Mohammad Yousuf the best pakistani batsmen ever?

[Richard]

Merely rating it how it is. If you can find a way, go through all the comments on first-chance scores and see how many people reject it without thought and how many say they see something in it.

 

[Ikki]

If you say so. I'm happy with the fact that most people expect a catch to be taken.

Let me say it again: expectation = irrelevant. Regardless whether it is more or less.

It's not virtually a chance. It's a chance if the bowler is good enough to make it one. This is totally different to something that happens after the ball is bowled.

It's also only a chance if the fielder can make it one.

And, all wickets are taken after the ball is bowled, so there is no difference at all.

No, you're not. Dropped catches are every bit as likely however many risks you take. And if you want to say that every ball is a chance, every stroke is a risk.

Exactly, it is by that criteria. Which makes the whole assertion stupid. The same that all catches dropped should have been caught - therefore we should notch them down as if they were.

I've never once said an innings is worthless after a dropped catch - I've many times acknowledged someone who scored 140 after being dropped on 10 has played well after the drop.

That's good to know. Usually I read you rubbishing a player's form because "he got dropped in X and Y match though".

And if the batsman has given a chance to the fielder, it's his responsibility. If the catch is caught, he is penalised. It's not right to allow him not to be because the fielder has dropped it.

Well, in the laws of the game, that is exactly what happens. He isn't penalised. So that's where this whole other theory is crap.

It doesn't happen often, at all. A "wow, what an amazing catch" is a rare thing indeed.

Rare? Not at all, uncommon sure. But the point was that if an amazing catch is taken, by the same standard you're implying, we should not consider the batsman out or penalise him because usually we don't 'expect' him to get out there.

I'm well aware of why it is - it's because I think out of the box. Those too rigid and simplistic in their thinking cannot accept this, and hence lambast. Even when there's a big majority, there's pretty well always some who say they "see some credence in the thinking" as you put it.

Yes, you think wayyyyyy out of the box. And that, in your case, is rarely a good trait. 1) You're ideas are usually ridiculous. 2) You're stubborn.

Every batsman is also a fielder. Sure, I bet a batsman would love to never drop something himself and still be dropped when batting, but if you gave pretty much anyone the choice they'd cut-out the drops theirselves and take the consequences of not being dropped themselves.

Why are you speaking on behalf of everybody? Even though that's not the point, you hardly speak for the majority, as we've gone over this before. Dropped catches are apart of the game and they're different to things like umpiring mistakes. Because they're limits on our talent, not on our luck.

The ability to put a poor stroke behind you is a basic skill of batting - without it you'll get nowhere whatsoever. To praise someone for having this is like praising them for taking a bat out to the middle.

Ridiculous. That's like saying, to make runs under pressure is the same as doing it without pressure. Because that's what happens when you're dropped. You feel pressure. And whatever it is, it isn't a 'Basic' skill. You really need to stop generalising. Some guys don't have a pull-shot, yet this is a basic skill.

 

[shortpitched713]

Fact of the matter is though, that he hardly came up against a quality bowling attack on a sporting deck so his acheivement isn't as phenominal as some are making it out to be.

How often do you get to face a quality opponent on a sporting deck though? Not very nowadays. The fact that the stars never aligned so wonderfully for him, shouldn't take away from the monumental accomplishment that he made.

 

[Anil]

Not even close. 40 or 50% at the absolute best.

doubt if anyone on this forum actually believes in that "theory" other than you...

 

[Perm]

How often do you get to face a quality opponent on a sporting deck though? Not very nowadays. The fact that the stars never aligned so wonderfully for him, shouldn't take away from the monumental accomplishment that he made.

Even if he faced a good attack on an average wicket that would be more of a Test than belting out runs against mediocre opposition and batting on roads. I've said it in the past and I'll say it again, it was a fantastic effort to score so many runs, but I don't think we can read too much into it.

