First Chance Average?

[Pratters]

You find it nonsense, so you will bag it. I find it very appropriate, so I will defend it.

Most people find major flaws which is good enough for it to be considered nonsense really but you will ignore facts which people state just because you find it appropriate.

That's precisely the point. You talked, you didn't let me do any talking. It's not laughable at all. I don't possess that convo any more given that my disc got wiped (it was more like 18 months ago, incidentally), maybe you do? If you do, you might look at the bias in "Pratyush says" compared to "Rich | InDulciJubilo, Moonlight Shadow says".

Just to make it clear, that is pretty much a lie. We conversed where I am concerned and you did agree to parts of what I said as well - like total chances might be better than first chance after saying some thing contradictory to it. I do not have the conversation like you don't but sad you have to stoop to such levels.

 

[Richard]

Most people find major flaws which is good enough for it to be considered nonsense really but you will ignore facts which people state just because you find it appropriate.

I'll do nothing of the sort. I'll state why such things either aren't facts or are not relevant to me.

Just to make it clear, that is pretty much a lie. We conversed where I am concerned and you did agree to parts of what I said as well - like total chances might be better than first chance after saying some thing contradictory to it. I do not have the conversation like you don't but sad you have to stoop to such levels.

All-chance records do indeed have merit and I've said that several times. I'm stooping to no levels, incidentally - that was the feeling I got throughout, that you were harping-on and on, and I had virtually no chance to get a word in hedgeways.

 

[Pratters]

I'll do nothing of the sort. I'll state why such things either aren't facts or are not relevant to me.

Not true. People have shown flaws which are facts. Yet you keep going on and on.

All-chance records do indeed have merit and I've said that several times. I'm stooping to no levels, incidentally - that was the feeling I got throughout, that you were harping-on and on, and I had virtually no chance to get a word in hedgeways.

Well we were discussing on various points and I didn't see how you were not putting forward your view because I was countering them according to my viewpoints (at least I remember that much). If you really felt you were not being given room, you could have pointed out via typing any way. Any way, whatever.

 

[Richard]

Not true. People have shown flaws which are facts. Yet you keep going on and on.

I keep going on and on about why they're not so factual as they may seem. Or not so important as they seem, whatever it may be.

Well we were discussing on various points and I didn't see how you were not putting forward your view because I was countering them according to my viewpoints (at least I remember that much). If you really felt you were not being given room, you could have pointed out via typing any way. Any way, whatever.

I actually thought of doing so but felt you're generally a good guy so didn't really want to accuse you of saying "hey mate, good to speak to you, I tell you what, though, that theory of yours about first-chance is such nonsense..."

 

[Pratters]

I keep going on and on about why they're not so factual as they may seem. Or not so important as they seem, whatever it may be.

Okay that is your view point on it but I obviously differ. Will agree to disagree with you on this I guess.

I actually thought of doing so but felt you're generally a good guy so didn't really want to accuse you of saying "hey mate, good to speak to you, I tell you what, though, that theory of yours about first-chance is such nonsense..."

I really didn't get what you are saying there or the quote. Perhaps you are saying you didn't want to talk me down? Perhaps because you were not speaking as much according to you, it wasn't as transparent a conversation as you would have liked. It seemed time wasted on my end in any case because you went on with your theory after the convo when I thought I had presented solid grounds why the theory is nonsense which you weren't objecting to.

 

[Richard]

As I say - my feeling was that you weren't letting me get a word in hedgeways, were just typing this-and-that is why it's nonsense. I actually look upon you as a good guy who doesn't speak with any real malice when he disagrees with someone on something. So therefore I didn't really want to go off on a tirade along the lines of "FFS, STOP TALKING AND LET ME GET A ****ING WORD IN!!!!!!!!"

You see?

 

[Pratters]

a) Yeah, you are right that I do not speak with any malice when I disagree with some one.
b) Fair enough regarding the given convo as that is what you felt at that point of time and acted accordingly.

 

[Neil Pickup]

As I say - my feeling was that you weren't letting me get a word in hedgeways, were just typing this-and-that is why it's nonsense. I actually look upon you as a good guy who doesn't speak with any real malice when he disagrees with someone on something. So therefore I didn't really want to go off on a tirade along the lines of "FFS, STOP TALKING AND LET ME GET A ****ING WORD IN!!!!!!!!"

You see?

I can't be the only person who doesn't care any more.

 

[Manee]

May I add that his first chance average in the innings is 309 and counting

 

[Swervy]

May I add that his first chance average in the innings is 309 and counting

and this is where the first chance average lark falls apart. When Sehwag was about 230, he cut Kallis and De Villiers leapt up and the ball just went over his hand. For me, it wasn't really a chance, Sehwag deliberatly hit it where he did, and the fielder didnt have a chance IMO....now ask Kallis whether that was a chance or not. He was livid.

And so, with out a rel definition of what a 'chance' is the First chance average is just not workable

 

[biased indian]

May I add that his first chance average in the innings is 309 and counting

wait richard to analys todays game and confirm we never know

 

[funnygirl]

I heard from some experts that he can only score with the help of ''Let offs''.

So how many let offs in this triple hundred.

 

[Richard]

I heard from some experts that he can only score with the help of ''Let offs''.

No, you didn't. No-one said that.

 

[Richard]

and this is where the first chance average lark falls apart. When Sehwag was about 230, he cut Kallis and De Villiers leapt up and the ball just went over his hand. For me, it wasn't really a chance, Sehwag deliberatly hit it where he did, and the fielder didnt have a chance IMO....now ask Kallis whether that was a chance or not. He was livid.

And so, with out a rel definition of what a 'chance' is the First chance average is just not workable

Nonsense. There's absolutely no way on Earth that was a chance. Kallis might have been annoyed, and understadibly so - he'd have been so if Sehwag had edged one just wide of Boucher or whatever.

No-one in The World would contend that that should have been caught.

 

[Swervy]

I heard from some experts that he can only score with the help of ''Let offs''.

So how many let offs in this triple hundred.

I am not too sure if they keep stats on the number of times he farted during the innings

 

[Swervy]

Nonsense. There's absolutely no way on Earth that was a chance. Kallis might have been annoyed, and understadibly so - he'd have been so if Sehwag had edged one just wide of Boucher or whatever.

No-one in The World would contend that that should have been caught.

so if it had have been say an inch lower, and he had got his fingers to it?

 

[Richard]

Then maybe it would've been. But it wasn't.

In any case, even fielders of de Villiers' calibre won't be able to catch a ball just by getting fingers on it - you need it at the very least to be gathered in the bottom of the fingers where they attach to the palm.

 

[Swervy]

Then maybe it would've been. But it wasn't.

In any case, even fielders of de Villiers' calibre won't be able to catch a ball just by getting fingers on it - you need it at the very least to be gathered in the bottom of the fingers where they attach to the palm.

maybe De Villiers should have jumped higher?

Do you see the problems with defining what a chance is?

 

[Richard]

No. Else I'd not maintain that a chance can almost always be clearly defined.

There is no way on Earth that was ever going to be caught. I'd say de Villiers made the best effort he could be expected to have made.

 

[Swervy]

No. Else I'd not maintain that a chance can almost always be clearly defined.

almost always?

There is no way on Earth that was ever going to be caught. I'd say de Villiers made the best effort he could be expected to have made.

hey, I agree, but one mans meat is another mans poison. To some, even if there was a 0.00000001% possibility of it being out, then its a chance