england's post ashes arrogance

[Son Of Coco]

At a high bounce, more like. Yes, it's hard to hit down on it, very hard - so if you can't safely cut it uppishly, don't go for it.
No shot that is more likely to bring dismissal than runs is EVER worth playing.

Right, batsmen should be little less human. If it's bowled at a quicker pace it makes it harder to pull out of the shot as you have less time to commit. If you have a shot you like to play, and you're starved of that opportunity, your eyes might light up when you're finally given a chance to play it - even if it's not in the right spot. It's a bit like this idea you have about not getting good wickets with a bouncer. Is it still not a good wicket if you've set yourself a deep mid wicket knowing the batsman will go for it and deliver a ball that's hit straight down the fielder's throat?

Of course, in a perfect world the batsman would leave anything that's perceived to be a danger thus making them much more difficult to get out. Batsmen and bowlers think though...that's how they get so lucky.

 

[Richard]

I'm not looking to win arguments, just an element of common sense...what you say with regards to bowling and targetting batsmen is nonsensical.

So me saying that bowling crap doesn't deserve wickets is wrong because you've invented this "ah, you know nothing about bowling and the more you speak, the more you make that clear" so as that you can basically (as most people do) give bowlers credit for good figures whenever they may get them?

 

[Richard]

Not at all...

Given that you seem to think any ball that isn't absolutely perfect doesn't deserve I wicket I have my doubts that you do. You seem to put things down to 'luck' without being able to grasp that a bowler may put a ball in a certain area as part of a plan.

Rubbish, when the hell have I said any ball that isn't 100% perfect doesn't deserve a wicket?
Bowling plans are rarely not obvious, especially to a careful observer like me. I don't, however, think that a bowler like Chris Cairns deserves too much credit for a brilliant plan when he places a deep-square-leg and Nasser Hussain looks, sees, and next ball Hooks it straight to him.
What I talk down is when a bowler gets 4 or 6 wickets in an innings without bowling a single wicket-taking ball. And no, short balls are rarely a good plan as most batsmen don't have a weakness against them (at least any more - maybe they used to in the days when protective equipment was not good enough).

 

[Richard]

Right, batsmen should be little less human. If it's bowled at a quicker pace it makes it harder to pull out of the shot as you have less time to commit. If you have a shot you like to play, and you're starved of that opportunity, your eyes might light up when you're finally given a chance to play it - even if it's not in the right spot. It's a bit like this idea you have about not getting good wickets with a bouncer. Is it still not a good wicket if you've set yourself a deep mid wicket knowing the batsman will go for it and deliver a ball that's hit straight down the fielder's throat?

Of course, in a perfect world the batsman would leave anything that's perceived to be a danger thus making them much more difficult to get out. Batsmen and bowlers think though...that's how they get so lucky.

No, it's not. Luck has nothing to do with thinking.
Luck is just that - something which is influenced by nothing.
No, it's not easy to pull-out of a shot - but do you really think it's not possible to look before the ball's bowled, see where the field is, and prepare yourself for the eventuality of a wide-Long-Hop\leg-stump-Bouncer and shape to play then pull-out? Have we really not seen this done countless times?