 

[Salmon Butt]

How often do you get to face a quality opponent on a sporting deck though? Not very nowadays. The fact that the stars never aligned so wonderfully for him, shouldn't take away from the monumental accomplishment that he made.

Of Course,it's a fantastic achievement.But,that doesn't make him Pakistan's best ever bat.I am really surprised that this discussion has even got into 5 pages.

 

[Richard]

Let me say it again: expectation = irrelevant. Regardless whether it is more or less.

I really have no wish to continue this. No, it doesn't mean you've changed my mind.

It's also only a chance if the fielder can make it one.

The bowler's making a delivery a wicket is totally different to a fielder making a ball in the air at him a wicket.

And, all wickets are taken after the ball is bowled, so there is no difference at all.

Wickets which are not catches are taken as the ball is bowled. But I can see this one getting even more stupid, really... so that's the last I'll say on the matter. Say what you want in reply, it's the last you'll hear of it from me.

Exactly, it is by that criteria. Which makes the whole assertion stupid. The same that all catches dropped should have been caught - therefore we should notch them down as if they were.

We should notch it down as the batsman doing the same thing whether caught or dropped, because he has.

That's good to know. Usually I read you rubbishing a player's form because "he got dropped in X and Y match though".

You do, because I do. It's not to say I think nothing whatsoever of an innings though.

Well, in the laws of the game, that is exactly what happens. He isn't penalised. So that's where this whole other theory is crap.

The laws of the game concern which team wins - there's nothing about judging who has batted well in them.

Rare? Not at all, uncommon sure. But the point was that if an amazing catch is taken, by the same standard you're implying, we should not consider the batsman out or penalise him because usually we don't 'expect' him to get out there.

And when I first thought about it, I did indeed think that such catches should be not-outs. Really, though, there's no clear definition; it's always obvious what's catchable and what's not; it's never really possible to say "amazing" or "just good". And such catches are way, way rarer than drops, I'll say it again.

Yes, you think wayyyyyy out of the box. And that, in your case, is rarely a good trait. 1) You're ideas are usually ridiculous. 2) You're stubborn.

My're ideas are rarely ridiculous according to the masses. Most often, it's only a small minority who go so far in condemnation.

Why are you speaking on behalf of everybody? Even though that's not the point, you hardly speak for the majority, as we've gone over this before. Dropped catches are apart of the game and they're different to things like umpiring mistakes. Because they're limits on our talent, not on our luck.

I'm speaking on behalf of everybody because every single person I've ever heard or read from who's touched on the matter says the same thing - "there's no worse feeling in cricket than dropping a catch".

Ridiculous. That's like saying, to make runs under pressure is the same as doing it without pressure. Because that's what happens when you're dropped. You feel pressure.

You are the one that needs to stop generalising. Not everyone will feel pressure because of the same things - pressurised situations differ from person to person. I've read from people for whom a dropped catch was a great fillip.

And whatever it is, it isn't a 'Basic' skill. You really need to stop generalising. Some guys don't have a pull-shot, yet this is a basic skill.

Indeed it is, but it's a basic skill you can get by without. You'll always be better with than without though.

 

[Ikki]

I really have no wish to continue this. No, it doesn't mean you've changed my mind.

Change your mind? Hell freezing over? I doubt it.

The bowler's making a delivery a wicket is totally different to a fielder making a ball in the air at him a wicket.

Because...?

By 'expectation' a good ball bowled should take a wicket shouldn't it? Do we start counting those?

Wickets which are not catches are taken as the ball is bowled. But I can see this one getting even more stupid, really... so that's the last I'll say on the matter. Say what you want in reply, it's the last you'll hear of it from me.

You know why it's stupid? Because it is stupid. I am just giving you a mirror to your assertion.

We should notch it down as the batsman doing the same thing whether caught or dropped, because he has.

Whether a batsman hits a good shot or not is not a counted stat. It's whether he gets out or not. Dropped catches are stats that concern the fielding side, not the batting side.

