Nope, I'm not. Clarke misfields are a relatively common thing, and while he's got about the most accurate arm going around at present and he's pretty athletic he's certainly not got good hands, and that's by quite a distance the most important part of fielding.aussie said:
Nope, no-one knows a lot of chances will be dropped.greg said:
It over-simplifiies and introduces systematic quantitative bias into the equation. If you apply such simplistic criteria, of course the number of possible conclusions gets limited. It's logical but NOT correct or thorough.
Don't give me that. You so don't take that approach. I've lost count of how many times have I read "X is correct and you'd be a fool to believe otherwise." from you. That's not stating an opinion at all but foistering yours upon others and rubbishing those who disagree. If what you're saying is true i.e. it's all opinion then you can't be as certain in your statements as you often say you are.
That's because most data-related things in cricket are descriptive stats. People judge a player on their average and rarely has there been further research into what the numbers mean because it's a sport, not an area of research.
You do understand that the term 'normal amounts of of luck' is a contradiction in terms, right?
oh they very well can be, in fact almost everyone bar hoggard bowled below their normal pace in the 4th test. even simon jones was bowling in the low 80s, although i'd think that had to do with the fact that he was trying to make up for the lack of pace with a bit more accuracy and plenty of swing.Richard said:
FCOL, and the system of pretending luck does not exist IS correct or thorough? Not if you ask me.Top_Cat said:
And of course you've never heard that from anyone else?
Then why talk about anything statistical-related like? The idea that an overall scorebook average is a worthwhile way of judging someone is equally an opinion, and if you ask me it's a flawed one.
No, enlighten me?
Richard said:
Richard said:
marc71178 said:
Richard said:
- but anyways, i know that i know much more about fielding than most, and from what you have said particularly than you but you wont change your mind so i cant be bothered
Mister Wright said:
It also includes two tests against New Zealand and three tests against Pakistan at home.age_master said:
Clarke has only been in the team for a year. IN fact, he completed his first Test a year ago yesterday.
Who said it doesn't exist? No-one, that's who. I certainly did. It's the proportion of stuff you attribute to luck or attempt to explain away with the term which is the problem.
Yeah of course I've noticed them say that and in TEC's case (mostly in the official threads so that would explain why you haven't seen it), I've said something and in Marc's case, it's pretty clear he's speaking his mind. At least neither of them state their opinion and point to some idea like first-chances (I don't tlike everyone calling it a 'theory'; theories require proof and lots of it), as if to confer greater legitimacy to their opinions or something.
When used in isolation, of course. At least their objective fact (descriptive stats of a player I mean) so that automatically makes them >>>>> than first-chance average.
Even without actually analysing it numerically, a few posters have done exactly that in the other thread.
There is no 'normal' amount of luck. 'Normal' infers being able to quantify (i.e. 'normal' amount of rain for the year) and luck one cannot quantify as it's random and subjective. Not without applying very strict and highly subjective criteria to it.
I think a number of fielders in the Australian team would have caught it (or at least got into a position where it could be classed as a 'chance' under the chance theories). Again we're back to luck being about more than whether a batsman is dropped or not.Richard said:
