Luckiest and Unluckiest batsmen

[Richard]

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

And as I've said most people will when pressed.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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

Haha, well if it was that obvious why wasn't it posted before?

You'll have to remind me re: the purpose of the thread, or at least of your opinion as to what this purpose is.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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

You would have to compare it to everyone though mate. Not just pick out the players you think are lucky.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Which would indicate that a fair amount of poor preparation on their behalf contributed to the luck Australia received through dropped catches I'd presume.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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

exactly.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Of course, but then as I said we're often blind to decisions that go in our countries favour.

 

[steds]

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

*DumDumDum Dum!!!

The Whole of CW stops and stares and the AAAS start sharpening their knives*

 

[marc71178]

Wait 'til marc gets-hold of that one!

I tend to ignore people who come in make one post and disappear.

Besides, the AAAS have never seriously claimed AA to a great player.

 

[Treximus]

Mark Vermeulen has to be an unlucky batsman. Twice he has been hit by balls which bounced between his helmet and his grille, and if it happens again he could die.
That's hardly the sign of a lucky batsman.

 

[Richard]

I tend to ignore people who come in make one post and disappear.

Besides, the AAAS have never seriously claimed AA to a great player.

Yes, I know - like Sean, I was simply making a piece of light-hearted conversation.

 

[Richard]

You would have to compare it to everyone though mate. Not just pick out the players you think are lucky.

Look, it really is impossible to do it for everyone - yes, you're right, it's easy to get the misleading idea that some players are luckier than others just by random-sampling (especially where bias comes in with regards those catches having cost your team), but I have taken a few other samples and for a batsman who's averaged 40 in Test-cricket for a year a standard first-chance average is something in the region of 35.
Trescothick was abnormally lucky in his early Test-career - believe me.

 

[Richard]

Which would indicate that a fair amount of poor preparation on their behalf contributed to the luck Australia received through dropped catches I'd presume.

Yet the same thing has happened in each of the last 3 Ashes series (and it may be more).
If it's the same poor preparation every time there's some serious naivity in the dressing-room - something I personally find less hard, more impossible, to conceive.
No, there's another reason why England always drop stacks of catches against Australia - I haven't a clue what it is, but it can't possibly be poor preparation.

 

[marc71178]

Look, it really is impossible to do it for everyone

More reason why it is a flawed concept.

 

[Richard]

No, no more than the reasons why everything is a flawed concept.
Because nothing is perfect.

 

[marc71178]

a) there's no such universal defintion of a catch.
b) it is impossible to do it for anyone pre about 1960.
c) you yourself have said it's impossible to do for everyone.

a) is the key one here, but b) and c) both show how it is so flawed, far less so than something that can be easily calculated without having to rely on personal opnions.

 

[nikhil1772]

I tend to ignore people who come in make one post and disappear.

Besides, the AAAS have never seriously claimed AA to a great player.

Exactly...

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

Funny,because I was going to name AA among the unluckier ones...the very statement of him being dropped and picked states that he is unlucky...

Among the luckier ones I'd say just about every great batsman on his way to greatness...howzat?

 

[Richard]

a) there's no such universal defintion of a catch.
b) it is impossible to do it for anyone pre about 1960.
c) you yourself have said it's impossible to do for everyone.

a) is the key one here, but b) and c) both show how it is so flawed, far less so than something that can be easily calculated without having to rely on personal opnions.

Yet the something relies on the non-existance of luck - which as far as I'm concerned is a far bigger flaw than any of those you name.
And as for a) no, there isn't, but if people could actually grasp the importance of there being one, there probably would be.

 

[marc71178]

I notice you ignore b) and c) whilst continuing to argue on a) in spite of the number of times on here we see disagreements over a chance.

b) and c) actually make it irrelevant, not flawed.

 

[Richard]

No, the fact that you can't do it with too much certainty for every player or pre 1960 or-so or at every level don't make it irrelevant, because the only time it matters is modern international cricket - certainly it doesn't matter much at any level below, because the only level often used to assess the standing of a player is the international.
And with regards the disputing, as I've said countless times there'd be far less disagreement if people actually realised the importance of the things and didn't just treat them as a small talking-point, and hence there'd be far more standardisation.

 

[marc71178]

Unless you can compare all players with it, please tell me how it is relevant.

Because you've said so?