Cricket: Art or Science?

[Richard]

in those situations (from 1998 onwards) he was brilliant...SO WHY DID ENGLAND USE HIM AS AN OPENER!!!!!! (is that right Richard????)

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say "brilliant", but certainly he was far better than most people realise, and give him credit for.

 

[Richard]

Not in the sense of the team - the better player gets more runs in the book.

That is simply which player has the biggest contribution against their name.
But just because you've got runs in the book isn't relevant if you haven't earnt them.

 

[marc71178]

But equally, a good scorebook-average should always
a) be examined and
b) taken in context

Except when it is Economy Rates in ODI's, because everyone knows the game's not at all changed in terms of bat dominance so what was a good economy rate in the 70's is still the definition of good now, even if 70-80 runs more are scored per innings.

 

[marc71178]

But just because you've got runs in the book isn't relevant if you haven't earnt them.

So how come all games are scored based on how many runs are in the book then?

Looks pretty relevant to me.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Relatively chanceless, hmm, yes, except for that relatively straightforwad drop by White at gully on 30-odd, and the drop in the deep on 80-odd, and the caught-and-bowled on 103.
Followed by the 90 where he was dropped on 13, 36, 47 and 60-something.

Oh yeah, he was dropped four or five times by spectators too, my mistake. TO be honest, I still find it astonishing that you call two of the better players of the modern era (three if Pollock comes into it) lucky!

Dropped catches are part of the game, and I've watched a lot of cricket matches myself and never noticed it happening to Gilchrist more often than anyone else. You seem to be a stickler for plucking instances that you remember out of the air though and using one or two instances as a basis for forming a 'solid' opinion on something.

Has Gilchrist honestly been dropped more times than other batsmen?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Gilchrist might have had a few more drops off him, but he'll give harder chances because he goes after his shots more.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Gilchrist might have had a few more drops off him, but he'll give harder chances because he goes after his shots more.

haha, we've said this to Richard before too, no doubt he's about to tell you why that can't be true.

 

[Richard]

Except when it is Economy Rates in ODI's, because everyone knows the game's not at all changed in terms of bat dominance so what was a good economy rate in the 70's is still the definition of good now, even if 70-80 runs more are scored per innings.

No, a good economy-rate has changed from the 70s and 80s. Then, anything over 4-an-over was very poor. Now, anything under 4-an-over is outstanding.
But these standards haven't changed since about 1992.

 

[Richard]

So how come all games are scored based on how many runs are in the book then?

Looks pretty relevant to me.

Because games are played between one team and another - drop catches, you lose matches - very often.
But the result of the game isn't relevant to how well the batsman has played.

 

[Langeveldt]

But just because you've got runs in the book isn't relevant if you haven't earnt them.

Hahaha... Sorry, Mr Lara, you have to repent your sins and hand us back that 501 you got when you were dropped early on by the wicket keeper! Im afraid shockers like that don't count...

 

[Richard]

Oh yeah, he was dropped four or five times by spectators too, my mistake. TO be honest, I still find it astonishing that you call two of the better players of the modern era (three if Pollock comes into it) lucky!

Dropped catches are part of the game, and I've watched a lot of cricket matches myself and never noticed it happening to Gilchrist more often than anyone else. You seem to be a stickler for plucking instances that you remember out of the air though and using one or two instances as a basis for forming a 'solid' opinion on something.

Has Gilchrist honestly been dropped more times than other batsmen?

Not enormously so (though he was that particular series), but yes, in my perception, slightly, and no, not because of anything to do with this:

Gilchrist might have had a few more drops off him, but he'll give harder chances because he goes after his shots more.

simply because regulation drops at slip or in the ring tend to happen more to him than to anyone else. The above is just a generalisation, taken without looking at the individual instances.
I am perfectly well aware that dropped catches are part of the game, lamentable though it may be.
But they should not be taken into context when deciding how good a batsman is or how well he has played in a particular innings. A batsman has not played well if he's scored 123* and been dropped 4 times.

 

[Richard]

Hahaha... Sorry, Mr Lara, you have to repent your sins and hand us back that 501 you got when you were dropped early on by the wicket keeper! Im afraid shockers like that don't count...

True, that's always been a hollow record for me, because of that simple dropped catch on 17.
Still, he didn't half play well for the next 484, which was impressive enough.

 

[marc71178]

But these standards haven't changed since about 1992.

In spite of the evolution of the One Day game in that period?

Right...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Because games are played between one team and another - drop catches, you lose matches - very often.

Unless you're Australian.

 

[SJS]

Cricket - Art or Science ?

In the hands of the person designing the ads Sachin appears in - its an art

In the hands of the bookmakers of Sharjah - its a science

In the hands of Wasim Akram - its a craft

In the hands of Jaggu Dalmia - its business as usual

In the hands of Robert Mugabe - its a farce

 

[Richard]

Unless you're Australian.

Yes, because batsmen tend to give rather more chances to Australians than anyone else.
I'd be surprised if England didn't give twice the number of chances in The Ashes 2002\03 - certainly I reckon the number of chances dropped was about the same.

 

[Swervy]

Yes, because batsmen tend to give rather more chances to Australians than anyone else.
I'd be surprised if England didn't give twice the number of chances in The Ashes 2002\03 - certainly I reckon the number of chances dropped was about the same.

I wonder why!!!!!

Right shut it Swerves.....do not get drawn into it

 

[Richard]

In spite of the evolution of the One Day game in that period?

Right...

Evolutions such as?
AFAIK fielding-restrictions were all in place round about that time.
And while shorter boundaries will mean poor bowling is more expensive, it won't mean good bowling is more expensive nor that bad batsmen will get many more runs.

 

[Richard]

I wonder why!!!!!

Right shut it Swerves.....do not get drawn into it

Why is not the issue - the fact that Australia have not lost nearly as many matches as everyone else has due to dropping lots of catches is.
Australia's catching for the last couple of years has been very poor - though most supposedly knowledgable English commentators seem not to have noticed.

 

[marc71178]

Flatter pitches, the whole idea of the pinch-hitter...

Yet again, you are the only person claiming there hasn't been changes.