Luckiest and Unluckiest batsmen

[thierry henry]

Luckiest Australian batsmen:

Langer - the number of times he's plumb lbw (not given) or dropped in the first over of the match is unbelievable. He's also the master of the uncontrolled edge through slips for four. Seems to always play and miss too.

Gilchrist - seems to magically edge the ball to no man's land all the time. Seems not to be given out lbw a lot. Also gets dropped a lot - still remember the Ashes knock where he was dropped 4 times.

Hayden - seems to get dropped a lot too. Gets away with too many lbw's because he stands out of the crease, even when it hits him fairly low down.

I don't think any others are particularly lucky, perhaps Michael Clarke so far in his Test career.

lol. Couldn't agree more about Langer and Gilchrist. It really got me during the NZ-Aus series how so many NZ batsman got out caught behind or in the slips, compared to the amount of times the Aussie batsman knicked the ball through the cordon or played and missed.

 

[Loony BoB]

2001-2003 Vettori was unlucky to have decisions consistently go against him when they were clearly plumb lbw / caught behind. He still wouldn't have been a great bowler during these times, but it would have helped his average.

McCullum had one of the most unlucky series I've seen in a while when he was in Australia.

 

[James90]

McCullum was very unlucky in Brisbane and then the VB Series. Clarke hasn't had any luck whatsoever, I don't know what you're talking about Jnr.

It's funny how when the team's doing well the decisions go in there favour. Look at Australia v India, 2003 or Australia v NZ, 2004. And against the team who's struggling, Bangladesh v Pakistan must be the poorliest umpired series ever, Tigers were really ripped off by Asoka de Silva

 

[Jnr.]

McCullum was very unlucky in Brisbane and then the VB Series. Clarke hasn't had any luck whatsoever, I don't know what you're talking about Jnr.

I thought Clarke was very lucky in India. Match after match.

 

[tooextracool]

IMO hussain in the period from 99-01 was extremely unlucky. except of course for his century in SL where he had about 10 lives. but most often hes get every finger of his body broken or hed get some of the unluckiest dismissals possible.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Its often been said that good batsmen make their own luck, this is no doubt true to an extent. However as a long term cricket watcher I'm adament that some batsmen seem to have more than their share luck whereas others often of equal talent just have nothing go there way.

The lucky batsmen seem to always have close decisions go there way, will play and miss without ever seeming to get an edge, will have catches dropped and will often french-cut without ever playing on. While others will often edge a good ball early on or often manage to play-on with a french cut or often seem be dismissed by 50/50 umpiring decisions.

Lucky batsmen that spring to mind are:

Justin Langer (luckiest of all in my opinion) - great player don't get me wrong, but the amount of times he seems to play and miss, miscue into no-mans land never finding a fielder and get goods decisions in unbelievable.

Andrew Strauss (his test debut was unbelievable- in fact from memory he played on to his stumps and the bail somehow manged to stay in place)

Graham Gooch

Mark Taylor

Adam Gilchrist

Mark Richardson

Sanath Jayasuria

Graham Smith

Unlucky batsmen....

Stephen Fleming (always seems to edge a good ball early)

Damien Martyn

Micheal Vaughan

Mark Waugh


Whilst one could argue that through a players career these things even themselves out....I genuinely believe some batsmen just seem to have the luck of the Devil..


Any thoughts ? Have I missed any one obvious...

Plse note...I'm not downplaying the ability or skill of any of those above "lucky" batsmen. I just feel they seem to have more than there fair share of luck.

I think you'd have to have to look at this is a more scientific way (i.e check the stats) for each batsman before coming to any conclusion. Just sitting there going 'gee, he seems lucky' is really neither here nor there.

 

[Son Of Coco]

"Going at it hard" is a bit of a cliche. He hits the ball in the air and regularly mistimes it. He often seems to have no idea where the ball is going. Most players would pick out a fielder much more regularly.

No idea where the ball is going? We must be watching different players..

