Elliot should replace Langer

[marc71178]

Langer has not played in 4 of Australia's Tests since the Pakistan series of 1998\99.
He became a fixture then, believe me.

He only played 1 Ashes Test out of 5 last time they were over here. So he's not missed a game aside from those 4 then?

 

[Eclipse]

were the hell do you get off on this luck thing Richard??

luck is a huge part of cricket and you will find most time's somone goes through a purpul patch luck has somthing to do with it.

being able to capitalize on luck is what makes a batsman good IMO.

usualy if an Aussie batsman is droped they make a 100 thats what makes them good.

 

[Mister Wright]

And this is not a straw-clutch? This is one of the best I've ever seen.
The whole point is the batsman has no control over what happens after he's hit the ball (or not in the case of lbws). All that matters as far as his ability is concerned is whether he hits the ball in the air to a fielder or not.
It matters not whether it's the batsman's fault if a fielder can't catch. Because he doesn't lose anything through it. He gains something through it. Hence, what matters is if he deserves credit for it. And he doesn't.
Regarding edging just past the stumps, hitting the ball in the air within inches of fielders... yes, that's a bit lucky but not that lucky - you've done well enough to avoid getting out. There is no circumstance whereby this can result in dismissal. However, under normal circumstances a chance results in dismissal. Simple as.

So are you saying that we should take runs off batsman for extra runs they get off misfields? After all that is luck isn't it?

 

[marc71178]

Hadn't thought of that.

I bet if all these were taken into account, Don Bradman's career average would've been about 3.27!

 

[Richard]

Hadn't thought of that.

I bet if all these were taken into account, Don Bradman's career average would've been about 3.27!

Yes, of course it would.
Making stupid comments doesn't add any weight to your argument. Yet most people end-up making stupid comments in this type of argument with me.

 

[Richard]

So are you saying that we should take runs off batsman for extra runs they get off misfields? After all that is luck isn't it?

If you can be bothered to do that you're a better man than me!
It would be a good idea but it would take some memory and some working-out.

 

[Richard]

He only played 1 Ashes Test out of 5 last time they were over here. So he's not missed a game aside from those 4 then?

Nope - if he had I'd have said he'd missed more than 4 Tests since that Pakistan series.

 

[Richard]

were the hell do you get off on this luck thing Richard??

luck is a huge part of cricket and you will find most time's somone goes through a purpul patch luck has somthing to do with it.

being able to capitalize on luck is what makes a batsman good IMO.

usualy if an Aussie batsman is droped they make a 100 thats what makes them good.

So if you get dropped 5 times, on 20, 40, 60, 80 and 99 and then you give a chance that is finally accepted on 102, then you've played well?
Sure.
For me if someone goes through a patch of high scoring that's mainly due to luck, it isn't a purple patch - it's a lucky patch.
Yes, sadly luck is a huge part of cricket - fortunately not quite as big as it used to be, but still sadly huge.
Hopefully it will continue to decrease until it plays negligable part at all, then we will be able to assess skill better.
IMO what makes a good batsman is being able to score runs without getting out - and if you get yourself out and a fielder drops the catch, that doesn't make you good IMO. Because had the chance been taken you would have been out and you wouldn't have been able to make any runs.

 

[marc71178]

Nope - if he had I'd have said he'd missed more than 4 Tests since that Pakistan series.

So how is he a fixture in the side if he missed 4 consecutive Tests when fit?

 

[Richard]

Because one of the bad spells resulted in him being dropped.
Aside from the result of that bad spell he's not been dropped. He played 33 consecutive Tests in the period. For me, that constitutes being a fixture. He has had failure periods in the time after his recall as an opener, too, but as of yet none has been long enough to result in his axing. Hopefully there is one around the corner.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Sport without luck would be a complete waste of time as there would be a lot less uncertainty in the winner.

 

[The Argonaut]

This whole argument about luck is rather pointless. A batsman can't be blamed for getting dropped. Would we consider a guy unlucky if a fielder takes an absolute screamer and he's out. Things just happen. If you get dropped you stay in and make more runs. You may also get an awful umpiring decision and get less runs than you deserve. It all evens out in the end. The only way we have of really measuring any of this is through stats.

Richard if you don't personally rate some of these guys then fine it is your opinion but I think you'll find yourself in the minority.

Do you think that if a batsman is dropped then he should just walk off and say "I don't really deserve to stay in any longer. I played a bad shot and should be out. If I stay in then my average will be higher than I deserve". Of course not.

No one has proven to me that any particular batsman gets dropped or gets more bad umpiring decisions than anyone else so let's just stick to the facts (or stats) and rate these guys accordingly.

 

[Mister Wright]

This whole argument about luck is rather pointless. A batsman can't be blamed for getting dropped. Would we consider a guy unlucky if a fielder takes an absolute screamer and he's out. Things just happen. If you get dropped you stay in and make more runs. You may also get an awful umpiring decision and get less runs than you deserve. It all evens out in the end. The only way we have of really measuring any of this is through stats.

Richard if you don't personally rate some of these guys then fine it is your opinion but I think you'll find yourself in the minority.

