Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[marc71178]

Where have you played in front of 2000-3000 people?

Birmingham Symphony Hall

Anyway, how's that impossible to appreciate if you've been amongst the 15,000 and shared the emotions of those you're watching?

I have also been to listen there, and you don't get anywhere near the same feeling.

 

[Richard]

Certain things in life have to be experienced - or we would all be learning how to drive from reading a book or watching others.

How to actually communicate with your peers is something you have to try for yourself. You mentioned a couple of days ago that you thought that you would fare particularly well in a man-management scenario. How do you know? By watching others or by trying it yourself?

Both.
However I don't believe analysis of cricket is one of these "certain things".

 

[Richard]

Erm last time I checked, he'd only played 9 games, and 2 of those are against sides with no spinners.

So 2 out of 7, not a bad initial strike-rate.

Yeah, so?
I don't believe 2 innings show automatically that someone has conquered problems with spin.

 

[Richard]

Which is not what I said.

What is important during the game, is the game that is going on - the outgoing player is gone, and the fact he was dismissed in similar fashion in previous games is not the key issue.

So it's not remotely interesting?

 

[Swervy]

Birmingham Symphony Hall

Cool...what is it you did there marc..sounds scary whatever it was!!!

 

[Richard]

Birmingham Symphony Hall

Is that playing an instrument?
If so I'd argue that, while it involves the same degree of skill, it's not remotely comparable because it doesn't involve the same degree of analysis and there isn't the same degree of "audience involvement" (ie rooting for one side or certain players).

I have also been to listen there, and you don't get anywhere near the same feeling.

No, for reasons I've attempted to explain above.

 

[Swervy]

Both.
However I don't believe analysis of cricket is one of these "certain things".

i'm getting confused..are we talking about when you said you would be a really good international captain...or are we talking about when you said you would be a better commentator than most of those on TV at the moment..I am getting confused!!!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Because some bowlers are lucky, some aren't.
And it's only the "that can't possibly be the case, the bowler must deserve credit for everything good he has against his name" mentality that means most people can't understand that.

On every single one of the 197 occasions he's come to the crease in Test-cricket, yes, that's likely.
Sorry, but Lara has never had problems with short-pitched bowling, at any stage of his innings, he's far too good for any of that rubbish, whatever it might help your theories to observe.

Except that anyone who watched properly rather than rely on assumptions would see that, while of course it's true that every batsman feels pressure, the good ones more often than not don't feel it just because of a slow scoring-rate.
For every instnace where it's happened, it's remembered well. Every time it doesn't, it's not remembered well by most people.

And what a stupid suggestion that would be - pressure doesn't exist - and that you have to even try to put it onto my keyboard suggests you're running-out of options for the umpteenth time.

No, but you have had all sorts of problems arguing against me, and that's why you've had to resort to all the garbage you've churned-out in the last 3 months.

I don't think you build a career in international cricket, widely regarded as one of the best fast bowlers by riding your luck. If you put the ball in the right areas a high percentage of the time you'll take wickets.

McGrath and Pollock get wickets because they put the ball in the right areas and move it around. While you might call it lucky to land it where you want to in the Devon z team, at that level it's called practice and a certain amount of skill.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So do I.
And it doesn't change the fact that I think they're wrong because in my experience good batsmen don't feel pressure just because of a slow scoring-rate anywhere near as often as they do feel it.

Of course they're wrong Richard, because commentators who have been international batsmen like Michael Slater, Mark Taylor, Viv Richards, etc etc (some people would regard them as decent players) talk about pressure occuring due to tight bowling and the tying down of the batsmen, but you, a self-confessed gumby with the bat would have a far greater understanding of what goes on inside a players head when he can't score off good, accurate bowling because you see it on TV.

If batsmen don't feel pressure because of a slow scoring rate in you experience anywhere near as often as they do feel it, doesn't that mean that they feel pressure more often than the opinion you've formed through experience?

 

[Richard]

i'm getting confused..are we talking about when you said you would be a really good international captain...or are we talking about when you said you would be a better commentator than most of those on TV at the moment..I am getting confused!!!

I'm talking about commentary, don't know what anyone else is talking about, sorry if I've confused anyone.

 

[Richard]

I don't think you build a career in international cricket, widely regarded as one of the best fast bowlers by riding your luck. If you put the ball in the right areas a high percentage of the time you'll take wickets.

McGrath and Pollock get wickets because they put the ball in the right areas and move it around. While you might call it lucky to land it where you want to in the Devon z team, at that level it's called practice and a certain amount of skill.

It's called a small amount of practice (relatively speaking!) and a massive amount of skill.
If it was all just practice anyone who wanted to could be Pollock, Murali, Warne or McGrath.
What is IMO lucky is that there are others of exceptional accuracy who don't get the amount of poor strokes played against them that these two do.
Of course they move it around when there's seam in the pitch, that's why they are the two most devestating and best bowlers I've ever seen live when the pitch is seaming or uneven.
But on wickets which are neither they're both perfectly straightforward for top-class batsmen to play and it irritates me the way these two get far more poor strokes played against them than other bowlers who are very accurate too.