 

[Zinzan]

Well....having started this thread and read the replies, I think the consensus seems to suggest that Langer has the most lady-luck of the current players with day-light second. Gilchrist, Hayden and Strauss and Trescothic being the others who would do well to line up for a lotto ticket.

Of the unlucky players...The most popular seem to be
Ganga, Ponting, Dravid, Mccullum, Fleming, Vaughan (post 2002)

On a slightly different note.....

Gilchrist seems the Batsmen that umpires are most reluctant to give out.
Perhaps its because he doesn't walk .. but man I feel for bowlers when he does get away with a plum LBW being turned down, or a miscue that doesn't quite go to hand, because if the decision doesn't go the bowlers way early, Gilchrist will Murder you. All this said he's undoubtably the most dangerous player in world cricket at the moment (in my opinion) batsman or bowler!!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Dravid is really unlucky, dunno how many times he has got inside edges

Sehwag is lucky sure, but all that luck clogs up and he gets an BAT BEFORE WICKET from Bowden

Inside edge onto the stumps? That's not unlucky, it's either poor technique or a good ball. In fact, the bowler could claim to be unlucky if there was an inside edge and it missed everything. It was exactly how Taylor got out quite a few times during his bad run of form and I don't think anyone could claim that he was unlucky.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Karma!!!!!!
Some get more than others - that's not in any doubt once you've taken a close look.

Have you got the stats there Richard? Could you show us the number of times some of these lucky players have been more fortunate than others? I doubt you've taken that close a look somehow.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Seems like nearly the entire Australian team is very lucky if you ask me. A lot of decisions go in their favour.

Yeah, that's why they're winning. We're the luckiest team in the world, the difference is we spend more time practicing our luck.

 

[Son Of Coco]

This is certainly a very subjective thread.........one man's luck is another's good play, with claims like one team plays and misses a lot more than another (which I doubt given the quality of bowlers on the team in question), certain players are luckier/unluckier etc etc. It's amazing how many times a losing team has been unlucky whilst a winning team is the luckiest team in the world. I think it's that sort of mentality that sees the gap in World Cricket being as wide as it is, the difference between catches being caught and dropped is largely practice - so when you're talking about catches going through the slips cordon instead of being caught have a look at the catchers, not the batsman. You generally make your own luck, of course catches will be dropped etc that shouldn't be, but that's part of the game. This argument that certain players are more fortunate hasn't been proven on here by anyone making the statement yet.

 

[Zinzan]

Reasonable reply Son of coco..... To answer your question I have no scientific
proof to back up my opinions.

However I do have 25 years of watching every bit of cricket I possibly can, and I feel this qualifies me to make such an opinion. Remember this is just an opinion at the end of the day and it is interesting that others seem to agree with these views. Particularly the luck of Justin langer.

You make the point that an inside edge (or french-cut) is generally due to poor technique to which i agree entirely. Therefore assuming you have seen a lot of langers long innings recently, perhaps you could answer the question as to why so many of his inside edges seem to miss the stumps. Are you suggesting that his inside edges are due to a better technique than other batsmens inside edges just because it happens to miss either side of the stumps. I wouldn't think so.

If one batsmen in a season of say 10 tests inside edges 4 times just wide of the stumps and another batsmen playing 10 tests inside edges 4 times and all 4 hit the stumps, surely you can suggest that the former batsmen is luckier, and you don't need science to make such an opinion.

I want to reiterate that I think Langer is a fantastic player, in fact probably one of the most underated players around. However I just happen to think he is extremely lucky as well, not because of scientific reasons, just simply because thats what I feel.

 

[Zinzan]

Also with regard to Australia, I didn't say ALL aust batsmen were lucky, I definately think Langer has more than his fair shair of luck as previously mentioned and I definately feel Gilchrist gets more than his fair shair of LBW decisions, but again thats just my opinion from what I've seen.