Do you think that if a batsman is dropped then he should just walk off and say "I don't really deserve to stay in any longer. I played a bad shot and should be out. If I stay in then my average will be higher than I deserve". Of course not.

No one has proven to me that any particular batsman gets dropped or gets more bad umpiring decisions than anyone else so let's just stick to the facts (or stats) and rate these guys accordingly.

***Raising his glass of XXXX***

'Ere, 'ere!!

 

[Eclipse]

Yes, of course it would.
Making stupid comments doesn't add any weight to your argument. Yet most people end-up making stupid comments in this type of argument with me.

maybe it's because your agruments are stupid.

hardly anyone ever agree's with you on any of your "philosopys" and "theories" and you are quite often proven to be wrong by overwhelming opinion yet you still insist you are correct !.

Of all the things that anoy me the fact you pass all your opinions off like facts has to be the worst. maybe you should look at that.

 

[Eclipse]

So if you get dropped 5 times, on 20, 40, 60, 80 and 99 and then you give a chance that is finally accepted on 102, then you've played well?
Sure.
For me if someone goes through a patch of high scoring that's mainly due to luck, it isn't a purple patch - it's a lucky patch.
Yes, sadly luck is a huge part of cricket - fortunately not quite as big as it used to be, but still sadly huge.
Hopefully it will continue to decrease until it plays negligable part at all, then we will be able to assess skill better.
IMO what makes a good batsman is being able to score runs without getting out - and if you get yourself out and a fielder drops the catch, that doesn't make you good IMO. Because had the chance been taken you would have been out and you wouldn't have been able to make any runs.

Yes he deserves it because he the feilders were to crap to get him out ie there skill was not good enough to take the catch.

 

[Craig]

I was doing a univeristy subject with Martin Love's ex-girlfriend and she said "that the Australian team do not like Matthew Elliot's attitude"

Apparently Matthew Elliot is really sh**y when he gets out and won't talk to anyone for the rest of the day and is not liked by most of the players, especially Steve Waugh, the current Australian captain. So I think Matthew Elliot's chances of making the Australian team are pretty slim.

Anyway...how can Australia even think of dropping one of the members of its best ever opening partnerships just because he's had two bad test matches?

I'm with Andre, I really want what ever you are smoking!

So what?

Who selects the team, Steve Waugh or the selectors?

Just because you play in a team doesnt mean you have to be best of friends. If he were to get picked again, or play with some of these players they should just shake hands and get over their problems.

Give somebody a pat on the back when they take a wicket or when they score a ton if batting with them or clap them on if he is not batting.

The only logical replacemtn I can truely see in a replacement for Jason Langer in the opening position is Jimmy Maher and Chris Rogers is more then a decent player.

 

[Richard]

This whole argument about luck is rather pointless. A batsman can't be blamed for getting dropped. Would we consider a guy unlucky if a fielder takes an absolute screamer and he's out. Things just happen. If you get dropped you stay in and make more runs. You may also get an awful umpiring decision and get less runs than you deserve. It all evens out in the end. The only way we have of really measuring any of this is through stats.

Richard if you don't personally rate some of these guys then fine it is your opinion but I think you'll find yourself in the minority.

Do you think that if a batsman is dropped then he should just walk off and say "I don't really deserve to stay in any longer. I played a bad shot and should be out. If I stay in then my average will be higher than I deserve". Of course not.

No one has proven to me that any particular batsman gets dropped or gets more bad umpiring decisions than anyone else so let's just stick to the facts (or stats) and rate these guys accordingly.

All fine, I certainly don't deny I'm in the minority, but if you think one bad shot, even if it doesn't result in a chance, "should" be out every time you'll not get many double-figures scores, let alone half-centuries.
First-chance averages are not very often disputed (most people will agree, if you push them, on what is and isn't a chance), and they're certainly stats, just not very oft-used ones.
The notion that "it all evens each other out in the end", however, I can safely tell you, is complete poppycock. Almost every batsman has more good luck in their career than bad. The fairest way, in my view, is to discount these variations and treat everyone the same. And also to remember things like RUDs and screaming catches.

 

[Eclipse]

All fine, I certainly don't deny I'm in the minority, but if you think one bad shot, even if it doesn't result in a chance, "should" be out every time you'll not get many double-figures scores, let alone half-centuries.
First-chance averages are not very often disputed (most people will agree, if you push them, on what is and isn't a chance), and they're certainly stats, just not very oft-used ones.
The notion that "it all evens each other out in the end", however, I can safely tell you, is complete poppycock. Almost every batsman has more good luck in their career than bad. The fairest way, in my view, is to discount these variations and treat everyone the same. And also to remember things like RUDs and screaming catches.

Yes you may be 100% correct even I agree that a first chance avrage would be a much better indication of somone's skill but I think you would find that more or less all off the good batsman with "conventional" avrages would also have the best first chance avrages.

we should just accept the system we have because it's not going to change and no one wants it to change exept you.

 

[Craig]

Well simply because it is the easiest system to use.

Stats are like mini skirts, they show a lot but hide the best bits.

 

[Gaijin-san]

The only logical replacemtn I can truely see in a replacement for Jason Langer...

Who? :P

Stats are like mini skirts, they show a lot but hide the best bits

Damn right, but do you get a boner every time you see a stat?