Biggest cricket moment when you've been at the ground

[_Ed_]

I haven't seen any really huge moments. I guess one of the biggest would be Zimbabwe's first ODI series win overseas when they recovered from 60/5 to chase down NZ's 274...that was so embarrassing.

But I guess the fact that I have now been to 13 ODIs and NZ have a record of 1 win (a 2 run thumping of Zimbabwe in 1997-98) and 12 losses is worth mentioning too. Seriously considering staying home next season.

 

[biased indian]

I haven't seen any really huge moments. I guess one of the biggest would be Zimbabwe's first ODI series win overseas when they recovered from 60/5 to chase down NZ's 274...that was so embarrassing.

But I guess the fact that I have now been to 13 ODIs and NZ have a record of 1 win (a 2 run thumping of Zimbabwe in 1997-98) and 12 losses is worth mentioning too. Seriously considering staying home next season.

u should watch all the match when india comes to NZ next time around

 

[Smudge]

u should watch all the match when india comes to NZ next time around

No chance - I'm currently in negotiations with New Zealand Cricket to ensure that _Ed_ is banned from all international matches for the next decade.

 

[Langeveldt]

So you'd prefer use unquantifiable things when you can use quantifiable things?

You seem to as well sometimes with your dross about McGrath not deserving anything much, despite having one of the finest records of all time.. How the hell can you quantify a "poor shot"??

 

[Richard]

A fine example - in bowlers cases you can't use quantifiable things.
With batsmen, to an extent, you can.

 

[Richard]

To be honest , averages and the like are only points of interest for me. There are many things that statistics just dont pick up on.

On the contrary, if you look deep enough, you can explain most things with statistics. Some people just don't like to, it's a slight on glorious spontaneity.

All these figures have a place obviously in the game(and the second chance average has a tiny bit of merit, but nowhere near the importance you place on it),but they arent as important as the game itself

The simple fact of the matter is, like everything else, they ARE the game. The game is made-up of many, many little and large things - this being one.

who really cares if Lara got dropped on 17 or whatever,for most, that doesnt really matter, the guy scored 501 without getting out..who really cares if Sehwag got dropped in his 190, what matters is how cricket fans,cricket players,cricket writers and commentators view the game....Jono thought that innings was great..and any innings worth almost 200 has to be considered great, whether they gave up no chances or 10 chances...you take your opportunities when you get them..thats what Sehwag did, thats what Lara did, thats what Botham did at Old trafford (the list of great innings with chances given is almost endless).

You seem to have made a total dereliction of what batting is about.
The whole point of batting is to score runs. You cannot score runs if you get out. Under normal circumstances, if a chance is given, dismissal will result. If, however, a batsman is let off, it does not denote in any way, shape or form, credit on his part.
The whole thing of simply judging a batsman by what is next to his name is in fact the precise anethma to what you have just gone on so *emotionally* about. It involves the simple assumption that an innings must be worth what a few spots of ink say it's worth - when in fact there are so, so many more things to be taken into consideration - principally whether the batsman actually played well enough to deserve to score what those few dots of ink say he scored.

Richard, you seem to have no concept about what the game is really about...it isnt all just about nice neat and tidy statistics..its about physical struggle and emotion....and most of the time skill (although not always, a players battling instinct can almost overcome deficiencies in skill). Once you realise that, then maybe your understanding about what this game is about may increase.

And skill involves quite a few things... physical and emotional struggle, and the ability to conquer them, are amongst the skills required for cricket.
Yet - whatever gloriously undefinable things you try to bring to the game, there is simply no getting away from one fact - cricket is about numbers. It's about numbers of runs, and numbers of runs given away per wicket, and numbers of runs per over, and numbers of deliveries per wicket. Therefore, to be a good cricket player and spectator, you have to be good at accumulating and analysing these numbers, taken always in contexts of course.
And whatever may contribute to those things, there is just no getting away from the fact that, at the end of the day, it all comes back to them.

 

[shankar]

You seem to have made a total dereliction of what batting is about.
The whole point of batting is to score runs. You cannot score runs if you get out. Under normal circumstances, if a chance is given, dismissal will result. If, however, a batsman is let off, it does not denote in any way, shape or form, credit on his part.
The whole thing of simply judging a batsman by what is next to his name is in fact the precise anethma to what you have just gone on so *emotionally* about. It involves the simple assumption that an innings must be worth what a few spots of ink say it's worth - when in fact there are so, so many more things to be taken into consideration - principally whether the batsman actually played well enough to deserve to score what those few dots of ink say he scored.

