Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Richard

If batsmen play poor strokes you don't need to bowl penetratively!

have you been following any part of my argument about pressure?
good players dont play poor strokes whenever they feel like you know....

Originally Posted by Richard

If you say so - nonetheless, his figures were far better than they normally are. And it still doesn't change the fact that, in Lara's 13-year career, there are bound to be more than a few occasions where people have tried that.

its quite possible that they did, except that those people probably didnt have the pace or the accuracy to carry it out well enough.....

Originally Posted by Richard

No, I don't - I've always said I can only guess at the rest of their careers before 2000\01-2001.

no you cant because 3 years out of 10 doesnt make a career....thats like me saying ramprakash was total and complete garbage for all his test career by only watching his first few years in his test career.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Richard

Lara's failed in other series, believe me - especially between 1994\95 and 2001\02.
Just because he's done well at times against everyone doesn't disguise the fact that even the best are outdone at times.
One such occasion was in 2000 (England). Another in 2000\01 (Australia).

and hes played well far more often against those teams too, that doesnt really say much.

Originally Posted by Richard

Yes, there were, I just said that. There weren't, however, any chances.

which is just as bad as chances, it suggests that gayle was lucky rather than gayle batted brilliantly and tore apart the attack.

Originally Posted by Richard

It wasn't just Ntini, it was all the bowlers - and yes, shortish balls can be good balls, as long as they're on the right line.

funny that, not long ago you were saying that no short ball deserves wickets, yet now you are going on calling them good balls.

Originally Posted by Richard

All the bowlers bowled plenty of good-line balls, and Gayle thrashed many of them through the covers.

then you didnt watch closely enough, i distinctly remember ntini bowling his short rubbish. and if gayle smashed many through the covers it only suggests that they bowled too wide.

Originally Posted by Richard

Yes, it is - nonetheless, it results in a fast scoring-rate without wickets falling, which is no use to the fielding side and a lot of use to the batting side.

and i might add its not especially good batting either.....just like getting wickets with luck.

Originally Posted by Richard

I've not once said it never happens - I have, however, said it doesn't happen very often to quality batsmen, and when it does it doesn't result in wickets falling anywhere near as often as some seem to think.

and it doesnt, depending on the type of batsman of course. if you managed to somehow contain viv richards by preventing him from scoring runs i wouldnt be surprised if you went on to get him out sooner rather than later. but as i've said time and time again, slow scoring doesnt usually affect quality batsmen in test match cricket.

[one_dayer]

Ruddy hell, never did I think this thread would reach 36 pages

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Richard

Well I can never be proved correct in the "good batsmen don't feel pressure because of a slow scoring-rate" - it's something that I've heard in commentary since commentary began. Yes, that does include stuff in the days of not losing coming before winning.
All I can do is try to keep watching and working-out what I seem to be true.
In any case, even in today's cricket World - 500 in 170 overs might be perceived to be worse than 450 in 130, but IMO that will give you the best chance of the game.
I mean, it really is almost ridiculous that sides are making 500 and still not being anywhere near safe from defeat, because they're not batting long enough.
Even if winning is now more important than not losing, scoring ridiculously fast doesn't always give you the best chance of winning.
A side knowing they've got nothing other than a draw to play for can never have it's importance underestimated IMO.

If a team makes 500 and doesn't win maybe it's due to poor bowling on their behalf, instead of the fact they didn't bat long enough. If you've got the best all-round team then scoring 500 quickly will give you the best chance to bowl the opposition out twice, but if you have a talented batting team, but no bowlers, then you'll be in trouble regardless.

If you play for nothing but a draw from the start, then you might as well not be there.

[superwills]

england should try flintoff up the order...

[Richard]

Soooooooooo tempted to reply to all those unreplied tec posts TBH (why on EARTH did I let them go? ) but will resist for the sake of society.

[shortpitched713]

Do it. For the children. And because I'm bored. Out of my ****ing mind.

[Richard]

Hmm. Will wait for a few more seals-of-approval TBH.

[steds]

**** me this thread was dire.

[Richard]

EDIT: I'll say one thing... ^%$£ me, I'd forgotten about some of these threads... I really did have time to burn back in 2004, didn't I? How is it possible to go for the best part of 13 pages arguing against three different people?