Luckiest and Unluckiest batsmen

[Smudge]

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.

Hayden, for one, doesn't even need to concentrate properly until the second over. He's never going to be given out in the first, that's for sure...

 

[Eclipse]

Gilly went through patch where he used to get droped alot, Ashes in 2000 in particular, that was embarrissing, doesn't seem to be happening much now days or though he has had some dicey LBW calls not given out..

Sehwag is the most lucky guy if you ask me..

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

And of course you are entitled to that opinion mate. I was just making the point that a lot of people get very lucky in cricket from time to time (or trying to) and you'd really have to sit down and look at a lot of dismissals/non-dismissals to work out whether it's abnormally lucky or not. Luck is often judged very subjectively, with a person's favourite team being the unluckiest in the world whilst whoever they play against are the luckiest.


Langer is definately lucky when he gets away with an inside edge, but I have watched him play in both the recent series and haven't seen an abnormal number - nothing like Taylor when he was out of form and seemed to get out that way at at least 50% of the time. There's no difference between being lucky like this and the Pakistani and NZ batsmen (or whoever) constantly slicing balls through the slips cordon etc.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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

And I agree that Gilchrist has been lucky with a couple of LBW decisions of late, but a lot of times threads like this are based on what's happened in the last 3 - 5 tests or so and all of a sudden a player becomes the luckiest/unluckiest in the world due to 8-10 innings. I think it has to be looked at over a much longer period than this.

I realised that it wasn't an attack on the Aussie batsmen. Just not a big believer in luck playing too large a part in a lengthy career of any player.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Mate, I'm not concerned about your opinon re: Australia's position in world cricket. Don't leap out of the pram when someone disagrees.

A team's supporters are often blind to their own luck, so maybe both of us are arguing a mute point.

My point re: practicing our luck was that edges flying through slips are going to occur on a fairly regular basis, but obviously the team with better slips fielders will catch more than the other......unfortunately we've all seen the Australian team (or fortunately, depending on where you're from) dropping heaps lately. Thus adding to the amount of luck going the other way though. I saw a lot of edges from both Pakistan and NZ go through the slips etc quite regularly and thought "you lucky @#$', in rely to another poster though I would call playing and missing luck as it happens regularly enough to make every person playing at the moment as lucky as you can get.

As I said before - all very subjective and open to extreme bias, as we can see.

 

[thierry henry]

I appreciate your opinions Mr Coco, but I feel that you are stating the obvious and rather defeating the purpose of the thread.

 

[social]

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

He gets inside edges because he sometimes plays with an angles bat.

That's a technical flaw not bad luck.

 

[social]

Cannot believe the number of people saying that Gilchrist is unduly lucky.

Sure he had a couple of dodgy lbw decisions go his way recently vs Vettori, but he also had a run on the sub-continent where all Harbijhan had to do was hit his pad and the finger would go up.

As for other matters, he does hit the ball in the air a lot but is generally regarded as one of the best ever hitters of a cricket ball and, as such, seems to hit through and over fields with ease. To suggest that it is "luck" that these are not going to hand is be ignorant of the talent the guy possesses.

Langer, on the other hand, is the luckiest batman playing test cricket. He only reclaimed his test spot as a result of being "last man standing" when Slater had a personality dispute with management on an Ashes tour, and subsequently scored 100s in about 4 consecutive tests hwere he was either dropped or the beneficiary of a horrendous decision on zero.

 

[Richard]

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.

Done it for Vaughan-from-May02-to-Dec02 and Sehwag-from-Nov03-to-Dec04 in another thread.
Here is Trescothick-from-Jul00-to-Jul02, though:
Scorebook-average in period: 41.75
First-chance average: 28.18

 

[Richard]

No way are Strauss & Trescothick 'lucky'.

Trescothick most certainly is.

 

[Richard]

This is certainly a very subjective thread.........one man's luck is another's good play

True in some instances, but no-one will argue that being dropped when you should have been caught or getting a bad decision for or against you constitutes luck on the batsman's part (good or bad).
IMO anything else is, simply, "part of the game" - inside-edges happen, hitting the ball in the air an inch from a fielder happens - get over it.

You generally make your own luck, of course catches will be dropped etc that shouldn't be, but that's part of the game.

