I'm angry at McMillan

[Swervy]

To make the players realise that there's no reason they shouldn't be happy doing it.
If Vaughan's failures as an opener continue (and exclude the Bangladesh games - like it or not, they're worth nothing more than CC games - and they are failures).
There has been no difference between Hussain's successes and failures at three and four, Butcher is actually better opening than at three, even if the average that matters shows a difference of about 4 in the opposite direction; and Vaughan is better at four than opening, that is shown clearly by his first-chance average when opening - and recently the first-chance average has started to become the same as the scorebook one, so maybe you'll have to accept the pattern before long.
That's why break-up something for something else.

where can one see this first chance average thing? I would be interested in seeing it

 

[Rik]

where can one see this first chance average thing? I would be interested in seeing it

It's one of Richard's views that Marc *ahem* doesn't agree with...

 

[Swervy]

It's one of Richard's views that Marc *ahem* doesn't agree with...

so is it a figure that isnt widely seen by people..i have never seen it before reading about it here...I am sure it is interesting to see,and I can understand some of its uses, but in the end,the game is about how many runs you DO score.

It does make you think though, about when Hussain dropped G.smith last summer when he was on nxt to nothing and then he went on to make 250 odd.

 

[Richard]

If Hussain had taken that comparatively simple catch Graeme would have made 8 and no more. Simple as.
However, he did play well for 251 after that. And he did have some bad luck in the rest of the series (run-out at The Oval, lbw when he nicked it at Trent Bridge, treading on his stumps).
It's about how many runs you do score when you consider results of games - but when judging the skill of a batsman it's about how well he's played. And if he only scored 251 because he got dropped on 8, surely the fact that he doesn't deserve any credit for the dropped catch counts for something?

 

[marc71178]

The notable difference is between the periods, not the positions.

Yet in one period he predominantly opened and in the other he predominantly came in at 3...

 

[Rik]

so is it a figure that isnt widely seen by people..i have never seen it before reading about it here...I am sure it is interesting to see,and I can understand some of its uses, but in the end,the game is about how many runs you DO score.

It does make you think though, about when Hussain dropped G.smith last summer when he was on nxt to nothing and then he went on to make 250 odd.

It's an interisting spin-off point of view I feel, and it does give you an insite into how lucky some players are, ie someone might be scoring runs all the time and being dropped in every innings, that wouldn't make you want to pick him because his innings should have terminated early every time. But in the end it's about how many runs you score, of course it is, but if someone's stupidly lucky all the time, it's useful to know.

 

[Richard]

Yet in one period he predominantly opened and in the other he predominantly came in at 3...

Exactly, that's just where the potential for misinterpretation comes from!
Now you've identified the source of the problem, maybe you could come-up with a way to correct it?










Didn't think so.

 

[marc71178]

Exactly, that's just where the potential for misinterpretation comes from!

So it's just a misinterpretation then?

Period 1 he opens and isn't particularly successful

Period 2 he's batting at 3 and is successful

He himself states he thinks he plays better at 3.

But it is all luck, coincidence and misinterpretation.

 

[Richard]

Yep, it is just a misinterpretation, and you've summed it up perfectly there. No luck or coincidence involved here, though - don't know where you got them from.
Now, the truth of the matter is:
Period one, he bats at three and one, mostly at one. He doesn't have much success; the short period of success he does have is opening.
Period two, he bats at three and one, mostly at three. He has plenty of success in both positions. Because one is more extensive than the other, many people (himeself included) come to the very misleading conclusion that he must be better at three - rather than simply better because he has worked on his game.
Superstition is a common thing amongst cricketers, and in many cases it genuinely causes problems.

 

[Craig]

By the looks of it...NZ may persist with this idea of McCullum at #3, playing him as a pinch-hitter.
McCullum is capable of playing some explosive innings but he's yet to really do it successfully at international level.

Why do New Zealand need to play a pinch hitter for? They dont really work anymore.

Except with South Africa by putting Boje at 3.

 

[marc71178]

It's amazing how the things that go against Richard's beliefs are all coincidences...

 

[PY]

treading on his stumps

I would say that is more of a technical deficiency than a slice of bad luck to be honest. It wasn't just a small clip either, he properly trod on them.

 

[Richard]

I would say that is more of a technical deficiency than a slice of bad luck to be honest. It wasn't just a small clip either, he properly trod on them.

Well, all right, it wasn't unlucky, it was just plain careless, but it wasn't a dismissal where the bowler did anything right.

 

[Richard]

It's amazing how the things that go against Richard's beliefs are all coincidences...

Or had you thought about the possibility that just maybe I might have based my beliefs on the fact that they were coincidences?
Of course you have, because I've made you, but still - of course I can't possibly be speaking the truth, because you and the idiot have already decided that I simply come-up with ideals and search for something to prove them.
Rather a "co-incidence", then, that I agree with most people on so many other players?

 

[Swervy]

Of course you have, because I've made you, but still - of course I can't possibly be speaking the truth, because you and the idiot have already decided that I simply come-up with ideals and search for something to prove them.

erm....hold on a sec:O ...now i am going to get a bit paranoid here...at the moment it would appear that me and marc have been the ones questioning some of your postings quite a lot..well ok..pretty much all of them...I certainly do hope 'the idiot' you are referring to isnt me.

Coz at no point have i resorted to personal insults in your direction.

 

[Richard]

No, I was referring to that sarcastic fool raju.

 

[Swervy]

No, I was referring to that sarcastic fool raju.

thats ok then...

 

[marc71178]

Or had you thought about the possibility that just maybe I might have based my beliefs on the fact that they were coincidences?

Automatically a fact then?

The fact that Butcher thinks something clearly doesn't change that, I mean what would he know about his own game?

 

[Richard]

The same amount as the like of you who use skewed statistics to make their ideas.

 

[marc71178]

The same amount as the like of you who use skewed statistics to make their ideas.

Skewed?

Such as?