-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Figuring out the most impressive individual performances during a test series ever
- Thread starter mr_mister
- Start date
a massive zebra
International Captain
I completely disagree. You make it sound like catches are something that are just swallowed up at any opportunity like a glass of water.
The success rate of individual fielders in taking catching opportunities generally varies from around 60% to 90+%. If taking a catch is 98% a function of how many opportunities your bowlers create and no indication of how well someone has played, why do some fielders drop 40% of catching opportunities while others drop 10% or less.
If catches should be ignored when measuring the impact of an individual player, it follows that they are of no value to the success of the team. If taking a catch is indeed of no value to the success of the team, why are around 60% of dismissals out caught? Good catching can make the difference between winning and losing, is therefore a crucial part of the game which should be factored in when measuring the overall contribution of a player.
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
In theory, what you say makes sense. But in practice, specifically in this situation where all you are counting is outright quantity of catches taken, as the sole measure of performance. Not so much.
Say one guy takes 10 catches from 15 attempts in a series and another guy takes 6 catches out of 6 attempts. The 1st guy is getting more credit.
I feel you've missed the actual practicality of what we're talking about and instead are arguing "catches are important", when it's really not that relevant in context. Points for effort though.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
And tbh if anything my numbers of 98% opportunities/luck and 2% actually catching it was conservative. Just think about everything that goes into whether a delivery ends up as a catch taken before the fielder even comes into it.
Clearly catching ability plays a part but it's really luck more than anything as to whether a certain player gets catching opportunities going to them. Making runs and taking wickets require some luck, and rely somewhat on other players support. but nothing compared to catches.
So actually on topic, I'm sure you can understand my questioning of why "total catches taken in a series" would be as heavily weighted a criterion for an "impressive individual performance" as it is.
Clearly catching ability plays a part but it's really luck more than anything as to whether a certain player gets catching opportunities going to them. Making runs and taking wickets require some luck, and rely somewhat on other players support. but nothing compared to catches.
So actually on topic, I'm sure you can understand my questioning of why "total catches taken in a series" would be as heavily weighted a criterion for an "impressive individual performance" as it is.
Last edited:
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Yeah but there is no measure to the quality of catchers nor to the ratio of chances to catch vs actually caught. And we have not even scratched the surface that it is dependent on the bowling unit's quality as well, especially if its a wicket keeper. Just think it complicates things too much and it would be easier to give it much lesser weightage or outright remove it altogether at least for this exercise.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yes if it was somehow weighted to take into account factors like:
- the number of chances the fielder actually got
- catching percentage
- quality of bowlers
- difficulty of catches
- etc.
that would be great, but likely almost impossible. The only measure being "number of catches taken" by a player, is just a **** measure.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
The catches increase your influence on the series in question.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
That took you a while ....
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
That is not really fair though.. Fielders effecting run outs could influence games too. I agree it does mean something but the valuation of it seemed a bit too high for my liking.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Not been reading CC much outside of the tour threads. Clearly I need to pop into the rest of the threads more often and keep people in line.
cnerd123
likes this
I'm not sure you should be allowed to post in Cricket Chat with a footballer in your avvie tbh
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Looks more like a soccer player, doesn't it?
cnerd123
likes this
doesn't really matter; dumb sport either way
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Indeed.
Going back to Flintoff's performance in 2005, someone needs to work out how to factor in the quality of the opposition. Then he's probably a shoe-in.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
What baffles me is the OP mentioned Warne in the same series. Flawed methodology when you include the second best performance from a series but not the best.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Mate, I don't mean to be rude, but you remind me of a bloke who's lived in an area long enough now to be a regular in his local. And all of a sudden he thinks he owns the place. And the blokes who've drank there for years all think that fella is a ****ing idiot, a nobody.
You just tried to sit in my chair mate. This is my yard and I'm the big dog that runs this yard. I'm GI ****ing MH and I have whatever the **** I want in my avatar. Now **** off and like my post.