But the problem with your system is that you do not give any credit to the batsman for having gone on to make good on his reprieve. Granted that a 195 with a drop on 47 is not as good as a 195 without any chance. But it's definately better than getting out on 50. If you accept that dropped catches are regular occurances in cricket, then you will want a batsman who goes on to make the opposition pay for the mistake instead of one who doesnt. Your first-chance system doesnt discriminate between the two and rates them the same.

Maybe you could modify it by counting that innings as 2 (maybe a number between 2 and 3 depending on how well set the batsman was when he got the reprieve) while calculating the average.

 

[Richard]

There is another system, one which may appeal to you if you think that way: I call it the all-chance average.
Quite simply, every run scored in the book is counted - but every chance is still taken as a dismissal. Two benefits of this are if a batsman plays a total shocker of an innings where he scores 1 and gives 3 chances (1 of which is finally taken) he gets the full blast. Equally, if he scores 300 having been dropped on 77 and 140, he gets all 300 runs but instead of 1 dismissal he has 3.
I see the merits of both systems myself, but I prefer the first-chance one because I simply see it that anything which happens after a let-off just would not have had the chance to happen under normal circumstances.

 

[honestbharani]

now this should be fun......



Where to even start?


That 210 by Dean Jones and the tied test?


That brilliant century by Mark Waugh at the 96 WC quarters?


A run fest of India against England in 93 with Sachin, Kambli, Sidhu and everyone getting good scores?


194 by Saeed Anwar?


An amazing counterattacking 155 by Sachin Vs Aus in 98?


That standing ovation that we gave the visiting Pakistanis after another splendid Sachin century which was preceded by a very mature century by Afridi and an awesome 6 fer by Venkatesh Prasad on a flat, slow track?



That amazing decider of the BG trophy in 2001?



Kumble leading India for the first time in an ODI when the only hometown boy was leading the oppostion team?



Shane Warne's world record wicket of Parthiv Patel recently?



you see, living in Chennai has so many advantages.

 

[honestbharani]

195, not 195*.
Dropped catches are a part of cricket - a regrettable part, but a part nonetheless.
They are NOT, and never will be, a part of quality batting.

u know Rich, if we use ur way of breaking up innings, u could say he was 195* at one point and then got out for a duck later.

 

[dudeurfriend]

Brilliant century by Martyn Against India during the recent tour of Australia ......

 

[bu99er]

Being a staunch Queenslander I would have to say the night that Andy Bichel bowled Lance Klusener at the Gabba. If the stadium had an enclosed roof it would have been lifted. Not a memorable moment for most but it brought a tear to my eye seeing our Bic do us proud.

 

[shankar]

There is another system, one which may appeal to you if you think that way: I call it the all-chance average.
Quite simply, every run scored in the book is counted - but every chance is still taken as a dismissal. Two benefits of this are if a batsman plays a total shocker of an innings where he scores 1 and gives 3 chances (1 of which is finally taken) he gets the full blast. Equally, if he scores 300 having been dropped on 77 and 140, he gets all 300 runs but instead of 1 dismissal he has 3.

The problem with this one is that you're crediting the batsman with the equivalent of 3 individual innings of 77,63 and 160. But the batsman had the advantage of being well set at the start of the 63 and the 160. So it has to be counted as more than 3 innings.

I see the merits of both systems myself, but I prefer the first-chance one because I simply see it that anything which happens after a let-off just would not have had the chance to happen under normal circumstances.

That's the equivalent closing your eyes and ears and saying "No that dropped catch didnt happen". It did happen and if the batsman goes on to make a big innings then you've got to be able to include that in your analysis.

 

[Marcus]

Domestic level...the Kent vs somerset semi 3 years ago, a game in which the Whole of the county ground was packed, i was sittign behind the bowlers arm, and the atmosphere was electric. And Somerset won. The last overs of Kents innings were class, needing bout 15 runs to win with wickets in hand they lost wickets quickly in a nail bitting finish. Needing 4 runs in the final over, first ball slogged to mid on, somerset win, crowd went mad, best match at the county ground for years, Great domestic game of cricket, that is still talked about today, pitty we lost the final

 

[Richard]

u know Rich, if we use ur way of breaking up innings, u could say he was 195* at one point and then got out for a duck later.

You could, yes.
No reason to, though, really, is there - they have the same outcome.

 

[Richard]

The problem with this one is that you're crediting the batsman with the equivalent of 3 individual innings of 77,63 and 160. But the batsman had the advantage of being well set at the start of the 63 and the 160. So it has to be counted as more than 3 innings.

