Best match winning innings you have seen?

[GIMH]

If there is a chance that I would catch half the time and drop half the time, it is therefore a half-chance. That's not absurd, you're being silly saying that nothing is a fact.

 

[Richard]

If there is a chance that I would catch half the time and drop half the time, it is therefore a half-chance.

Not really - a chance essentially means "there was a chance it could be caught". It makes no reference to whether it was something you'd catch half the time, 19\20ths of the time or anything else - else you'd have people saying "ooh, that was a nineteen-twentieths-chance". Since most things in life are best with a "realistic" stuck in there, we can say "a realistic chance it could be caught". Something either is a (realistic) chance or it isn't. If there's something that might be caught under freak circumstances then it's not a chance, it's... well, something that might be caught under freak circumstances.

There are two possibilities - something is a chance, or it is not a chance. It's not a continuum.

That's not absurd, you're being silly saying that nothing is a fact.

Not being silly at all, it's an acknowledged social-science vs.-stance, the relativist\realist one (there are many things in between). I'm much more of a relativist.

 

[Richard]

It depends on how you see it. If ball coming to your fielding position then it is expected to be taken. But if its dipping quickly one feet in front of you or hit in the air a couple of yards away from you then it is not as much a chance as the previous one. [I am referring to in ring fielding positions]

Some of what you describe I'd say was a chance; some (namely, the one that's hit in the air full-pelt with a couple of yards between bat and fielder) are not realistically a chance.

I'd say pretty much any fan of the game who's seen a decent amount of cricket could look at something and say "there was a realistic chance he could've caught that" or "there was no realistic chance he could've caught that". As I say, there are all sorts of difficulties of chance, but something either is a chance or it isn't.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Sorry Richard but you are wrong really. I fielded leg-side a few feet from the wicket once in a local cup match, the batsman nearly look my head off with a ball I managed to duck. That said, it was 5 feet in the air, directed at me, was it a chance? Someone with quicker reactions may have clung.

Compare that to nipping a sitter to slip. Perfect height with the batsman's nick just taking the pace of it to make it that bit easier.

There exists a sliding scale of chances, it's not black and white.

 

[L Trumper]

Some of what you describe I'd say was a chance; some (namely, the one that's hit in the air full-pelt with a couple of yards between bat and fielder) are not realistically a chance.

I'd say pretty much any fan of the game who's seen a decent amount of cricket could look at something and say "there was a realistic chance he could've caught that" or "there was no realistic chance he could've caught that". As I say, there are all sorts of difficulties of chance, but something either is a chance or it isn't.

It depends on the fielder who is positioning. There may be some chances where you expect some fielders to pull it off, and some others who have no realistic chance of catching. Half chance is more or less depends on the fielder rather than chance itself.
Eg. Some of Mark Waugh catches in the second slip; when he is fielding there is a chance of catching even it is a bit far from him. Comparatively you don't expect flintoff to catch the same thing.
Technically half chance may not exist. But it is more or less a chance with no realistic expectation but still possible. May be an opportunity or something like that.

 

[Richard]

Sorry Richard but you are wrong really. I fielded leg-side a few feet from the wicket once in a local cup match, the batsman nearly look my head off with a ball I managed to duck. That said, it was 5 feet in the air, directed at me, was it a chance? Someone with quicker reactions may have clung.

I doubt it. The sort of thing you describe you'd basically need Jedi reflexes to catch.

Compare that to nipping a sitter to slip. Perfect height with the batsman's nick just taking the pace of it to make it that bit easier.

There exists a sliding scale of chances, it's not black and white.

Of course there exists a scale of how difficult a chance is, but it is not linear - there are no halves, quarters etc. It's a descriptive scale - a chance is qualitative, not quantitative, data. Thus, something either is or is not a chance.

 

[GIMH]

If you define a chance as "a chance it could have been caught" then why on earth do you insist that al catches should be caught? Contradictory IMO

 

[Top_Cat]

Michael Bevan's innings when Australia played rest of the world. I think Sachin hit a hundred and Australia was chasing. Bevan hit 180 odd and it was an ODI game. Just unbelievable knock.

Awesome knock it was but it wasn't match-winning I'm afraid. Only ended up a few runs short in a giant chase too.

 

[Richard]

It depends on the fielder who is positioning. There may be some chances where you expect some fielders to pull it off, and some others who have no realistic chance of catching. Half chance is more or less depends on the fielder rather than chance itself.
Eg. Some of Mark Waugh catches in the second slip; when he is fielding there is a chance of catching even it is a bit far from him. Comparatively you don't expect flintoff to catch the same thing.
Technically half chance may not exist. But it is more or less a chance with no realistic expectation but still possible. May be an opportunity or something like that.

The fielder's placed before the ball is delivered isn't he? Thus account can be taken of who the fielder was. Something that was a chance to, for instance, Jonty Rhodes (reckon he's a better example than Mark Waugh as what made Waugh special was hands not athleticism) might not have been to Craig Evans or Angus Fraser. No batsman can magically transplant Rhodes into Fraser after he's played his shot.

