Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[tooextracool]

And of course watching how a wicket is playing on TV doesn't qualify you to judge how it's playing, oh, no, not at all.

oh it does, but surely someone who can take a look at the cracks on the wicket etc up close could be able to decide better than you what kind of a wicket it is.

And no-one can truly know how a wicket is going to play just by looking at it. Sometimes you can make a pretty safe guess, but the only way to know for certain is to watch cricket being played on it.
And I've done plenty of that.

and so have the commentators, who happen to also get a close up view of the pitch, something that you dont.

 

[Rik]

Solanki is every bit as out-of-position as Ramprakash was in First-Class-cricket.
Sadly, that experiment wasn't abandoned quick enough (probably mostly because of a wholly impressive 164* against the mighty Shropshire), unlike the Ramprakash one.

Oi! We ain't that bad! Anyway I don't remember 164* this season...are you sure it was Shropshire? Last time I saw Solanki over here he got out for less than 10 because he skied every shot he played, he just can't play on a pitch more challanging than a road.

 

[tooextracool]

Because some bowlers are lucky, some aren't.
And it's only the "that can't possibly be the case, the bowler must deserve credit for everything good he has against his name" mentality that means most people can't understand that.

amazing how bowlers can get more than half of their 800 wickets by luck! yet other bowlers cant. and its no coincidence that both those bowlers happened to be the most accurate bowlers for a long long time.....

On every single one of the 197 occasions he's come to the crease in Test-cricket, yes, that's likely.

oh its quite likely that no one of considerable pace and accuracy(how often do we see that?) has ever tried to bounce lara early on.

QUOTE=Richard]Sorry, but Lara has never had problems with short-pitched bowling, at any stage of his innings, he's far too good for any of that rubbish, whatever it might help your theories to observe.[/QUOTE]

maybe he isnt susceptible, and face it when did i say he was? but it does not take away the fact that good quality short pitch bowling for 3-4 balls followed by a well pitched up ball troubled him throughout the series, and is very likely to trouble any other good batsman, even if it is only for a short period of time.

Except that anyone who watched properly rather than rely on assumptions would see that, while of course it's true that every batsman feels pressure, the good ones more often than not don't feel it just because of a slow scoring-rate.

and yet you twist your arguments around again....when have i ever said that slow scoring rates=pressure? im sorry but thats you just putting words in my mouth that ive never said before because ive always said that accuracy , or rather bowling in the right places gets you wickets, not slow scoring rates.

And what a stupid suggestion that would be - pressure doesn't exist - and that you have to even try to put it onto my keyboard suggests you're running-out of options for the umpteenth time.

stop trying to get your way out of an argument, you know very well what i mean by that, good batsmen dont feel pressure crap that you've been coming up with. so explain yourself.....

No, but you have had all sorts of problems arguing against me, and that's why you've had to resort to all the garbage you've churned-out in the last 3 months.

i havent had any problems against you at all, except the fact that someone who quite clearly is losing an argument keeps trying to twist around his own statements to try to save face.

 

[tooextracool]

Didn't you?
Well, then, I ask once again - what can you learn by watching from a playing position that you can't learn from a watching-only position?

if that were the case then someone like you should actually be a good batsmen......

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah, so?
I don't believe 2 innings show automatically that someone has conquered problems with spin.

and the fact that he hasnt failed yet against spin at the international level and the fact that he has shown no visible weaknesses against the best spinners in the world suggests to me that you cant say anything but that.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, 3-an-over is a more than adequete scoring-rate in Test-cricket.
But 2.5-an-over, which I said, is about when I tend to notice people talking about "building the pressure", even if it's only been for 5 or 6 overs.

Personally, I can't see the point in arguing over .5 an over. I guess it depends slightly on the situation and what you're trying to achieve. As I've said before, if you bring a bowler in that cuts the scoring rate then that applies some pressure to the batting team. Maidens do this and in this instance you may well go from 4-5 and over to 0, while your average run rate is still ok, you've scored practically 0 for 5 or 6 overs, this is when the pressure will start to build.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So for pressure a scoring-rate of 0.00-an-over is neccessary.
Singles are not neccesarily being taken for a scoring-rate of 2.5-an-over - it can just be 2 fours in 4 overs, and a two. Plenty of dot-balls.