 

[Richard]

Of course they're wrong Richard, because commentators who have been international batsmen like Michael Slater, Mark Taylor, Viv Richards, etc etc (some people would regard them as decent players) talk about pressure occuring due to tight bowling and the tying down of the batsmen, but you, a self-confessed gumby with the bat would have a far greater understanding of what goes on inside a players head when he can't score off good, accurate bowling because you see it on TV.

If batsmen don't feel pressure because of a slow scoring rate in you experience anywhere near as often as they do feel it, doesn't that mean that they feel pressure more often than the opinion you've formed through experience?

What I'd like to know is why these players believe they and others should feel under pressure just because they're scoring at 2.5-an-over.
And what I'd also like to know is why so many passages of play go by with this sort of scoring-rate without the batsman losing patience or, for all I can tell, feeling under pressure.
Personally I put it to anyone who believes such that you remember when a slow scoring-rate does cause pressure and a wicket, but not when it doesn't. For the simple, and wholly understandible, reason that a wicket is rather more memorable than an hour of blocking and leaving.
Oh, and just for the record I regard all three you named above as very, very fine players indeed.

 

[Son Of Coco]

What I'd like to know is why these players believe they and others should feel under pressure just because they're scoring at 2.5-an-over.
And what I'd also like to know is why so many passages of play go by with this sort of scoring-rate without the batsman losing patience or, for all I can tell, feeling under pressure.
Personally I put it to anyone who believes such that you remember when a slow scoring-rate does cause pressure and a wicket, but not when it doesn't. For the simple, and wholly understandible, reason that a wicket is rather more memorable than an hour of blocking and leaving.
Oh, and just for the record I regard all three you named above as very, very fine players indeed.

I don't think the pressure occurs when you're scoring at 3 or so an over, it occurs when bowlers put a clamp on the scoring and start building up maidens. If run scoring is regular then there's not really going to be any pressure built up in the first place.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It's called a small amount of practice (relatively speaking!) and a massive amount of skill.
If it was all just practice anyone who wanted to could be Pollock, Murali, Warne or McGrath.
What is IMO lucky is that there are others of exceptional accuracy who don't get the amount of poor strokes played against them that these two do.
Of course they move it around when there's seam in the pitch, that's why they are the two most devestating and best bowlers I've ever seen live when the pitch is seaming or uneven.
But on wickets which are neither they're both perfectly straightforward for top-class batsmen to play and it irritates me the way these two get far more poor strokes played against them than other bowlers who are very accurate too.

Which could suggest that you are actually missing some of the nuances of the game could it not? You're not quite getting as much out of watching cricket as you think you are. It's not just being accurate...........there's other factors involved too, none of which include luck. UNless, of course, McGrath's targeting of opposition batsmen immediately causes a poor shot playing frenzy from them resulting in him achieving the end result he wanted on a number of occasions.

A record of around 400 wickets suggests that your more than just a bowler who's "useful when the wicket's seaming around or is uneven".

 

[Richard]

I don't think the pressure occurs when you're scoring at 3 or so an over, it occurs when bowlers put a clamp on the scoring and start building up maidens. If run scoring is regular then there's not really going to be any pressure built up in the first place.

No, 3-an-over is a more than adequete scoring-rate in Test-cricket.
But 2.5-an-over, which I said, is about when I tend to notice people talking about "building the pressure", even if it's only been for 5 or 6 overs.

 

[Richard]

Which could suggest that you are actually missing some of the nuances of the game could it not? You're not quite getting as much out of watching cricket as you think you are. It's not just being accurate...........there's other factors involved too, none of which include luck. UNless, of course, McGrath's targeting of opposition batsmen immediately causes a poor shot playing frenzy from them resulting in him achieving the end result he wanted on a number of occasions.

A record of around 400 wickets suggests that your more than just a bowler who's "useful when the wicket's seaming around or is uneven".

I never called either of them merely "useful" in such conditions - I called both of them "devestating", and I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Of course there are other factors, sometimes involving unneccessary pressure in the batsman's mind, sometimes simply involving awe at the 600 that has been regularly posted in the last 5 or 6 years, sometimes other things.
But equally there are times when, for no good reason, batsmen simply play a load of poor strokes at McGrath and far less at others.

 

[marc71178]

So it's not remotely interesting?

I never said that, but it is not the priority during a live sporting broadcast - the prioriy is the action that is happening.

 

[marc71178]

Is that playing an instrument?
If so I'd argue that, while it involves the same degree of skill, it's not remotely comparable because it doesn't involve the same degree of analysis and there isn't the same degree of "audience involvement" (ie rooting for one side or certain players).

Audience involvement or not, the difference in pressure and all is incomprehensible.

No, for reasons I've attempted to explain above.

So you now agree that without doing it you don't get the experience then?

 

[luckyeddie]

I never said that, but it is not the priority during a live sporting broadcast - the prioriy is

to inform, entertain and ignore Mark Nicholas

 

[marc71178]

But 2.5-an-over, which I said, is about when I tend to notice people talking about "building the pressure", even if it's only been for 5 or 6 overs.

Erm, no it's not 2.5 an over that gets talked about, because that still means the relieving singles are being taken.

I seem to remember Ashley Giles in an interview this summer said he hates conceding a run because it prevents him having a full over at a batsman to really pressure him.