropping to 3.5 will do), but no, I don't think a batsman has any right to worry about that whatsoever. If they do it's very, very poor thinking indeed.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Even if he knows what is probably coming but can do nothing to prepare for it?
If you have bowled 3 inswingers and the batsman knows you can bowl the outswinger, do you not think he is thinking "when is the outswinger coming"? Personally I think the term "out-thinking the batsman\bowler" implies that all cricketers are stupid.

I'm a bowler - believe me, I've got nothing in my batting to commend me to any side!
And I believe I'd make a very good bowling coach, because I place massive importance on accuracy. There's nothing that irritates me more than bowlers who get away with waywardness because of a reasonable strike-rate.
No batsman is bullet-proof, they're all vulnerable to the moving ball. The great bowler always has the advantage because the bowler has the ball in his hand and is the man who controls what happens in the game.

If he knows what's coming and he's as good a batsman as you suggest then he will be prepared for it. Any batsman that would be considered good at international level, if told that Lee or Akhtar were going to bowl an inswinging yorker (I'm just using them because of the pace) would have no trouble digging it out. On the other hand, if you or I were told the same thing there'd still be problems due to pace etc (the fact that, seemingly, neither of us can bat! haha).

I, on the other hand, don't think the term "out-thinking" implies cricketers are stupid. It's talking about a specific occasion when the bowler has trumped the batsman. You've set him up, making him believe something is going to happen, before delivering something entirely different. This doesn't mean the player invloved is stupid, just that the bowler was the more wiley of the two on this occasion. To me "outclassed" means that the bowler was a level above the batsman from the outset, his dismissal was inevitable. a bit like what happens when some of the top International teams play against the up and comers.

What would be your reasoning behind teaching kids to bowl accurately?

 

[Son Of Coco]

I have never seen any evidence why this should be the case.
As far as I'm concerned there are plenty on this board, some of 16 years of age or who have been not so long ago (eg myself) who are every bit as competant as cricket correspondants as any ex-international.
It matters not what you have played, but how closely you have watched. IMO you can learn as much as you need to know in a year or two of watching, if you watch properly and have the right way of thinking.

Hmm, 10-an-over in a First-Class game, sounds likely.
Yes, I know what you mean, before anyone says that (4-an-over dropping to 3.5 will do), but no, I don't think a batsman has any right to worry about that whatsoever. If they do it's very, very poor thinking indeed.

There's things that happen in the game though that you can't have any knowledge of unless you are in close contact with the players and have intimate knowledge of the tactics used. When watching, you can only presume as to what is happening, when the reality might be quite different. I would think that these ex-players, now commentators, would have a more intimate knowledge of what it takes to get a good batsman out (and by good I mean world-class) than either of us would. I take the fact that some of them are ex-captains into account - you'd presume they would know what tactics they used to employ to get batsmen out, and when they mention pressure having an effect then I presume they know what they are talking about.

I'm not suggesting a batsman worries too much about the teams run rate, but individually not scoring runs plays on a batsmans mind. If he's tied down for a while he starts to wonder how he's going to go about getting some runs, which often leads to a false shot and a dismissal. Obviously, in situations where you are playing for a draw from the outset then it's probably not going to be a problem, however playing and missing and not being able to contend with a bowler puts another set of doubts in the batsman's mind that put him under pressure again - how many times have we seen batsman simply trying to survive against Warney etc failing miserably.

 

[wpdavid]

Well, that was all crap bowlers - I certanly won't be smiling if he does it to Ntini and Nel this winter (though I can't see it's very likely).
Also, it was a wholly needless innings that didn't make any difference to the match-situation - and you can go on all you like about mental demoralisation, I don't think it made a difference and you can't prove it did.

Agreed it's not likely, but why wouldn't you even want to see Harmy scoring some runs for England this winter?

 

[Swervy]

I have never seen any evidence why this should be the case.
As far as I'm concerned there are plenty on this board, some of 16 years of age or who have been not so long ago (eg myself) who are every bit as competant as cricket correspondants as any ex-international.
It matters not what you have played, but how closely you have watched. IMO you can learn as much as you need to know in a year or two of watching, if you watch properly and have the right way of thinking.
Hmm, 10-an-over in a First-Class game, sounds likely.
Yes, I know what you mean, before anyone says that (4-an-over dropping to 3.5 will do), but no, I don't think a batsman has any right to worry about that whatsoever. If they do it's very, very poor thinking indeed.

but Richard you seem to only consider people with the same opinion as you to have valid points concerning the game...your thought processes appear to be far to rigid, you sometimes make valid points, but these are offset by an inflexibilty which suggests that you dont have a TRUE understanding of the game...the game has so many intangibles that your generalisations about player or teams etc just become silly.

A good journo sees things from as many view points as possible,and is constantly taking on board the opinions of others.

 

[Richard]

Agreed it's not likely, but why wouldn't you even want to see Harmy scoring some runs for England this winter?

Because it would be terrible quality cricket if he did.
I'd much prefer see Nel knocking over the poles and Smith and Gibbs getting on with the stuff that matters.