I don't think anyone has suggested that pressure is built in 6 balls.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So in other words I'm mistaken in gauging that commentators most commonly start to talk about "pressure building" when the scoring-rate is about 2.5-an-over?

yes, from my experience they usually start talking about pressure being built when the scoring rate drops and maidens start building up.

 

[Son Of Coco]

so he lost sight of the ball 3 times in 30 balls(was it?) against the same bowler? convenient that.



no you did not, you said that if someone does well for 3 years he would be a proven success and then if he failed for the next few years he would be a proven failure. my point was that if he failed 3 years later, he was never a proven success in the first place.
its also amazing how, whenever its convenient for you, you bring the opinion of "other people"....the same people who you say have no idea of the game and know nowhere near as what you know of it.

Well, Richard did also say that two bowlers who have been a proven success for 8-10 years are 'lucky'.

 

[luckyeddie]

Well, Richard did also say that two bowlers who have been a proven success for 8-10 years are 'lucky'.

And you know what?

The harder they try, the luckier they get.

 

[Richard]

I really dont think you can set a run rate threshold of when pressure is built up through not scoring...in theory a batsman could start feeling pressure whilst scoring 6 an over, but all his shots are streaky snicks over slips or whatever...the pressure could still be caused by good bowling,and could result in a wicket.

I'm not attempting to set a threshold - indeed, for good batsmen there is none - but I'm just saying that's generally round about the mark that commentators start to perceive it's in place.
No-one ever seems to talk about pressure because you're nicking loads of balls over the slips - personally I'd just call that living dangerously.

 

[Richard]

And I'm telling you that having a big audience makes a lot of difference when they all want you to perform well, so there's no way it's any easier when some of them want you to fail.

Exactly - crowd involvement in a musical rendition is totally different to crowd involvement in a cricket match.
Hence the fact that you get a different feeling when watching one to that you get when watching a cricket match.

 

[Richard]

and because you are the only one coming up with an argument to the contrary it shows how foolish you really are. to judge someone without having watched the game is bad enough, but to show total disregard to other people's opinions on the game is plain stupid.

And hence I've done neither. I've not "shown total disregard" - I've simply pointed-out why there is likely to be bias and assumption. And also that I know that this bias is wrong, given that I've watched the match and been able to get the truth of the matter first-hand.

i was talking about the first test you big big fool......3/97 might not be brilliant to you, but you yourself said that bowlers can bowl well and not get wickets, and if there was ever a case for that it was in this match. you didnt watch it, yet you dismiss his performances as poor, based on figures, so well done on that one. even 3/97 was a good performance on that wicket considering how flat it was and that both teams got over 450.

It was a reasonable performance - had he been good enough, however, he would have repeated that in the Second Test and, given that bowlers tend to be unlucky only for short periods, got the figures.

yet of course you dismissed the 2nd test wicket as a non turner, despite the fact that someone who actually watched it says that it is a turner, and the fact that a finger spinner(who you believe cant take wickets on non turners) ended up taking 4 wickets in the first inning.

I've watched Paul Wiseman bowl, and believe me even on turners he'll usually struggle to take wickets. The fact that he got 4 in the first-innings is very probably due to poor batting only.
However, I have now looked at a few accounts of that pitch and by the sounds of it you are right about it being a turner and I am willing to concede that I was over-hasty in insisting it couldn't possibly have been. Sri Lanka should still have won, though, even with all the time lost to rain.

 

[Richard]

why dont you show them to me then???
ive been asking you to do so for quite a while now.

And you've also been asking me to show that Ealham has bowled lots in the first 15.
I've said why I want you to do it.

 

[Richard]

oh yes and you can say that he cant play spin because he 'struggled' against brown and swann in all of 2 county matches, one of which was 4 years ago!!

The fact that it was 4 years ago is, rather than a detriment to this argument, a forethrust for it - he struggled 4 years ago, and he had made no improvement whatsoever over the following 3 years, and showed exactly the same faults.
He then got 2 Test-matches just 1 year later where he scored runs. It's perfectly conceivable that he might have improved his play against spin in that time, especially having got through his 2nd season with The SCG as his home-ground. But it is not certain because of 2 Test-matches.

id rather 'generalise' than take both sides of an argument like you do.....

Such as in the cases of...

how many wickets these days offer swing and seam?

Nowhere near enough.

none of those methods will get a batsmen out 25% off the time, because good batsmen dont get out that often to those deliveries.