You do, because I do. It's not to say I think nothing whatsoever of an innings though.

That's good, because most of the time you certainly sound like you rubbish a perfectly good innings because a batsman happened to get dropped.

The laws of the game concern which team wins - there's nothing about judging who has batted well in them.

So the team that bats worse is going to win? Eh? Exactly.

And when I first thought about it, I did indeed think that such catches should be not-outs. Really, though, there's no clear definition; it's always obvious what's catchable and what's not; it's never really possible to say "amazing" or "just good". And such catches are way, way rarer than drops, I'll say it again.

Amazing, simply ridiculous.

My're ideas are rarely ridiculous according to the masses. Most often, it's only a small minority who go so far in condemnation.

LOL, so not only do we not agree that you have certain ideas that are made fun of, now we have a majority to agree with you. You sure you're living on planet Earth mate?

I'm speaking on behalf of everybody because every single person I've ever heard or read from who's touched on the matter says the same thing - "there's no worse feeling in cricket than dropping a catch".

Or no better feeling than a dropped catch, if you're the batsman . But really, you're basing this assertion on the feelings of players towards dropped catches? Really, this is straw-clutching.

You are the one that needs to stop generalising. Not everyone will feel pressure because of the same things - pressurised situations differ from person to person. I've read from people for whom a dropped catch was a great fillip.

Ahh, so most people won't feel like: "****, I almost got out, I should be careful now" instead they'll feel: "Great, that was marvelous, I'll keep taking risks!"

Indeed it is, but it's a basic skill you can get by without. You'll always be better with than without though.

Ah, a basic skill. You must have been a heck of a player on the field then, if this skill is basic.

I think we've both had our fill of this debate.

 

[Bracken]

I think we've both had our fill of this debate.

Then allow me to throw fuel on the flames...

The idea that there is a more accurate way of rating a batsman's efforts than raw averages is neither misguided nor revolutionary. Even the PwC ratings stemmed from the same basic idea- and they are also flawed, although not to the extent that this "first-chance average" thing is.

The first issue is the simple definition of what constitutes a "chance". It is incredibly naive to suggest that "it is always obvious what's catchable and what's not".

In this thread, you have drawn a distinction between a "chance" that hits the palms and one that just brushes the fingertips. The obvious flaw is that you are using the relative physiological abilities of the fielders to form the basis of a statistical comparison of the batsman. What is an "obvious" chance to a fielder that has advanced reflexes, anticipatory instincts and hand-eye coordination is a forgivable miss for one without, not to mention occasions where for some reason the fielder is unsighted for part of the ball's path from the bat. Do you make the determination that what a top fielder would take is the baseline standard for a "chance", or do you use the ability of the lesser fieldsmen? Do you simply devise some median standard? I mean, the same shot that a poor catcher wouldn't get a hand to would likely be a legitimate chance to one of the better catchers in history. Determining what constitutes a chance is far from cut-and-dried, and requires one to factor in a lot of parameters.

So, the data itself is based on what is essentially a subjective determination, that is influenced by the respective abilities of the fielder. A statistic that is designed to rate the ability of the batsman is of limited value when it is so heavily dependent on a factor outside of his sphere of influence- as it is when using raw averages for the same purpose.

The next flaw that pushes this theory into pointlessness is the assumption that "all catches should be taken". The game is played between two teams of skilled humans, so fallibility is inevitable and has to be taken into account for this stat to have relevance. Even the best catchers in history have dropped chances. There isn't a fielder in history that has never dropped a catch- so to make perfection the expected standard is unrealistic.

While I can recognise the goal (and I agree that the goal is certainly worthy), this is a statistic of questionable relevance based on a subjective judgment and an unrealistic assumption. The development of the idea is far too primitive to be worthy of being considered as much more than just a point of interest- and certainly far too limited to have any expectation of widespread acceptance. I would sincerely doubt that only 40-50% of the cricket community would discredit it.