It's "part of the game", yes, but it's not part of quality batsmanship and hence when summarising that you need to take luck out of the equation.

 

[Richard]

Gilly went through patch where he used to get droped alot, Ashes in 2000 in particular, that was embarrissing, doesn't seem to be happening much now days or though he has had some dicey LBW calls not given out..

Sehwag is the most lucky guy if you ask me..

Funny, that - given that his luck had most impact on Australia!
Of course we're always going to notice most luck that impacts on the fortunes of our team - I'll not deny that The Ashes 2001 (not 2000!) infuriated me re: Gilchrist being dropped all the time (7 times in 2 innings!). But I have also noticed him being dropped a hell of a lot after that, and of course recently the Vettori lbws.

 

[tooextracool]

Funny, that - given that his luck had most impact on Australia!
Of course we're always going to notice most luck that impacts on the fortunes of our team - I'll not deny that The Ashes 2001 (not 2000!) infuriated me re: Gilchrist being dropped all the time (7 times in 2 innings!). But I have also noticed him being dropped a hell of a lot after that, and of course recently the Vettori lbws.

just on the topic about catches being dropped in the ashes 01, any idea how many catches were dropped by england in that entire series?
my guess would be somewhere near 50.

 

[marc71178]

True in some instances, but no-one will argue that being dropped when you should have been caught or getting a bad decision for or against you constitutes luck on the batsman's part (good or bad).

If people could agree on what a chance is that is...

 

[Macka]

Mate, I'm not concerned about your opinon re: Australia's position in world cricket. Don't leap out of the pram when someone disagrees.

A team's supporters are often blind to their own luck, so maybe both of us are arguing a mute point.

My point re: practicing our luck was that edges flying through slips are going to occur on a fairly regular basis, but obviously the team with better slips fielders will catch more than the other......unfortunately we've all seen the Australian team (or fortunately, depending on where you're from) dropping heaps lately. Thus adding to the amount of luck going the other way though. I saw a lot of edges from both Pakistan and NZ go through the slips etc quite regularly and thought "you lucky @#$', in rely to another poster though I would call playing and missing luck as it happens regularly enough to make every person playing at the moment as lucky as you can get.

As I said before - all very subjective and open to extreme bias, as we can see.

Mate, of course everyone's point of view is subjective. I wasn't talking about slip chances or dropped catches, those are something the players can control. I was talking about the umpiring decisions, specifically the lbw decisions, which went against New Zealand. Far more went in favour of Australia than New Zealand in my opinion.

 

[Jnr.]

But I have also noticed him being dropped a hell of a lot after that, and of course recently the Vettori lbws.

At Adelaide, twice in two overs, Vettori and Wiseman had Gilchrist PLUMB lbw when he was on 2 - neither were given. He went on to make 50. And of course in the first Test when he was palpably lbw on 7 and went on to make 100.

It was embarassing from an Australian point of view.

 

[Eclipse]

Funny, that - given that his luck had most impact on Australia!
Of course we're always going to notice most luck that impacts on the fortunes of our team - I'll not deny that The Ashes 2001 (not 2000!) infuriated me re: Gilchrist being dropped all the time (7 times in 2 innings!). But I have also noticed him being dropped a hell of a lot after that, and of course recently the Vettori lbws.

Over the last year he hasn't really been droped to much infact over the last year and a half two years he has been droped probably no more than most.. bad LBW's decisions I wont argue with that... deffinatly had a few of them.

Everyone notices the chnaces gilly gives thjough because if your the oposition your just dieing to see the back of him.. same with me and Sehwag I guess..

 

[amokk1]

You Guys Are Forgetting Ajit Agarkar...

Ajit Agarkar is the luckiest player to have ever played cricket. The amount of times he has been dropped and picked again is phenomenal.

 

[Richard]

Wait 'til marc gets-hold of that one!

 

[Richard]

just on the topic about catches being dropped in the ashes 01, any idea how many catches were dropped by england in that entire series?
my guess would be somewhere near 50.

I reckon between 30 and 40.
Certainly in the first 2 it was about 20... wasn't quite so bad in the next 3, but there were still some.
I'd reckon it'd hit the 50 mark easily in '01 and '02\03 combined.