Biggest cricket moment when you've been at the ground

[shankar]

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.

You didnt answer my question: Isn't scoring 50 runs after having scored 150 runs already easier than scoring 50 from scratch?

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.

No it's not about measuring the batsman's ability to benefit from luck - It's about qualifying his innings for the luck suitably instead of just ignoring what he did after he 'got lucky'.

If a batsman gets dropped on 10 and goes onto score a 300, you'd just credit him for the 10. Whereas by counting it as 2 innings you adjust for the luck he's had without neglecting the 290 runs he scored after the drop. I really dont see what problem you have with this.

 

[Richard]

You didnt answer my question: Isn't scoring 50 runs after having scored 150 runs already easier than scoring 50 from scratch?

Yes, it is - but breaks and lack of breaks are part-and-parcel of building innings'.

No it's not about measuring the batsman's ability to benefit from luck - It's about qualifying his innings for the luck suitably instead of just ignoring what he did after he 'got lucky'.

If a batsman gets dropped on 10 and goes onto score a 300, you'd just credit him for the 10. Whereas by counting it as 2 innings you adjust for the luck he's had without neglecting the 290 runs he scored after the drop. I really dont see what problem you have with this.

I don't have a problem - as I say, I see the merits of both schemes.
But the first-chance one was the one I thought about first, so it's just sort of become the one I favour.

 

[marc71178]

anything which goes for four off the middle of the bat is a bad delivery.

Another sweeping generalisation there.

A dropped catch is not the batsman outplaying the fielders, the way hitting the ball in the air through them is.

So what if he hits it in the air and a fielder doesn't go for it?

And more importantly, what if people don't agree on what is and what isn't a catch?

 

[Richard]

Another sweeping generalisation there.

No, not at all - if the batsman's hit it in the middle of the bat he's played a comfortable stroke the way he intended. If he hits it for four, it was a bad idea to bowl it there.

So what if he hits it in the air and a fielder doesn't go for it?

Then you've got to look at whether or not he should have gone for it.

And more importantly, what if people don't agree on what is and what isn't a catch?

Then they need to get educated, and realise the importance of the matter.

 

[marc71178]

No, not at all - if the batsman's hit it in the middle of the bat he's played a comfortable stroke the way he intended. If he hits it for four, it was a bad idea to bowl it there.

Oh yes, what about a Flintoff forward defensive to a ball that's going to hit the stumps but then flies back past the bowler for 4?

Then you've got to look at whether or not he should have gone for it.

Adding yet more inconclusive debate,

Then they need to get educated, and realise the importance of the matter.

So because people disagree on what's a chance, they're ill-educated?

It is not an important matter at all, more important are the runs and wickets on the board.

 

[shankar]

Yes, it is - but breaks and lack of breaks are part-and-parcel of building innings'.

No. It's a pretty big advantage to the guy starting from 150 in the earlier example. A method that doesnt take account of this would be a farce. The batsman who starts at 150 is seeing the ball well, is totally adjusted to the pitch and the conditions and is playing with the confidence of having a big score against his name. You're rating a 50 scored by him at this stage as the same as that scored by a batsman who has just come to crease new to the conditions and with nought against his name.

I don't have a problem - as I say, I see the merits of both schemes.
But the first-chance one was the one I thought about first, so it's just sort of become the one I favour.

As I see it, what you call the 'first-chance' scheme is seriously flawed as it neglects what happens after the drop. I dont see any reason you favour it to the other one.

 

[Richard]

Oh yes, what about a Flintoff forward defensive to a ball that's going to hit the stumps but then flies back past the bowler for 4?

He hit it for four, didn't he?
Therefore a better delivery would have been one that he didn't even try to hit for four.

Adding yet more inconclusive debate,

No, any fool can tell if something clearly should have been gone for - and not "he might have gone for that and he might have got it".

So because people disagree on what's a chance, they're ill-educated?

Yes - they don't realise the importance of it.

It is not an important matter at all, more important are the runs and wickets on the board.

So because there are other matters that are a tincy wincy little bit more important, that makes what should have been out and what shouldn't "not important at all"?
No.

 

[Richard]

No. It's a pretty big advantage to the guy starting from 150 in the earlier example. A method that doesnt take account of this would be a farce. The batsman who starts at 150 is seeing the ball well, is totally adjusted to the pitch and the conditions and is playing with the confidence of having a big score against his name. You're rating a 50 scored by him at this stage as the same as that scored by a batsman who has just come to crease new to the conditions and with nought against his name.

Because I can't see any way to quantify it.
If you can think of a way to take this into account - a way, remembering, that numbers only are available - I'd be delighted to hear it.

As I see it, what you call the 'first-chance' scheme is seriously flawed as it neglects what happens after the drop. I dont see any reason you favour it to the other one.

Like I say - it's just personal.

 

[shankar]

Because I can't see any way to quantify it.
If you can think of a way to take this into account - a way, remembering, that numbers only are available - I'd be delighted to hear it.

Fair enough.

Like I say - it's just personal.

Despite it being seriously flawed and a perfectly better option available you continue to use the first-chance one just 'cause of personal preference? How do you expect people to take it seriously?

 

[Richard]

Despite it being seriously flawed and a perfectly better option available you continue to use the first-chance one just 'cause of personal preference? How do you expect people to take it seriously?

Because it, too, has it's merits, plenty.

 

[shankar]

Because it, too, has it's merits, plenty.

what is the advantage that it has over the other method?

 

[Richard]

Like I say - the fact that normal circumstances are: you give a chance, you're out. No matter that you might or might not have gone on to score 401* after that.
I know, I know, it's different to something that definately did happen after a chance was given - but it ignores the fundamental fact - anything that happened after a dropped catch would not normally have happened.

 

[shankar]

In which case the first chance average is not an indicator of a batsman's quality.

 

[Richard]

Why not?
It indicates what he would have scored if his ability alone was called into question - not something that has happened after he's done his part that is beyond his control.

 

[Hoggy31]

Glen McGrath's hatrick against the West Indies at the WACA a few years back.

 

[shankar]

Why not?
It indicates what he would have scored if his ability alone was called into question - not something that has happened after he's done his part that is beyond his control.

Because any runs made after he was dropped, which even though would not have happened if the fielder had taken the catch, is still a factor in gauging the ability of a batsman. Any method that plain ignores the runs scored after the drop is fundamentally faulty.

 

[Richard]

Why?
The runs made after the drop would not normally have the chance to be made. And that he's made them owes to abnormal circumstances.

 

[Marius]

For fack sakes, can't you drop this stupid argument? Thanks for ruining my thread Richard.

 

[Richard]

Ain't like there haven't been countless other threads where it's come in - nor is it like any thread stays on title-topic for long.
And no, I certainly won't drop this far-from-stupid theory.

 

[garage flower]

Ain't like there haven't been countless other threads where it's come in

I think that's the point.