If you want to say something has no realistic expectation but still a possibility you can say that everything which is not an obvious chance is some sort of chance. Because there's a theoretical possibility of everything.

 

[Richard]

If you define a chance as "a chance it could have been caught" then why on earth do you insist that al catches should be caught? Contradictory IMO

Could = should. If something could be caught it should be. Of course, not everything that should be, is. Sadly, catches are no exception.

 

[GIMH]

They are different words for a reason, Richard

 

[L Trumper]

The fielder's placed before the ball is delivered isn't he? Thus account can be taken of who the fielder was. Something that was a chance to, for instance, Jonty Rhodes (reckon he's a better example than Mark Waugh as what made Waugh special was hands not athleticism) might not have been to Craig Evans or Angus Fraser. No batsman can magically transplant Rhodes into Fraser after he's played his shot.

If you want to say something has no realistic expectation but still a possibility you can say that everything which is not an obvious chance is some sort of chance. Because there's a theoretical possibility of everything.

That is my point. You don't expect fraser to take that catch but he might still do that. For example take Alistar Cook's screamers during NZ 08 , most people didn't expect that he will take those catches (2 or 3) but he still took them. For the first catch it is noted as exceptional case and you can't really blame batsman. But for the second catch it is clear that he did work on some of his reflexes and hence those catches. Although we don't expect him to take chances of those types every time, we can count on him to take those chances now and then.

reckon he's a better example than Mark Waugh as what made Waugh special was hands not athleticism

Rhodes is a better athlete but waugh had better anticipation, as a slip fielder anticipation is more important so I used him in my example.

 

[Richard]

They are different words for a reason, Richard

Yes, but are you seriously telling me that there are never times when one equals the other?

If something realistically could be caught, it should be. Simple as that in my book.

 

[GIMH]

Er yes. If someone could physically catch something, but it's difficult, then we shouldn' expect them to, necessarily, and therefore I wouldn't say that they should. The two are clearly different!

 

[Richard]

That is my point. You don't expect fraser to take that catch but he might still do that. For example take Alistar Cook's screamers during NZ 08 , most people didn't expect that he will take those catches (2 or 3) but he still took them. For the first catch it is noted as exceptional case and you can't really blame batsman. But for the second catch it is clear that he did work on some of his reflexes and hence those catches. Although we don't expect him to take chances of those types every time, we can count on him to take those chances now and then.

If something is caught, clearly it's out - there is no premise for anyone to say "that should not have been caught". If something goes past a fielder whose reactions could not reasonably be expected to get to it, it's not a chance; as and when those expectations change, what is a chance to him changes.

Once a ball hits a decent part of the hands of a fielder, it realistically could - and should - be caught. If it flicks the fingers, there is no realistic chance it could be caught.

Rhodes is a better athlete but waugh had better anticipation, as a slip fielder anticipation is more important so I used him in my example.

That's true, but anticipation will only get you so far. From what I've heard the former slippers say any decent slipper will have pretty good anticipation and I don't imagine the difference between pretty good and outstanding will make much if any difference.

It's outfield catches rather than slip (or, rather, close) ones that have even the remotest possibility of grey areas on them. Thus athleticism is the important factor.

 

[Richard]

Er yes. If someone could physically catch something, but it's difficult, then we shouldn' expect them to, necessarily, and therefore I wouldn't say that they should. The two are clearly different!

We should expect a fielder to catch something they have a realistic chance of catching. Therefore, they should catch something they have a realistic chance of catching. Of course, what someone should do is not always what they will do because humans are fallible.

You're constantly omitting the vital element of what is realistic.

 

[L Trumper]

Once a ball hits a decent part of the hands of a fielder, it realistically could - and should - be caught. If it flicks the fingers, there is no realistic chance it could be caught.

Since cook is the fielder and no one expected him to be that athletic hitting in the air nearer to him didn't seem as a bad option from batsman's point of view. But after that catch batsman's opinion will change about the fielder. But if he never did the same feat again for couple more years for similar chances, batsman will be of the opinion that its a mere luck rather than skill. And if he pulled that screamer after another season you can't really blame batsman (hitting the ball in the air is whole other discussion). It depends on whether fielder caught it exceptionally(good fielders do it realistically) or hold on to it luckily(bad fielders can pull this off but rarely).

Catching is similar to runouts -having three stumps to throw at and one stump to throw at and the distance between fielder and stumps etc-. [From fielder's POV]

 

[Gazza_11]

Obviously plagiarism is tolerated here!

 

[Top_Cat]

Obviously plagiarism is tolerated here!

Haha, what? Good luck with that.

 

[Flem274*]

Yes, but are you seriously telling me that there are never times when one equals the other?

If something realistically could be caught, it should be. Simple as that in my book.

Please don't take an English language course.

Actualy, do. You might learn something.