Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[Richard]

No, the matter in hand is the game that is going on, not some similar incident 18 months previously.

And so it's not remotely interesting that this dismissal bears almost exact resemblence to another?

 

[Richard]

Rubbish!

What about the actual game can you pick up from watching that you can't get from experiencing it - things like the pressure of the occasion.

So it's not possible to pick-up all this stuff about pressure, then?
Even though you're following it with every bit as much passion and desire that the players exhibit?
And that's why everyone who hasn't played the game goes on about the pressure, too, is it?

 

[tooextracool]

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.

rubbish, if anyone who watched it properly could decide whether or not the wicket was a turner then why does cricinfo not back up your argument then? no you are the one who makes up things that never happened without even having watched the games....such as mark richardson's innings on a turner in SL and bond's good bowling in SL.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

then why cant you come up with stats showing me those failures on non flat wickets? the way i see it he hasnt played that often on non flat wickets and the times he has, hes succeeded, notably the series against india in NZ, the 3rd test in england and the 2nd test in SL. you cannot brand someone as a 'flat track bully' unless he actually fails consistently on non flat wickets, and because you dont believe he can succeed on non flat wickets, it doesnt make a difference.

 

[tooextracool]

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

oh really mr 'katich cant play spin(despite scoring prolifically against murali and kumble) at the international level because he struggled against brown and swann in county cricket

Er, eh?.

i can generalise too you know

Because there are better ways that work far more often.

rubbish....can you come up with another method to get a quality batsmen out more than 25% of the time ?

 

[tooextracool]

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.

and the reason why a quality batsmen like lara wasnt able to cope with it was because he was totally unprepared for it...which all comes down to the fact that he was outthought

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.

b/s.....no one can go from being a proven success to a proven failure....if someone starts off well and then fails later on its obvious that there was always a weakness that just wasnt explored half as much. hence he wasnt proven in the first place.

 

[tooextracool]

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

and the fact that 25% isnt in the minority means what?

 

[tooextracool]

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

it hasnt? so what exactly were you on about when you said that mcgrath and pollock didnt deserve more than half of their 800 odd wickets then? if both mcgrath and pollock have been able to get so many wickets by methods against your theory of how a quality bowler does in fact get wickets then surely you are missing something?
seems to me like it happens far more often that you would like it to.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

so you just refuse to change your inital opinion about a bowler, irrespective of how well he has managed to disprove your theories with his on field performances then?
harmison anyone?

 

[tooextracool]

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.

which shows how foolish your theories really are....the build up affects every batsmen just like it did in the lara-flintoff case. if that wasnt the case then why do certain bowlers like pollock and mcgrath get more wickets with decent deliveries while bowlers like vaas dont get the same number of wickets despite bowling similar deliveries , yet without any buildup?

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 once again you forget to examing the situation well enough. it was a coincidence that lara suddenly had problems against flintoffs short pitch bowling but hasnt in the past. the fact is that flintoff bowled 3-4 short and fast deliveries at lara first up, something that lara has never been comfortable with and then pitched it up. i doubt that any other bowler has used the same strategy at the same pace in the past.

It's never happened - what a ridiculous claim..

here you go again...just deny something that you cant prove otherwise. im sure that even you know that every batsmen feels pressure, just because there have been a few innings where the best players have somehow managed to fight their way around it without playing poor shots doesnt mean that they dont feel the pressure at all. if they didnt then we wouldnt have seen so many cases where quality batsmen felt pressure and then played a poor shot. if pressure didnt exist then quality batsmen should be getting out playing poor shots to poor bowlers too, when the fact is that they seem to do it far more often against quality ones.

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

actually thats pretty much what you have done above.....regardless i have no clue what your talking about at the moment, explain yourself and i'll argue it quite comfortable because i have never had problems arguing against b/s.