Why? Batsmen have to get set again at the start of every session.
Getting set is something you've got to do all the time.

That's the equivalent closing your eyes and ears and saying "No that dropped catch didnt happen". It did happen and if the batsman goes on to make a big innings then you've got to be able to include that in your analysis.

I understand what you're saying, but IMO pretending a dropped catch didn't happen is just not possible to do - whereas it's fact that anything after a dropped catch should not have happened.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I understand what you're saying, but IMO pretending a dropped catch didn't happen is just not possible to do - whereas it's fact that anything after a dropped catch should not have happened.

Not really. Catching ability is part of the skill set required by the players for a cricket team to be successful. Would you pretend a boundary wasn't hit because it came from a bad ball? Or that a wicket didn't happen because it came from a bad shot? Similarly, if the fielding team makes an error and drops a catch it is because that side was not good enough to get the batsman out, and runs the batsman makes after that are just as valid as anything he made beforehand, since he has in effect outplayed the opposition enough to score the amount of runs me makes in his entire innings. It is just as significant as part of a dismissal for the catch to be taken as for the ball to set up the catch, after all. Pretending the dismissal actually did happen when the catch was dropped attempts to remove a whole set of skills from the game of cricket. There is more to the game than whether or not you personally think the batsman should have been out.

Equally, if a batsman plays a shot which under normal circumstances would not have been out but a spectacular catch is taken, he has been outplayed by the opposition as a whole well enough to get out, regardless of whether or not the bowler really beat him with the delivery.

 

[shankar]

Why? Batsmen have to get set again at the start of every session.
Getting set is something you've got to do all the time.

Come on! Are you telling me that scoring 50 runs after you've been dropped on 150, say is as easy as starting from 0 and scoring 50? Clearly you're 'over-crediting' the former batsman if you count it as equivalent to just 2 innings.

I understand what you're saying, but IMO pretending a dropped catch didn't happen is just not possible to do - whereas it's fact that anything after a dropped catch should not have happened.

I understand the point you're making here. But don't you realize that you're losing information in evaluating a batsman by neglecting what he accomplished after the drop. Qualify the innings sufficiently for having benefitted from a drop. Dont outright reject it.

 

[Richard]

Come on! Are you telling me that scoring 50 runs after you've been dropped on 150, say is as easy as starting from 0 and scoring 50? Clearly you're 'over-crediting' the former batsman if you count it as equivalent to just 2 innings.

No, I think there are breaks in an innings which have to be recovered from. If you score 50 in 2 sessions, for instance, you've got to start twice - at the start of your innings and after the break. Similarly, just because you have been able to start an innings when set I don't think you should have to lose something.

I understand the point you're making here. But don't you realize that you're losing information in evaluating a batsman by neglecting what he accomplished after the drop. Qualify the innings sufficiently for having benefitted from a drop. Dont outright reject it.

I really do think the all-chance average caters for all of that. Like I say, I have thought the matter through and sometimes I find myself thinking it's fairer.
Really, though, I just keep thinking that benefiting more from luck is only a small skill.

 

[Richard]

Not really. Catching ability is part of the skill set required by the players for a cricket team to be successful. Would you pretend a boundary wasn't hit because it came from a bad ball? Or that a wicket didn't happen because it came from a bad shot? Similarly, if the fielding team makes an error and drops a catch it is because that side was not good enough to get the batsman out, and runs the batsman makes after that are just as valid as anything he made beforehand, since he has in effect outplayed the opposition enough to score the amount of runs me makes in his entire innings. It is just as significant as part of a dismissal for the catch to be taken as for the ball to set up the catch, after all. Pretending the dismissal actually did happen when the catch was dropped attempts to remove a whole set of skills from the game of cricket. There is more to the game than whether or not you personally think the batsman should have been out.

Equally, if a batsman plays a shot which under normal circumstances would not have been out but a spectacular catch is taken, he has been outplayed by the opposition as a whole well enough to get out, regardless of whether or not the bowler really beat him with the delivery.

All fine when you look at the game as a whole.
Chance-averages look at batting in itself. The batsman outplaying the bowler, and the fielders. Quite simply, if you bat for long enough you're going to get deliveries you can hit for four - anything which goes for four off the middle of the bat is a bad delivery. Whereas you can't expect that if you give a chance you'll not be out. And you don't deserve any credit for a fielder dropping a catch, or for an Umpire making a bad decision in your favour. A dropped catch is not the batsman outplaying the fielders, the way hitting the ball in the air through them is.