Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[Richard]

He didn't play a poor shot.

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

How come, then, deliveries of almost exact similarity in nature have not been too good for many players (including Lara) on many, many occasions besides?

 

[Richard]

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

No, I've never denied it ever happened - you've just claimed I have to suit your arguments and try to make my look like a chop-change merchant.
I've said that when it does happen the bowler deserves no credit because far more often good batsmen feel no pressure simply because of a slow scoring-rate in the First-Class-game.
You're not going to find a way around that.

 

[marc71178]

That ball wasn't similar to others, it had the pace and bounce.

It was a super ball that was too good for a great batsman.

I guess it all boils down to you not liking Flintoff, so being unable to accept he can do things well.

 

[marc71178]

I've said that when it does happen the bowler deserves no credit because far more often good batsmen feel no pressure simply because of a slow scoring-rate in the First-Class-game.
You're not going to find a way around that.

You initially denied it happened to "good" batsmen.

It quite clearly does, and the only people who can get the credit for building the pressure are the one's who've put the ball in the right spot, ie the bowlers.

 

[Richard]

That ball wasn't similar to others, it had the pace and bounce.

It was a super ball that was too good for a great batsman.

I guess it all boils down to you not liking Flintoff, so being unable to accept he can do things well.

No, it doesn't, it boils down to your refusal to accept that a ball can have done nothing to deserve a wicket it has against his name.
That ball was totally identical in pace, length and line to many, many Flintoff has bowled in the last 2 years, most of which have been let harmlessly by and some of which have been smacked through mid-wicket - often by Graeme.
It so happened that one of them got a wicket - the wicket of one of the two greatest players of the last generation - because that batsman lost sight of it at a crucial point.

 

[Richard]

You initially denied it happened to "good" batsmen.

It quite clearly does, and the only people who can get the credit for building the pressure are the one's who've put the ball in the right spot, ie the bowlers.

And when the pressure is not built? Does the bowler get the same amount of credit?

 

[aussie_beater]

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.

 

[Zeke]

aussie_beater

Your user name is an oxymoron.

 

[aussie_beater]

aussie_beater

Your user name is an oxymoron.

well....its been proven not to be, in some "frontiers" in the past...so let's just keep it at that

 

[tooextracool]

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

 

[tooextracool]

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).

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)

 

[tooextracool]

It is quarter of the time time - hardly often.

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!

 

[tooextracool]

How come, then, deliveries of almost exact similarity in nature have not been too good for many players (including Lara) on many, many occasions besides?

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?

 

[tooextracool]

No, I've never denied it ever happened - you've just claimed I have to suit your arguments and try to make my look like a chop-change merchant.
I've said that when it does happen the bowler deserves no credit because far more often good batsmen feel no pressure simply because of a slow scoring-rate in the First-Class-game.
You're not going to find a way around that.

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

 

[marc71178]

That ball was totally identical in pace, length and line to many, many Flintoff has bowled in the last 2 years, most of which have been let harmlessly by and some of which have been smacked through mid-wicket - often by Graeme.

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.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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

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 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?

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. 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.

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. 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.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And when the pressure is not built? Does the bowler get the same amount of credit?

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

 

[Son Of Coco]

Where did the 75-25 thing come from Richard? Did you find these stats somewhere, or are they made up based on what you believe?

 

[Nate]

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.

And when you said that you should "forget the last ball and think about the next one"... a good theory for ROBOTS or ALIENS (like the ones on the planet you came from) who feel no emotion but when you play cricket and the ball has beaten the bat 3 times in a row you start to doubt... 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.

 

[marc71178]

Where did the 75-25 thing come from Richard? Did you find these stats somewhere, or are they made up based on what you believe?

Thing it's a guesstimate.

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