First Chance Average?

[Richard]

almost always?

Yes, almost always. In cricket, the thing, in any guise, where the case without doubt is impossible is rare. "What is a chance" is no different.

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

I know, and these people are silly, and unrealistic, TBH.

LOOOOOL at whoever re-opened this thread and moved the posts BTW. You could also merge this thread with some of the earlier ones of the exact same subject while you're at it.

 

[Swervy]

Yes, almost always. In cricket, the thing, in any guise, where the case without doubt is impossible is rare. "What is a chance" is no different.

I know, and these people are silly, and unrealistic, TBH.

However you and I think it unrealistic, it still makes it a subjective measure, which could be manipulated to suit what ever arguement the user of the measurement wants.

 

[Richard]

It could, and anything and everything can be manipulated to show whatever you want if someone wants to. The challenge is to decide what's realistic and what's not. I happen to feel I have a perfectly reasonable and realistic definition of what should and should not be caught, and I also tend to find I can interpret other people's words very well to work-out what is and isn't.

 

[Prince EWS]

LOOOOOL at whoever re-opened this thread and moved the posts BTW. You could also merge this thread with some of the earlier ones of the exact same subject while you're at it.

If you find the links, I'll merge the threads.

 

[Swervy]

It could, and anything and everything can be manipulated to show whatever you want if someone wants to. The challenge is to decide what's realistic and what's not. I happen to feel I have a perfectly reasonable and realistic definition of what should and should not be caught, and I also tend to find I can interpret other people's words very well to work-out what is and isn't.

Whether 'you interpret other peoples words very well' is a moot point. If you are to collate this type of information you have to do it with you watching it , not go from anecdotal 'evidence'. As I say, if you asked Person A might describe a delivery, and Person B might describe the same delivery, but they they may well describe it in totally different ways. The subjective side of it in that case is multiplied by you choosing what 'facts' you wish to include and which ones you don't

 

[Richard]

I don't, though. If in doubt - and that's rare - I tend to hope that a fairly ambiguous "the nearest he came to dismissal was when de Villiers fingertipped a full-blooded stroke over the bar" means "no chance".

If in doubt, I always err on the side of "not a chance" (much as some people would like to believe I err on one side for Player X [say, Graeme Smith] and another for Player Y [say, Marcus Trescothick]). But almost every time I hear of a chance, I end-up seeing it. And if not I'm, as I say, fairly well-versed on who means what when I read their match-reports.

 

[Son Of Coco]

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

As I say, though - it's pretty unlikely, as any batsman with a reasonable-length career is pretty likely to end-up much luckier than not (this might change if we ever get a most-decisions-correct Umpiring system).

So, here's a question... Now the UDRS system is in place, and some howlers are being corrected for (e.g. Clarke middling one to Alasdair Cook off Pietersen being overturned, and similarly the error where he was given Lbw to one he'd hit being overturned) can we say that the First Chance Average of players in the future should be so close to their actual batting average to declare, at least statistically speaking, for any batsman starting their career today that the FCA provides no greater statistical information than the normal batting average?

Yes, there will still be instances of luck (where one team or the other has exhausted their appeals under the system) which mean the FCA will be slightly different to the normal average, but moreso than ever is the idea of the FCA rendered pointless?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd guess no, because there are still dropped catches.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I'd guess no, because there are still dropped catches.

Oh, of course. I forgot that relative fielding skill was also being smoothed out by the FCA. Jonathan Trott would have a pretty poor FCA from this Ashes series, I suppose.

 

[stephen]

I had a very good player once tell me that if you are going to swing, swing hard, because chances are that if the ball goes to hand, the fielder has a much higher chance of dropping it.

How does the FCA method account for the chances that a batsman forces a fielder to miss because of the extra power in his shots? How does this method even make sense?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

How does the FCA method account for the chances that a batsman forces a fielder to miss because of the extra power in his shots? How does this method even make sense?

It's a good question, and I'm sure one that Richard will gladly answer upon his inevitable return.

I think it caters for every dropped catch as being a dropped catch in order for simplicity. What defines a dropped catch is tricky - certainly trickier than the umpiring howlers that would have been an issue in the past.

 

[stephen]

The thing is that cricket is a sport - a contest between batsmen and the fielding side. Dropped catches represent a time where the fielding side was not good enough to take the batsman's wicket. The batsman might as well have hit it along the ground.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

The thing is that cricket is a sport - a contest between batsmen and the fielding side. Dropped catches represent a time where the fielding side was not good enough to take the batsman's wicket. The batsman might as well have hit it along the ground.

Yes, I'm with you here. I do see some value in the FCA as a relative measure of the batsman's luck, but not as a quantitive assessment of the batsman's ability. Quite simply, if there's a big difference between your FCA and your normal average, you must have been 'lucky' - now, as to why you are luckier, I suspect it comes down to some of the things you've mentioned. Playing aggressively means the ball is likely to be harder to catch.

 

[Pothas]

Love that people can still talk about this when its only proponent is not even posting anymore, shows his Bradman like status.

 

[GotSpin]

FCA is the worst thing to come from CW aside from the posting of Rodgie

 

[stephen]

Love that people can still talk about this when its only proponent is not even posting anymore, shows his Bradman like status.

What happened to him?

 

[Burgey]

What happened to him?

Got dropped on 80,000. Decided all posts afterwards didn't count, so he stopped making them.

 

[stephen]

Got dropped on 80,000. Decided all posts afterwards didn't count, so he stopped making them.

Awesome response.

I checked his last post so I now have my answer. Hope he's recovered from glandular fever, it's horrible. I've had it once before myself.

 

[honestbharani]

I think we should use the FCA to measure the success of posters in CW, tbh..