Best young Batsman in World Cricket today

[luckyeddie]

It's called the brick wall effect.

No matter how many people find the same holes adn say so, you refuse to accept it.

Therefore people shut up because it's become clear you're so blinkered that you can't accept any criticism of the theory.

There is no brick wall effect in First-chance theory at the moment. I appreciate that catches taken off the brick wall you casually allude to and for that matter the bike shed roof and not held cleanly one-handed ought to be discounted, unless the batsman has been eating the green jelly at tea of course, but that's only coming in Richard's SECOND First-chance theory.

 

[marc71178]

Ok,the first massive grey area is that of what is considered a chance,

Richard,what is considered/not considered a chance?

Well that also depends on the batsman.

For someone he doesn't like then the ball going within 2 yards of a fielder.

For any South African batsman it has to be a complete dolly.

 

[Richard]

Basically the batsmans average is calculated, not from when he is dismissed, but when he offers his "first chance".. Usually in the form of a missed/dropped catch..

What this neglects, is that there is a huge grey area about what a "chance" is, and the fact that every batsman in history has the same chance of being dropped as the next man, so theres no point in worrying about the comparison..

It goes to say that Lara's 400 should never have happened because he was dropped on 83 or whatever it was.. This of course is as ludicrous as saying Gilchrist would have scored 495 had he not been given a shocking LBW decision when on 60, and so on.. It can work both ways in its silliness

Less than 1,000 words!

When, exactly, was Lara dropped?
You think if Gareth Batty (one of the quickest reactors in England) couldn't get more than a finger on it, someone else could?

 

[Richard]

Ok,the first massive grey area is that of what is considered a chance,

Richard,what is considered/not considered a chance?

In summary...
Most people realise that to catch a cricket ball you need to get the hands around it. If that hasn't happened you obviously had no chance of catching it.
Equally, most people can tell whether a wicketkeeper should or should not have taken a stumping. Some things are considered missed-stumping when the wicketkeeper really had little or no chance. The number of missed stumpings at the current time, though, are a worry.
Obviously, any fool can tell when a batsman nicked\gloved a ball where he was given not-out. It's less easy to tell when an lbw wasn't given that shouldn't be, but obviously there are still plenty of cases where you can say a howler happened and someone got away with something that was pretty plumb. With multiple camera-angles, red-zones, fades and HawkEyes it gets easier.
Equally, it's almost always possible to say when a batsman is sawn-off unfairly, be it lbw or caught.
As far as the batsman's ability is concerned, there is no difference between a let-off and a scorebook-dismissal, that should be pretty obvious - what he has done is the same. Equally, he clearly deserves no blame for being given out incorrectly.
Some people would have you believe that there's a "huge grey area" over what is\isn't a chance - by-and-large that's just the only thing they can think of to counter the fact that scorebook-scores are what's always been used and they don't want to divert from the course they are comfortable with.

 

[ryan563]

ali cook

 

[silentstriker]

ali cook

I'll call your Ali Cook and raise you Parthiv Patel.

Clearly the best.