Best young Batsman in World Cricket today

[Richard]

Yet you derided the "in control" thing that Cricinfo look at...

Yes, because there is far, far more that is possible to debate about that.
A "chance" either is one or it isn't - there are all sorts of things that contribute to a delivery which might make it appear "not in control" when in all likelihood it was.

 

[Richard]

I've seen this argument before, you are unrelenting Richard!

Once again, I say - would you really expect otherwise?

 

[marc71178]

Yes, because there is far, far more that is possible to debate about that.
A "chance" either is one or it isn't - there are all sorts of things that contribute to a delivery which might make it appear "not in control" when in all likelihood it was.

A chance is not clear cut. When you finally realise that then you will realise that made up numbers using it are random.

 

[Richard]

Except that I won't realise that.
Something either is a chance or it isn't. Simple as.
Very, very occasionally it will be impossible to decide.

 

[sirjeremy11]

Except that I won't realise that.
Something either is a chance or it isn't. Simple as.
Very, very occasionally it will be impossible to decide.

I don't know about very, very occasionally. I would say maybe one in twenty chances are harder than "a very difficult chance". You have fielders drop absolute sitters, but then you may have a Symonds, for instance, diving for a catch and getting a finger to it. He has "dropped" a catch. However, someone less spritely (eg. Mark Richardson) would get nowhere near it - has the batsman still given "a chance"?. It is far too subjective from my point of view. I have always been of the opinion that a straightforward chance that is missed is a dropped catch, a catch that could (not should) have been taken is usually still a good piece of fielding, and a catch that could have been taken and is: priceless.

 

[Richard]

Simply: if Symonds is there, it is a chance. If Richardson was there... it isn't.
Different fielders have different athleticisms - it's not all about the hands.
Once you get a decent shot at catching it, it's a chance.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Simply: if Symonds is there, it is a chance. If Richardson was there... it isn't.
Different fielders have different athleticisms - it's not all about the hands.
Once you get a decent shot at catching it, it's a chance.

Hang on.

Isn't the -entire- point of your little exercise with first chance averages to stop batsmen from benefitting from the incompetence of the opposition in the field?

Yet, you're saying if a team is completely rubbish in the field and they can't even get to the ball half the time, the batsman is actually giving -less- chances than he would against a better fielding side that makes "chances" out of non-chances?

Explain then how it is that a batsman didn't do anything wrong if he skies the ball and the fielder doesn't get anywhere near it when a better fielder might have (see Mick Lewis in the third VB Series final), but if he hits a rocket through the off side and a Paul Collingwood or Michael Clarke gets a finger on it, he's commited a mortal sin and we must pretend he was dismissed.

 

[open365]

He's yet to play quality spin bowling, he's made a name for himself so far by playing England and India, and made a century against West Indies.

I suppose...

But being the best young player shouldn't be about past records,it should be about the future,and what they have the ability and potential to do.

I see something in Akmal that makes me believe that he'll be a great player,and i'm not going to hide my opinion because he hasn't played against quality spin yet.

 

[ervine_wa]

voges / north / marsh

 

[Top_Cat]

Hang on.

Isn't the -entire- point of your little exercise with first chance averages to stop batsmen from benefitting from the incompetence of the opposition in the field?

Yet, you're saying if a team is completely rubbish in the field and they can't even get to the ball half the time, the batsman is actually giving -less- chances than he would against a better fielding side that makes "chances" out of non-chances?

Explain then how it is that a batsman didn't do anything wrong if he skies the ball and the fielder doesn't get anywhere near it when a better fielder might have (see Mick Lewis in the third VB Series final), but if he hits a rocket through the off side and a Paul Collingwood or Michael Clarke gets a finger on it, he's commited a mortal sin and we must pretend he was dismissed.

Please. For the love of [INSERT DEITY OF CHOICE], don't do it.

 

[Jono]

LOL! I echo TC's thoughts. You've just opened the gates of hell Faaip

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sorry, sorry. Usually I refrain, but I couldn't bring myself to let that one slide.

 

[Richard]

Hang on.

Isn't the -entire- point of your little exercise with first chance averages to stop batsmen from benefitting from the incompetence of the opposition in the field?

Yet, you're saying if a team is completely rubbish in the field and they can't even get to the ball half the time, the batsman is actually giving -less- chances than he would against a better fielding side that makes "chances" out of non-chances?

Explain then how it is that a batsman didn't do anything wrong if he skies the ball and the fielder doesn't get anywhere near it when a better fielder might have (see Mick Lewis in the third VB Series final), but if he hits a rocket through the off side and a Paul Collingwood or Michael Clarke gets a finger on it, he's commited a mortal sin and we must pretend he was dismissed.

If a fielder is poor the batsman knows about this.
Once a ball goes in the air and a fieldsman gets to it, the batsman has no control of the situation.
If anyone gets a finger on something, incidentally, it's not a chance, because the finger does not catch the cricket-ball.

 

[Richard]

Please. For the love of [INSERT DEITY OF CHOICE], don't do it.

I've answered most things and I've answered that one.

 

[aussie]

If a fielder is poor the batsman knows about this.
Once a ball goes in the air and a fieldsman gets to it, the batsman has no control of the situation.
If anyone gets a finger on something, incidentally, it's not a chance, because the finger does not catch the cricket-ball.

gotta admit that last 2 lines sounds a bit iffy..

 

[Richard]

What?
You've seen someone catch a cricket-ball with a finger, have you?
With a ball travelling at reasonable pace you need at the very least the ball to hit in the middle of the fingers (and ideally in the palms) to have a chance of it staying there.

 

[marc71178]

I've answered most things and I've answered that one.

In your own mind you have.

 

[Richard]

Nope, on the screen I have too.

 

[honestbharani]

He's yet to play quality spin bowling, he's made a name for himself so far by playing England and India, and made a century against West Indies.

quality spin or quality pace? He has already proven himself against India, which has the best spin attack in the world, IMHO.

 

[Top_Cat]

I've answered most things and I've answered that one.

Yes, you've provided answers. If I ask someone what the moon's made of and they say "Cheese!", that's an answer too.