 

[tooextracool]

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"?

and you could then do the double bluff and get the inswinger going for one more delivery....either way batsmen can be unprepared for it

 

[tooextracool]

Because that's not all there is to it - tactics is the single most important thing in a captain, we've seen that time and again with Ganguly. If he was tactically excellent he'd be one of the best captains of all-time. But because he's not he's merely pretty good.
I don't think I'd be an especially bad man-manager (involving communication) and certainly I think I'd be brilliant at treating people as individuals (all part of tactics, anyway - and man-management) for the very reasons I've already mentioned.

because as we know, mike brearly got his leadership skills from you.

 

[tooextracool]

No - I am saying me, Richard Dickinson, who watches every cricket match he can possibly get his eyes on, with great attention-to-detail, taking in every moment judiciously and recording it both in his mind and in personal match-reports where he feels like it, often recording footage where he can get highlights, sometimes just setting a tape to record a whole one-day match or Test-match day when he gets a feeling that the match is going to be a good-'un, and watches that whenever he is bored (common, when at work or not getting drunk with friends, either out or in), and who finds professionally-produced videos of famous games, or montages, and watches them time and again when eating.
I am saying he, and people similar to him, are every bit as likely to be able to analyse live cricket with punch as someone who happens to have been a reasonably good player and has been lucky enough to get himself into the TV or radio com-box or a job with The Express.

and how much of this helps in deciding how a wicket is playing? its quite likely that an ex cricketer who gets a close up view of it and who has played on every wicket possible would have no problems deciding whether a wicket is flat or turner or seamers wicket. you on the other hand could distort information, not remember it or just be under the misunderstanding based on the facts that you only watched it on tv.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So it's not possible to pick-up all this stuff about pressure, then?
Even though you're following it with every bit as much passion and desire that the players exhibit?
And that's why everyone who hasn't played the game goes on about the pressure, too, is it?

I have played the game. Applying pressure on the batsman with good, accurate bowling is something that is attempted at every level of cricket, that's why when I hear a commentator talking about the bowler putting the batsman under pressure I understand what he is talking about.

 

[marc71178]

What about being in the middle is neccessary to understand?

Yes, to really understand the game you need experience.

Because it happens?
No.

Incorrect, it does happen, you just can't accept it.

 

[marc71178]

I haven't played it - I don't need to.
I have watched it.

Which means you know more about it than people who've played the game to a high level - more about what actually happens during a game?

Didn't think so.

 

[marc71178]

And so it's not remotely interesting that this dismissal bears almost exact resemblence to another?

Not as interesting as the match that is actually happening at the time - that is the important thing, not something that happened 18 months ago.

 

[marc71178]

So it's not possible to pick-up all this stuff about pressure, then?

Not accurately no.

Until you've done it in front of so many people you don't know what it is really like - I've experienced that to a lesser extent (2-3000 people) - and it is nothing like I expected.

 

[Richard]

rubbish, if anyone who watched it properly could decide whether or not the wicket was a turner then why does cricinfo not back up your argument then?

Because it's wrong.
And because there is some weird romantic rubbish in cricket about making-out that spinners were effective on non-turners, you see it loads.

no you are the one who makes up things that never happened without even having watched the games....such as mark richardson's innings on a turner in SL and bond's good bowling in SL.

So I made-up Bond's average of 38, then? (which is poor whatever you try to do with it)
I never made any secret of the fact that I hadn't watched the NZ-SL Second Test, either.
So there goes "I make stuff up", I'm afraid.

 

[Richard]

then why cant you come up with stats showing me those failures on non flat wickets? the way i see it he hasnt played that often on non flat wickets and the times he has, hes succeeded, notably the series against india in NZ, the 3rd test in england and the 2nd test in SL. you cannot brand someone as a 'flat track bully' unless he actually fails consistently on non flat wickets, and because you dont believe he can succeed on non flat wickets, it doesnt make a difference.

Oh, yeah?
Well why don't you just check-out the number of occasions Richardson has failed when the ball has been swinging, seaming and turning?