The batsman cannot be too good for the bowler

[GIMH]

Discuss

 

[sledger]

Agreed

 

[ankitj]

Not true.

 

[honestbharani]

100s are 50s too

 

[Magrat Garlick]

henlo richard

 

[honestbharani]

6s are 4s too

 

[Howe_zat]

I know this is a Richardism, does anyone remember what the argument actually was?

Like I’m pretty sure it’s not possible for me to get Virat Kohli out

 

[Chubb]

I know this is a Richardism, does anyone remember what the argument actually was?

Like I’m pretty sure it’s not possible for me to get Virat Kohli out

I think it was about relative standards of batsmen and bowlers - does poor bowling make batting look good, or vice versa?

He would argue that even Virat Kohli cannot score off some deliveries, no matter who the bowler is.

Richard was a bowler and he believed very strongly that cricket is a bowler’s game. He’d say that even he could dismiss Kohli IF he bowled in exactly the right spot.

 

[Athlai]

Wrong. The only way it could possibly be right is if you consider "too good" to only mean they never ever get out which honestly is just an arbitrarily literal way of thinking about it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The theory was that the bowler is in control of the game. If he does the right thing with the ball there's nothing the batsman can do.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This was the source of the original post. The really strange thing about most of Richard's crackpot theories is that in literal terms they often made sense, but they tended to overlook the fact that sport is played by Human Beings and not infallible computers.

The batsman cannot be too good for the bowler

 

[mr_mister]

I've always thought something like this as a bowler has infinite chances to get someone out while one mistake can end the batsman's day

 

[trundler]

The essence of it is kind of true though.

 

[trundler]

In practice it's not true because a good batsman on song can throw a bowler off his rhythm early in a spell, put him under pressure, keep out the good balls etc. Somebody like Lara can leave the bowler with no answers by scoring off the good balls and doing what the bowler wants him to do but still succeeding. But if you're getting awkward bounce off a length there's very little you can physically do. Or if Shoaib Akhtar is hooping it around corners at 150ks

 

[Line and Length]

The theory was that the bowler is in control of the game.

As a bowler I always subscribed to this theory. Failure to do so was an admission of defeat. However, having played at a club level for 30 odd years I must admit that there were 3 or 4 batsmen who had me doubting my ability. Two of those had played at a first class level and I'm sure, in hindsight, that I had probably succumbed to their reputation rather than their actual ability.

 

[honestbharani]

Its not really true because the bowler is acting and the batsman is reacting. Once a bowler has bowled a ball, it is upto the batsman to react and depending on how good they are, they may succeed or fail but to think they have no say is silly.

 

[trundler]

Purely mechanically, the bowler is in control. Once you stop ignoring the real world psychological aspects of it, the theory falls apart

 

[Midwinter]

Does this take account there is always a time factor which plays a role in each batsman's and each teams innings.

 

[BoyBrumby]

as I very clearly showed.

Ugh.

If a phrase sums up the ridiculousness of arguing with Dicko, it's this one.

Not only does he presuppose the correctness of his argument but he also uses it as evidence to support itself.

Corrin trying to twist our melons, IMHO.

 

[Starfighter]

Meaningless twaddle.