On another, less respectful note- there is absolutely nothing wrong with forming a theory that needs to be refined or recomposed. Without taking the risk of coming to an incorrect conclusion, people rarely allow themselves the freedom to develop the correct ones- and for that I applaud you.

However, it is incredibly arrogant and condescending to not only refuse to accept that your idea has flaws, but to dismiss any disagreement as coming from "noobs", or from those who are "unable to think outside of the box", or as those not in possession of a "reasonable mind", or "too rigid and simplistic" or whatnot.

I realise that you seem to cop a lot of flak from some quarters, but perhaps if you weren't so dismissive, contemptuous and insulting towards the opinions of others, people would be more willing to accept your foibles and entertain your ideas. Hopefully, it is something you can take on board.

 

[Ikki]

Then allow me to throw fuel on the flames...

The idea that there is a more accurate way of rating a batsman's efforts than raw averages is neither misguided nor revolutionary. Even the PwC ratings stemmed from the same basic idea- and they are also flawed, although not to the extent that this "first-chance average" thing is.

The first issue is the simple definition of what constitutes a "chance". It is incredibly naive to suggest that "it is always obvious what's catchable and what's not".

In this thread, you have drawn a distinction between a "chance" that hits the palms and one that just brushes the fingertips. The obvious flaw is that you are using the relative physiological abilities of the fielders to form the basis of a statistical comparison of the batsman. What is an "obvious" chance to a fielder that has advanced reflexes, anticipatory instincts and hand-eye coordination is a forgivable miss for one without, not to mention occasions where for some reason the fielder is unsighted for part of the ball's path from the bat. Do you make the determination that what a top fielder would take is the baseline standard for a "chance", or do you use the ability of the lesser fieldsmen? Do you simply devise some median standard? I mean, the same shot that a poor catcher wouldn't get a hand to would likely be a legitimate chance to one of the better catchers in history. Determining what constitutes a chance is far from cut-and-dried, and requires one to factor in a lot of parameters.

So, the data itself is based on what is essentially a subjective determination, that is influenced by the respective abilities of the fielder. A statistic that is designed to rate the ability of the batsman is of limited value when it is so heavily dependent on a factor outside of his sphere of influence- as it is when using raw averages for the same purpose.

The next flaw that pushes this theory into pointlessness is the assumption that "all catches should be taken". The game is played between two teams of skilled humans, so fallibility is inevitable and has to be taken into account for this stat to have relevance. Even the best catchers in history have dropped chances. There isn't a fielder in history that has never dropped a catch- so to make perfection the expected standard is unrealistic.

While I can recognise the goal (and I agree that the goal is certainly worthy), this is a statistic of questionable relevance based on a subjective judgment and an unrealistic assumption. The development of the idea is far too primitive to be worthy of being considered as much more than just a point of interest- and certainly far too limited to have any expectation of widespread acceptance. I would sincerely doubt that only 40-50% of the cricket community would discredit it.

On another, less respectful note- there is absolutely nothing wrong with forming a theory that needs to be refined or recomposed. Without taking the risk of coming to an incorrect conclusion, people rarely allow themselves the freedom to develop the correct ones- and for that I applaud you.

However, it is incredibly arrogant and condescending to not only refuse to accept that your idea has flaws, but to dismiss any disagreement as coming from "noobs", or from those who are "unable to think outside of the box", or as those not in possession of a "reasonable mind", or "too rigid and simplistic" or whatnot.

I realise that you seem to cop a lot of flak from some quarters, but perhaps if you weren't so dismissive, contemptuous and insulting towards the opinions of others, people would be more willing to accept your foibles and entertain your ideas. Hopefully, it is something you can take on board.

LOL, are you addressing me or Richard? Because I pretty much agree with everything you just said.

 

[Bracken]

LOL, are you addressing me or Richard? Because I pretty much agree with everything you just said.

Heh. No, not you. I'd hoped it would've been more obvious. Serves me right for trying to use a segue...