Let me assure you they do, because all batsmen, no matter how good, are vulnerable when the ball ends-up somewhere they don't expect it to go. It's far easier when it goes where you expect.

 

[luckyeddie]

just one thing, Richard and TEC.

No wicket EVER offers swing.

That's a by-product of atmospheric conditions, although you could argue that the greenness of the wicket could prevent the ball scuffing, thus preserving the shine and lengthening the duration of 'conventional' swing. Conversely, the abrasiveness of a wicket can accelerate ball scuffing, thus accelerating the onset of reverse swing.

 

[Richard]

so he lost sight of the ball 3 times in 30 balls(was it?) against the same bowler? convenient that.

Probably something like that (30) - and no, it's not convenient at all - not for Lara. Very convenient for Flintoff, though. It might make some people think he was doing something that was forcing Lara to lose sight of it, despite the fact that thinking along these lines is wholly illogical and can happen for no good reason.

no you did not, you said that if someone does well for 3 years he would be a proven success and then if he failed for the next few years he would be a proven failure. my point was that if he failed 3 years later, he was never a proven success in the first place.

I said that, as a for instance, in my most recent post - I'd never said it before.
So you really think that someone who came into Test-cricket and conquered all-comers for a period of 4 years would not be considered a proven success? Because personally I don't think anyone in The World would have any doubts about him. And, though it's extremely unlikely, he could then fail for the rest of his career, and become a proven failure.
An example of that I recently used was Lance Gibbs - for the first 10 years of his Test-career he averaged 23.47 - qualification, I'd say myself, for the title "proven success". Yet over the next 10 years, as he played on too long and pitches were covered, he did so poorly that his average rose to 29.something. Personally I'd call that pretty conclusive failure. But it does not mean he was never proven to be a success ITFP.
However, there are cases of beginner's luck, where players start well without becoming what I'd call proven successes. For some examples see Brett Lee and Stuart MacGill. At present Jacob Oram is on track to join them. It can also go the other way and players can be proven failures but make improvements in their game and become proven successes (Flintoff with the bat has now succeeded for just about for it to be logical to assume he's joined that group).

its also amazing how, whenever its convenient for you, you bring the opinion of "other people"....the same people who you say have no idea of the game and know nowhere near as what you know of it.

And that's perfectly legitimate - no-one is ever going to agree with someone else on everything.
Just because you disagree with someone on a certain matter does not mean you are then not allowed to point-out that they agree with you on another.

 

[Richard]

just one thing, Richard and TEC.

No wicket EVER offers swing.

That's a by-product of atmospheric conditions, although you could argue that the greenness of the wicket could prevent the ball scuffing, thus preserving the shine and lengthening the duration of 'conventional' swing. Conversely, the abrasiveness of a wicket can accelerate ball scuffing, thus accelerating the onset of reverse swing.

I have never said any wicket offers swing.
I have, however, pointed-out the above to many people, many times. I did not in the recent tooextracool post, I was too busy with other things to notice it.
Personally, though, I'd say the outfield has far more effect on how long conventional and reverse swing happen for, given that the ball spends far longer on the outfield than the pitch.

 

[Richard]

no its significantly less than 75% but its significantly more than any other method of getting a batsmen out.

If you ask you, that is.
If you ask me other methods get batsmen out far more often. And yes, those methods do just include bowling ball after ball, knowing that eventually you'll have a poor shot played against you.

 

[Richard]

which is quite stupid, you can be lucky for a short period of time, but you cant go on to take 800 wickets unless you are doing something right! you seem to be unable to get to grips with the fact that there are other ways of getting people out with good bowling, and just because they arent part of your imaginary little world where bowlers only get batsmen out with wicket taking deliveries you simply dismiss it as luck.
believe me there will be plenty of other bowlers in the future who do a pollock and a mcgrath, and dont be surprised if his name is harmison.

Harmison is a totally different bowler to Pollock and McGrath - McGrath used to be a genuine quick bowler, but he was never as quick as Harmison. Pollock was genuinely quick only perhaps for the first year of his career; certainly since 1998, which is the only time we can know for certain, he's always been medium-fast bordering on fast-medium.
Why, if it is so easy to get batsmen out the way Pollock and McGrath supposedly do on flat wickets, are there so few bowlers who have ever done it?