The best at their best

[bagapath]

Yup, pretty much - if a fielder has ages to take the ball when whip the bails off but fumbles and the batsman escapes, that's an obvious let-off. If something requires a direct-hit with no-one at the stumps, that's not really a let-off, because a direct-hit is always a bonus.

Same thing true of lbws - if batsmen are given n\o to one that might've been clipping leg, that's hardly a let-off. When he's given n\o to one that was patently knocking middle over 2\3 of the way up, that's an obvious let-off.

too many ifs and buts...... they dont make it to the scoreboard. ever.

 

[Pothas]

Glenn McGrath destroying in the England top order at Lords on the first evening in 2005 was the most amazing bit of cricket I have ever seen live, a true great at his very best. Was a privelege to see what was one of his last truly great performances in a test match at a ground he loved like no other.

 

[Days of Grace]

Shane Bond's best would have to be one of the three times he absoutely distroyed Australia in ODIs.

5/25 at Adelaide 2002 (this included the famous yorker to Gilchrist)
6/23 at Port Elizabeth World Cup 2003
5/23 at Wellington (including the famous White caught and bowled)

Not sure which was greater. The first and third resulted in wins. The third probably resulted from smart bowling with some slower balls whilst the first and second were just all out pace. Take your pick.

 

[bagapath]

kapil dev's best in ODi cricket is his 175 n.o. versus zimbabwe in the '83 world cup and in tests, his 5 wicket haul in australia that resulted in one of the most memorable wins for india down under

 

[Ikki]

I wonder how it works in reverse. Bowlers/fielders can rarely be given full dues in their disciplines because it was the batsmen that made the mistake. And without as such the wickets wouldn't have been taken.

 

[GIMH]

You can't possibly assess the impact of a dropped chance. If it's taken everything that happens after it happens differently. All you can do is wildly speculate unless it would have been the final wicket of the match.

A dropped catch is no if nor but - it's unequivocal, obvious and you can put an exact value on the impact.

How many Tests were drawn between both India-England and India-Pakistan?

Lots and lots.

Sometimes I think you two do this stuff deliberately

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Sometimes I think you two do this stuff deliberately

I'm sure in what ever twilight zone Richard exists in you can put an exact value on it. In as much as if a batsman is dropped on 3 and makes 93 then the numerical value is 90 so you just remove 90 runs from one teams total. That doesn't take into account the fact that every single delivery following the drop wouldn't have happened and the match would have taken an entirely different course. There is no way to "assess" the impact. Any speculation is just that - speculation - and totally meaningless.

 

[bagapath]

I'm sure in what ever twilight zone Richard exists in you can put an exact value on it. In as much as if a batsman is dropped on 3 and makes 93 then the numerical value is 90 so you just remove 90 runs from one teams total. That doesn't take into account the fact that every single delivery following the drop wouldn't have happened and the match would have taken an entirely different course. There is no way to "assess" the impact. Any speculation is just that - speculation - and totally meaningless.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm sure in what ever twilight zone Richard exists in you can put an exact value on it. In as much as if a batsman is dropped on 3 and makes 93 then the numerical value is 90 so you just remove 90 runs from one teams total. That doesn't take into account the fact that every single delivery following the drop wouldn't have happened and the match would have taken an entirely different course. There is no way to "assess" the impact. Any speculation is just that - speculation - and totally meaningless.

 

[Pothas]

Sometimes I think you two do this stuff deliberately

Not sure who is worse really, always hoped Richard is secretly treating all this as a joke.

 

[Richard]

What about his 213 against Australia in 1999?

Was dropped on 44 UIMM. As I say, he may have played well thereafter, but if Mark Waugh could catch (which he could, normally) he'd not have played the knock that turned that series around.

 

[Richard]

How does that make an English attack superior to Pakistan's? My point is simple. Pakistan managed to beat India in a series. England did not.

Winning series is about batsmen as well as bowlers. It's nonsensical to say that, for example, the Pakistan attack that faced India in 2003/04 was better than the England one of 2007. Plain nonsensical.

 

[Richard]

too many ifs and buts...... they dont make it to the scoreboard. ever.

I don't give a damn whether they make the scoreboard, cricket is about more than the scoreboard, else only the scorers would watch it. Dropped catches are neither an if nor a but - they are a plain and simple "is" and "did".

 

[Richard]

I'm sure in what ever twilight zone Richard exists in you can put an exact value on it. In as much as if a batsman is dropped on 3 and makes 93 then the numerical value is 90 so you just remove 90 runs from one teams total. That doesn't take into account the fact that every single delivery following the drop wouldn't have happened and the match would have taken an entirely different course. There is no way to "assess" the impact. Any speculation is just that - speculation - and totally meaningless.

It really wasn't an uproarious post - maybe helpful to what you were trying to argue, yes, but not a piece of comic genius. Either way, you can work-out exactly what a dropped catch caused a batsman to score. You cannot, obviously, work-out exactly what it cost or credited a team, any more than you can with any other "if that delivery had had a different outcome". But you can make some educated guesses, same way you can with any other "if that delivery had happened differently". Only significant thing about a dropped catch \ missed stumping \ bad decision is it comes after the delivery is bowled and the shot played, not during.

 

[bagapath]

Winning series is about batsmen as well as bowlers. It's nonsensical to say that, for example, the Pakistan attack that faced India in 2003/04 was better than the England one of 2007. Plain nonsensical.

i think you are getting angry for no reason. show me something to prove your theory that india faced better bowling attacks from england than pakistan. otherwise i am not interested in these kind of rants.

 

[bagapath]

It really wasn't an uproarious post - maybe helpful to what you were trying to argue, yes, but not a piece of comic genius.

I found it funny, richard. i dont need your approval to laugh.

 

[Xuhaib]

Not a great by any mean 'yet' but Asif's performance against Lanka in Kandy 06 is the best new ball performance I have ever seen from a Pakistani seamer and that includes many great spells I have seen from Wasim,Waqar and Shoaib.

 

[bagapath]

Only significant thing about a dropped catch \ missed stumping \ bad decision is it comes after the delivery is bowled and the shot played, not during.

this is also, i must admit, mildly funny.

 

[Richard]

I found it funny, richard. i dont need your approval to laugh.

I know, but I don't need anyone's approval to say that's a rather strange thing to be finding funny.

 

[Richard]

this is also, i must admit, mildly funny.

Again, rather strange thing to find funny, but each to their own. The truth of that statement, however, is undeniable.