Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

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]

Originally Posted by marc71178

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]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

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]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

* 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]

Originally Posted by marc71178

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]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.