• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

vcs

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Thirimanne is actually lucky to be averaging 22 or whatever it is. Think he averages 170 against Bangladesh.
 
harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Only attacking batsmen have runs through the slips. It's kind of a feature rather than just luck.
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I was thinking about something similar myself the other day - whether there'd be something to evaluating how bowlers take their wickets (particularly in LO cricket). Is it more valuable to have a bowler who gets people out bowled/bw/caught behind vs bowlers who take all their wickets caught on the fence. Is their more or less variance between each type?

What makes Plunkett so much more successful than a number of other blokes who run in and bang it in half way down?
 
Bijed

Bijed

International Regular
morgieb said:
Yeah most very attacking batsmen are like that, at least in Tests. Though I guess my overall point was that while there's quite a few batsmen who ride their luck long-term, are there too many examples of the latter where a batsman is genuinely unlucky for a fair period of time?
Click to expand...
My feeling is this doesn't happen with batsmen for particularly long periods of time as, even though a string of low scores might be more down to bad luck than bad play, it still leads to them getting dropped. Plus getting unlucky a lot will mess with a lot of batsmen's confidence and result in them playing worse to exacerbate matters.


As for bowlers, I'm generally of the opinion that if they appear to be getting lucky for an extended period of time, they're probably just doing something right in a subtle way which is hard to spot as an observer
 
morgieb

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bijed said:
My feeling is this doesn't happen with batsmen for particularly long periods of time as, even though a string of low scores might be more down to bad luck than bad play, it still leads to them getting dropped. Plus getting unlucky a lot will mess with a lot of batsmen's confidence and result in them playing worse to exacerbate matters.


As for bowlers, I'm generally of the opinion that if they appear to be getting lucky for an extended period of time, they're probably just doing something right in a subtle way which is hard to spot as an observer
Click to expand...
Yeah true re: the former, no-one is going to get 30 Tests of failures regardless of how unlucky they were. I'd be interested to see examples of cricketers who failures at Test level had more to do with bad luck than bad play, though I'm aware this would be hard to find.

And a fair point re: the bowlers. Like I think the Plunkett example is probably down to his length being just about awkward enough (it also helps that he was quicker a couple of years back)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top