The batsman cannot be too good for the bowler

[Magrat Garlick]

Corrin trying to twist our melons, IMHO.

he said it

 

[Burgey]

I like the fact Kohli is used as the example here for regular blokes to get out, because no one can comprehend ever dismissing TPC, and that’s how it should be tbh.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I like the fact Kohli is used as the example here for regular blokes to get out, because no one can comprehend ever dismissing TPC, and that’s how it should be tbh.

Opposition teams go into games vs Australia just trying to get the other 10 blokes out. Probably easier.

 

[Shady Slim]

aight so i don't want to relitigate what was a stupid argument and give credence to richard's point but i'm going to show my clown card for a second here

surely in the wumbo mumbo land of stupid absolutes, it's the other way around right? while yes the bowler controls the tempo of the game, the batsman is the only one who was sole control of the outcomes. he has the big stick. the suite of possible outcomes from a ball, after it is bowled, are dictated only by what shot the batsman plays. and unless the bowler is bowling at literally 400kmh such that there's no reaction time for the batsman, he can, on each and every ball, if he is good enough (and because of the absolutism of the hypothetical being infinitely good is possible in this world), just block what ever the bowler bowls at him straight in to the ground on every delivery.

so

what am i missing here exactly lol

 

[Line and Length]

what am i missing here exactly lol

You're not missing much at all Shady. A bowler likes to think he is master of the situation while a batsman is in control of his destination. Apart from the psychological aspect you are missing nothing.

 

[Bolo.]

A bat cant rea

aight so i don't want to relitigate what was a stupid argument and give credence to richard's point but i'm going to show my clown card for a second here

surely in the wumbo mumbo land of stupid absolutes, it's the other way around right? while yes the bowler controls the tempo of the game, the batsman is the only one who was sole control of the outcomes. he has the big stick. the suite of possible outcomes from a ball, after it is bowled, are dictated only by what shot the batsman plays. and unless the bowler is bowling at literally 400kmh such that there's no reaction time for the batsman, he can, on each and every ball, if he is good enough (and because of the absolutism of the hypothetical being infinitely good is possible in this world), just block what ever the bowler bowls at him straight in to the ground on every delivery.


what am i missing here exactly lol

I remember reading some article analysing the reaction processing times of signals sent through the body. It was pretty much impossible to send the signal and react to swing from genuine quicks. It reckoned it was only possible by making a prediction on how much swing is coming soon after the ball left the bowler's hand.

I doubt it is possible to react to a full seaming ball after it bounces from a much slower bowler. Stick every ball in the right place at FM with a wobbly seam so the direction cant be predicted that produces variable amounts of movement and I think the batsman is stuffed without a chunk of luck.

 

[Howe_zat]

I really appreciate that shady’s analysis of the theoretical framework of the sport involves the line ‘he has a big stick’ and intend to quote it at him out of context in the future.

 

[Migara]

Even the most dross bowler has the chance to bowl a jaffa

 

[Red]

Even the most dross bowler has the chance to bowl a jaffa

My cricket career is a testament to this

 

[Neptune]

I don’t understand.

 

[honestbharani]

Even the most dross bowler has the chance to bowl a jaffa

But the most dross batsman has an equal chance to survive the jaffa too.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But the most dross batsman has an equal chance to survive the jaffa too.

Not at the same rate though. Only takes one bit of unusually bad luck (ie. jaffa) to get the gun batsman out, but it takes repetitive, constant pieces of unusually good luck for a dross batsman to survive a bowler that's all over them, for any significant amount of time.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, obviously a bowler has more shots at the batsman but looking at one ball as an individual event, I think a batsman, however dross, has equal chance of surviving a jaffa as a bowler has of bowling one.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well, obviously a bowler has more shots at the batsman but looking at one ball as an individual event, I think a batsman, however dross, has equal chance of surviving a jaffa as a bowler has of bowling one.

Actually I would say the batsman has a better chance of surviving. But from what I can tell the point of the thread was what I said in my previous post. ie. only takes 1 piece of bad luck for batsman's innings to be over

 

[honestbharani]

Actually I would say the batsman has a better chance of surviving. But from what I can tell the point of the thread was what I said in my previous post. ie. only takes 1 piece of bad luck for batsman's innings to be over

That is true. I just don't think that was what Richard originally meant with his point though.

 

[CricAddict]

I can confidently say that I won't be able to get Steve Smith or Virat Kohli out even if they played me continuously for over an year. That's my bowling.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

That is true. I just don't think that was what Richard originally meant with his point though.

Nobody has even the slightest clue what Richard meant pretty much ever

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He did once say that if Mike Atherton hadn’t been picked before he was ready, not played on too long past his best and never had a back injury he would have averaged 60.

 

[Shady Slim]

A bat cant rea

I remember reading some article analysing the reaction processing times of signals sent through the body. It was pretty much impossible to send the signal and react to swing from genuine quicks. It reckoned it was only possible by making a prediction on how much swing is coming soon after the ball left the bowler's hand.

I doubt it is possible to react to a full seaming ball after it bounces from a much slower bowler. Stick every ball in the right place at FM with a wobbly seam so the direction cant be predicted that produces variable amounts of movement and I think the batsman is stuffed without a chunk of luck.

oh you're not wrong, but in the abracadabra alakazam world richard's talking about where the bowler and the batsman can both be infinitely good (as gleaned from the absolutism in the richard post), the batsman who is infinitely good will forever block the ball away

what's worse is - thirteen years after his original horrendous post richard's drawn us in to his wicked wango dreamland that doesn't exist remotely in real life with real people - i'd love to be able to bowl so good such that i could simply choose to never get out, obviously i can not, but in the bippity boppity world of magic richard envisioned i'm giving it to the infinitely good bat given he holds fort

 

[Shady Slim]

the qualifier of course being that obviously richard's wacky world of wonder is entirely theoretical and defies every basic law of sports being played by people on a field