To balance this though, I've also previously mentioned that Ponting is one of the unlucky batsmen and Damien Martyn seems to get more than his fair share of bad LBW decisions.

So this is not just an attack on Australian Batsmen. In fact you'll be pleased to know
it is also my opinion that this current Australian Test side is not only the best test team by a country mile at the moment, but I also believe it is at least as good as the great Windies side of the mid 80s.

I have no doubts about that

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well....having started this thread and read the replies, I think the consensus seems to suggest that Langer has the most lady-luck of the current players with day-light second. Gilchrist, Hayden and Strauss and Trescothic being the others who would do well to line up for a lotto ticket.

Of the unlucky players...The most popular seem to be
Ganga, Ponting, Dravid, Mccullum, Fleming, Vaughan (post 2002)

On a slightly different note.....

Gilchrist seems the Batsmen that umpires are most reluctant to give out.
Perhaps its because he doesn't walk .. but man I feel for bowlers when he does get away with a plum LBW being turned down, or a miscue that doesn't quite go to hand, because if the decision doesn't go the bowlers way early, Gilchrist will Murder you. All this said he's undoubtably the most dangerous player in world cricket at the moment (in my opinion) batsman or bowler!!

No way are Strauss & Trescothick 'lucky'.

 

[marc71178]

Gilchrist, Hayden and Strauss and Trescothic being the others who would do well to line up for a lotto ticket.

Strauss lucky?

Based on what exactly?

 

[marc71178]

If one batsmen in a season of say 10 tests inside edges 4 times just wide of the stumps and another batsmen playing 10 tests inside edges 4 times and all 4 hit the stumps, surely you can suggest that the former batsmen is luckier, and you don't need science to make such an opinion.

Actually I would disagree.

To inside edge wide of the stumps you need to get a thicker edge on the ball than if you inside edge onto the stumps.

Therefore the man who gets more in line with the ball and hits it better has benefitted compared with the one that didn't.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Actually I would disagree.

To inside edge wide of the stumps you need to get a thicker edge on the ball than if you inside edge onto the stumps.

Therefore the man who gets more in line with the ball and hits it better has benefitted compared with the one that didn't.

But there are plenty of inside edges that are thin enough to go offside of the stumps and beat the keeper and go off for 4 runs (or lands short of the keeper). Also there's the possibility of a thick inside edge that ends up being caught at short leg via a pad or something.

 

[Zinzan]

On Strauss, Admittedly I'm probably referring just to his first series against NZ - and I do here he got a crook LBW the other day so perhaps I've been tad bit harsh on him but.....I do

remember his test debut against NZ and fair enough he got run out in the 2nd innings missing out on a century in each innings....but what incredible luck he had apart from that. I remember him constantly frenchcutting and playing and missing and I don't mean a couple of times either. I remember him constantly grinning after playing a false shot staring into the sky as if to say this is my lucky day. Then to top it all off, he played another French cut, which to my absolute astonishment actually hit the wickets, went to third man for 4, and the bail didn't come off. The 2nd innings was the same..as was the 2nd test.

By the third test Cairns actually got him out early nicking him out and I remember thinking to myself - after watching him play and miss so many times in the series - YES - he's finally nicked one !!!!!! At Last, maybe the gods have deciding to turn their back.

I do think that struass is a great bat, but I'll never forget his luck in that series...

As i said , admittedly I only saw that series, so I've probably been a bit tough on Strauss. I take it since then, things have evened out?

 

[Macka]

Yeah, that's why they're winning. We're the luckiest team in the world, the difference is we spend more time practicing our luck.

I never said that Australia only win because they're lucky. Australia is the best test team in the world. Is that want you wanted to hear?

You just have to look at the decisions that went against New Zealand when they were in Aussie. How many chances did Gilchrist, Hayden and Langer have? A lot. Yes, a few decisions went in favour of New Zealand - that's cricket. However, the umpiring was poor at times and New Zealand came off second best in that regard by quite a margin.