Pressure from one end CAN help produce wickets at the other, but if both bowlers are conceding at three an over then you can't prove that a batsman was got out due to this PERCEIVED pressure or if he just made a silly mistake. And even if a batsman was restricted so much he'd scored say 3 runs off 30 balls, you cannot conclusively prove that the subsequent loss of his wicket was down to that pressure or merely that he was struggling full stop. After all, what stops a batsman scoring - their inability to time or play the bowling or the bowling restricting them? It's like arguing if England bowled really well in the 1st Test or Sri Lanka batted poorly.
Obviously it's hard to judge based off statistics alone. Such a judgement can only be made after watching the batsmen play both bowlers and following that passage of play as it happens. Because then it can become quite evident if a batsman got out due to a brilliant delivery or a shot made in frustration due to not being able to score, or if he was struggling throughout his whole innings. Boiling it down to such a simple emperical form is not the way to go. Trying to deny such a factor exists purely by statistics is akin to evaluating a player's technique or potential through his batting average and strike rate. It is so flawed.
Consensus of opinion doesn't make it any more fact, a long while ago most people agreed the world was flat and if 50 people in a room said god exists and I was the only nay sayer, would that mean god exists?
You're mis-interpreting me. I claimed it was fact because if you have played cricket, you'll see that such a factor exists in person. I could provide personal examples from my experience if you want, and I'm sure you'll find a lot of players who have seen it in effect too.
I used the point that it is often used as an argument not to prove it exists, but to support it.
And on that point, your argument is flawed. The number of claims passed off as facts that are
actually facts far, far outweighs the number that are false. You're implying that a majority of claims made as facts are not facts, when it is actually the opposite.
And at no point of time was the general consensus that the Earth is flat, as happily proved by an episode of QI that I can link you too. It's a myth that people thought the Earth was flat, in fact there are tons of references in midevil text of a 'horizon' or the Earth being curved.
And again with the God argument. I'm going to ignore that it is a very controversial argument to begin with, and tackle why it's flawed. You're taking a selected group of religious nuts and putting yourself in it. It would be more fitting to say 'If I went to a reputed University or a room full of Theological and Historical experts', because that would be a more fitting analogy. The group of people I referred to who believe this factor exists are cricket experts, players, and users of cricket forums, and I think we can agree that this group of people are fairly well educated and informed, unlike you're room full or religious nuts who don't have a solid understanding of theology and history.
Your current analogy fits a debate where someone claims Sachin Tendulkar is the best batsmen ever because Indians think so. Not an argument where someone claims a factor such as pressure from one end leading to wickets at another exists because a cricket experts, players, and serious fans claim so...if you catch my drift?
