Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[Richard]

I know who I'd listen to more out of someone who has experience Cricket in the middle all round the world, and someone who has only watched it on TV.

Well there's the first thing you've got wrong.
I've watched more than just televised cricket.
Assuming you're referring to me, that is.

 

[Richard]

I very much doubt they were quicker seeing as this summer he's been bowling quicker than before (owing to the fact he's bowling better and better as time goes on)

Oh, no, he hasn't.
His average speed for this summer was 85.4mph.
In 2003 it was 87.2mph.
In 2002 it was 85.2mph.
Even in 2000 it was 84.3mph.
Didn't you see that set of stats?
Yet another indication of two generalisations: the most recent is best remembered, and that someone must be bowling better if they're having more success.

 

[Richard]

First Chance

I've not benefited from any dropped catches this season (been dropped once, was out 2 balls later without scoring) and I got the first opportunity to walk when I knew I was out 2 Sundays ago. Never nicked one behind before now.

 

[Richard]

So a batsman thinks about every possible delivery he could receive next for every ball?

If that is the case then he should never get out as he knows what to expect and therefore can deal with it appropriately.

Any batsman should expect the next ball to be any line or length. If they're trying to premeditate the line or length they're doing something seriously wrong.
And most batsmen will know which direction and how certain bowlers are capable of moving the ball; what variations in pace they often bowl (not that it's easy, or sometimes possible, to pick). Playing it is another matter, and that's why a good bowler always has the game in his hands (literally), because he controls what happens and the batsman doesn't. He also knows how the pitch is playing and whereabouts the ball is likely to bounce. Uneven bounce, likewise, cannot be predicted.

 

[Richard]

"Supposed experts"

You mean people who've played the game (so know about it from the inside) and can clearly observe what is happening?

No more clearly (indeed it could be argued sometimes less so) than someone can observe from the out.

They of course know nothing about the game do they?

Oh, no, not nothing, far from.
But I am sometimes amazed at some of their misinterpretations, and I can't believe you aren't.

 

[Richard]

Erm, if Harmison were dismissed, it would be Smith and Gibbs batting.

It would indeed.
Now corrected.

 

[Richard]

No you don't, you comment on the matter at hand, and leave that sort of thing for the analysis either in the interval or between overs.

The matter at hand - for example, how extraordinarily similar the dismissal that has just occurred (the matter at hand, in other words) was to one from the same batsman and same bowler not so very long ago.

 

[Richard]

So you could say that by bowling that ball, Fernando out-thought him?

You could indeed.
He has done it to many good batsmen.
That slower-ball is an entirely out-of-character delivery - a brilliant ball, totally impossible to pick out of the hand - from a bowler who is otherwise very, very poor.

 

[marc71178]

You don't have to be playing - it's possible to learn every bit as much by watching. How many times.

You do not now what it's like in the middle from sitting watching the game, that is where the former players have the edge, and no matter how many times you claim it, it won't change a thing.

The reason there are so many of these things (articles and talk) is because most people genuinely do believe this stuff about slow scoring-rates causing pressure that all-but forces batsmen to play poor strokes. Whoever those peope are.

Hmm, now I wonder why that would be?

 

[marc71178]

And of course that had nothing to do with him losing sight of it at the crucial point, oh no.

He couldn't deal with the ball - if he lost sight of it, it was because it was too good a ball for him to follow.

 

[marc71178]

Well there's the first thing you've got wrong.
I've watched more than just televised cricket.
Assuming you're referring to me, that is.

I was, and I'd like to know details of where you've played around the world in high class cricket to get the experience of it that makes you a better judge of what it's like than someone who has played it.

 

[marc71178]

Oh, no, he hasn't.
His average speed for this summer was 85.4mph.
In 2003 it was 87.2mph.
In 2002 it was 85.2mph.
Even in 2000 it was 84.3mph.
Didn't you see that set of stats?

I was talking about short spells not seasons - this season he's had some really quick spells, notably at OT where he bowled about a full over at 90+ - and soon after got a wicket.

Yet another indication of two generalisations: the most recent is best remembered, and that someone must be bowling better if they're having more success.

Yes, I mean what would the man himself know about his own bowling?

 

[marc71178]

I got the first opportunity to walk when I knew I was out 2 Sundays ago.

From reports of your batting, was it really worth walking?

 

[marc71178]

No more clearly (indeed it could be argued sometimes less so) than someone can observe from the out.

Rubbish!

What about the actual game can you pick up from watching that you can't get from experiencing it - things like the pressure of the occasion.

 

[marc71178]

The matter at hand - for example, how extraordinarily similar the dismissal that has just occurred (the matter at hand, in other words) was to one from the same batsman and same bowler not so very long ago.

No, the matter in hand is the game that is going on, not some similar incident 18 months previously.

 

[Richard]

You do not now what it's like in the middle from sitting watching the game, that is where the former players have the edge, and no matter how many times you claim it, it won't change a thing.

What about being in the middle is neccessary to understand?

Hmm, now I wonder why that would be?

Because it happens?
No.

 

[Richard]

He couldn't deal with the ball - if he lost sight of it, it was because it was too good a ball for him to follow.

Now that's one I haven't heard before!
The ball was too good to follow!
Sorry, but that's absolutely ludicrous. What was so special about this delivery that was impossible to follow, when many, many, many, many similar balls have been followed without any difficulty?

 

[Richard]

I was, and I'd like to know details of where you've played around the world in high class cricket to get the experience of it that makes you a better judge of what it's like than someone who has played it.

I haven't played it - I don't need to.
I have watched it.

 

[Richard]

I was talking about short spells not seasons - this season he's had some really quick spells, notably at OT where he bowled about a full over at 90+ - and soon after got a wicket.

And he's had plenty of spells where he's bowled at 93mph before now.
Before Harmison started bowling at 94-5 in West Indies, he was the quickest bowler in the side.

Yes, I mean what would the man himself know about his own bowling?

Right, I'm getting sick of this - why is it so inconceivable that someone can know less about his own bowling than someone else?

 

[Richard]

From reports of your batting, was it really worth walking?

Yes, I might have got some runs I didn't deserve and that might have given some people a misleading impression of my batting ability.