It's not nonsense at all, it's one of the most basic elements of ODI strategy, and the fact that you fail to take note of it is simply laughable. If a team goes 2 or 3 down after 10 or 15 overs, they will be forced to spend the following period rebuilding the innings. 4 or 5 down and they might not be able to go after the bowling until the death overs. That situation allows for bowlers who might otherwise have gone for runs to get through economical overs as the batsmen won't be looking to attack. There are so many examples of this phenomenon that pointing out specific games would be a waste of time. Take a look at any ODI series and you will see games where this occurs.
You'll never, ever see it occurring. If bowlers bowl waywardly, they
will go for runs, no matter how many wickets are falling or have fallen prior to said wayward spell.
You will indeed be forced to spend 10-15 overs rebuilding (ie scoring relatively slowly) when losing 2 or 3 wickets in the first 15 -
IF the bowling is accurate enough. Yet it's also true that if you race to 90 off 15 and then come-up against some accurate bowling your rate will probably be slowed, and you'll probably give away some wickets trying to keep it going.
And it's utterly silly to suggest that just because a side has lost even 4 or 5 wickets in the first 20 overs, say, that inaccurate bowling won't go round the park. There are countless examples, take a look at any game where said wicket-loss happens, and you'll see it. Almost any batsman will go after wayward bowling - and usually manage to score freely off it.
If a team gets to 0/50 after 10 overs however, they'll be looking to up the run rate. 0/100 and you'll have to bowl extremely well or take wickets to avoid getting belted. That's the way ODI cricket works. That's why every captain talks about getting breakthroughs or building partnerships, and why bowlers who take wickets in the early overs are incredibly valuable.
Bowlers who can take wickets by bowling wicket-taking deliveries in the early overs are indeed valuable. But so are those who can keep things tight in the Powerplays. Often, of course, the latter leads to wicket-taking anyway. There are many examples, too, of this.
Sure, bowling accurately and keeping pressure on the batsmen by slowing the scoring can allow you to take wickets, just like keeping the batting side on the defensive by taking wickets can reduce the run rate. They are certainly related aims. However, your suggestion that accurate bowling which doesn't result in wicket taking will result over the full course of a team's innings in a low to moderate score is simply parted from reality. Such a thing doesn't occur in modern ODI cricket.
My suggestion is that accurate bowling rarely fails to result in wickets. I have never, once, suggested that accurate bowling throughout an innings (remembering the required spot to aim at changes over the course of an innings) is likely to result in totals of 210\3. Never.
And you'd be hard-pressed to counter that.
