Luckiest and Unluckiest batsmen

[marc71178]

4.5 x 8 = 36

Depends what number system you use - obviously Richard's system of numbers is different because he has a prejudice against the teens and the number 27 (so therefore he can decide they don't exist)

 

[Son Of Coco]

Depends what number system you use - obviously Richard's system of numbers is different because he has a prejudice against the teens and the number 27 (so therefore he can decide they don't exist)

 

[tooextracool]

I did not hand-pick them at all, I picked them totally at random.

if you did then how come you managed to pick all 15 that you dont like? and why wasnt your favorite player smith in it?

 

[tooextracool]

No, he's not had as many, he's had far more (in a shorter period) - Smith has simply tended to score more having been let-off.

which changes the fact that smith has been lucky how? whether or not smith scores more after being let off is irrelevant, it only shows how much he benefits from being dropped. i'd like to see the first chance average of both smith and sehwag along with the number of let offs that they've had. of course i wouldnt be surprised if you came up with some sort of excuse to save bradmanesque smith from being found out to be worse than mediocre sehwag.

 

[Swervy]

which changes the fact that smith has been lucky how? whether or not smith scores more after being let off is irrelevant, it only shows how much he benefits from being dropped. i'd like to see the first chance average of both smith and sehwag along with the number of let offs that they've had. of course i wouldnt be surprised if you came up with some sort of excuse to save bradmanesque smith from being found out to be worse than mediocre sehwag.

it would be an anomoly!!!!

 

[indie2]

This first chance thing is an interesting way of looking at the world.

But...

If you depend on a simplistic formula -- "the failures of the opposition should not be taken into consideration, the chance should have been taken, all chances should be seen as out" (which is what I understand the first-chance thing to imply) -- then you have to also include other factors.

For example, a more skilled captain might have set different fields, so things that aren't even seen as chances would've been chances if a fielder had been in the right position. Therefore the runs shouldn't count to the batsman's name.

Or, a better bowler would have got the batsman out earlier; the fact the batsman was able to score so many runs is not due to his own ability as much as the failure of the opposition to bowl better, or the failure of the opposition captain to rotate his bowlers appropriately. Therefore the runs shouldn't count to the batsman's name.

I'm sure there are many, many more.

The point is, the weaknesses of the opposition -- whether in terms of dropping chances, setting fields, bowling better, better captaincy -- are integral to not only the figures the batsman produces but also to the way he plays the game. It is his knowledge of this that in part determines his success. Sehwag is an example -- he knows he can get away with more than some others do because of the way he plays his game. Viv Richards was another -- he was so intimidating that captains set fields for him they would not otherwise have set.

So I reckon the first-chance business, while worth passing attention as a view on the game, is ultimately not worth a lot. Every batsman plays the opposition he faces, not a perfect opposition; and the knowledge the opposition is less than perfect is integral to the batsman's approach to his innings.

Surviving chances is not always luck; it may be down to intimidation, aggression, calculation...

Anyway, that's my 2 cents

 

[Swervy]

This first chance thing is an interesting way of looking at the world.

But...

If you depend on a simplistic formula -- "the failures of the opposition should not be taken into consideration, the chance should have been taken, all chances should be seen as out" (which is what I understand the first-chance thing to imply) -- then you have to also include other factors.

For example, a more skilled captain might have set different fields, so things that aren't even seen as chances would've been chances if a fielder had been in the right position. Therefore the runs shouldn't count to the batsman's name.

Or, a better bowler would have got the batsman out earlier; the fact the batsman was able to score so many runs is not due to his own ability as much as the failure of the opposition to bowl better, or the failure of the opposition captain to rotate his bowlers appropriately. Therefore the runs shouldn't count to the batsman's name.

I'm sure there are many, many more.

The point is, the weaknesses of the opposition -- whether in terms of dropping chances, setting fields, bowling better, better captaincy -- are integral to not only the figures the batsman produces but also to the way he plays the game. It is his knowledge of this that in part determines his success. Sehwag is an example -- he knows he can get away with more than some others do because of the way he plays his game. Viv Richards was another -- he was so intimidating that captains set fields for him they would not otherwise have set.

So I reckon the first-chance business, while worth passing attention as a view on the game, is ultimately not worth a lot. Every batsman plays the opposition he faces, not a perfect opposition; and the knowledge the opposition is less than perfect is integral to the batsman's approach to his innings.

Surviving chances is not always luck; it may be down to intimidation, aggression, calculation...

Anyway, that's my 2 cents

and those 2 cents appear to be worth a lot more...bravo

 

[Zinzan]

This first chance thing is an interesting way of looking at the world.

But...

If you depend on a simplistic formula -- "the failures of the opposition should not be taken into consideration, the chance should have been taken, all chances should be seen as out" (which is what I understand the first-chance thing to imply) -- then you have to also include other factors.

For example, a more skilled captain might have set different fields, so things that aren't even seen as chances would've been chances if a fielder had been in the right position. Therefore the runs shouldn't count to the batsman's name.

Or, a better bowler would have got the batsman out earlier; the fact the batsman was able to score so many runs is not due to his own ability as much as the failure of the opposition to bowl better, or the failure of the opposition captain to rotate his bowlers appropriately. Therefore the runs shouldn't count to the batsman's name.

I'm sure there are many, many more.

The point is, the weaknesses of the opposition -- whether in terms of dropping chances, setting fields, bowling better, better captaincy -- are integral to not only the figures the batsman produces but also to the way he plays the game. It is his knowledge of this that in part determines his success. Sehwag is an example -- he knows he can get away with more than some others do because of the way he plays his game. Viv Richards was another -- he was so intimidating that captains set fields for him they would not otherwise have set.

So I reckon the first-chance business, while worth passing attention as a view on the game, is ultimately not worth a lot. Every batsman plays the opposition he faces, not a perfect opposition; and the knowledge the opposition is less than perfect is integral to the batsman's approach to his innings.

Surviving chances is not always luck; it may be down to intimidation, aggression, calculation...

Anyway, that's my 2 cents

Its not quite that black and White

 

[shoot_me]

As an Indian, i'm ashamed to say that I think Sourav Ganguly, without a doubt, is one of the luckiest batsmen in the game today.

 

[Richard]

Was AB lucky????

Never really thought of him as lucky...

I wasn't the one who said players who had long careers were lucky.

 

[Richard]

15 out of how many?

About 50.

What period are we talking about?

2000-2002

Can we be sure that what is described as a let off in these reports is actually so?

Pretty darn sure - you get to know reporters and who's likely to accurately describe a chance and who's likely to call everything that touches the fingertip a chance.

How do you know your brother didn't just pick the players he's heard of? Your method still isn't random.

My brother's mind doesn't work like that.

 

[SJS]

As an Indian, i'm ashamed to say that I think Sourav Ganguly, without a doubt, is one of the luckiest batsmen in the game today.

Luckiest because he gets dropped by the fielders

OR

because he doesnt get dropped....by the selectors

 

[Richard]

That would be great, thanks!

OK, the players I used were:
R Dravid (35 games), A Flower (24 games), ME Waugh (29 games), Yousuf Youhana (27 games), HH Gibbs (25 games), S Chanderpaul (26 games), VVS Laxman (28 games), AJ Stewart (32 games), Younis Khan (26 games), CL Hooper (22 games), SS Das (23 games), RT Ponting (30 games), JH Kallis (33 matches), CD McMillan (25 matches) and KC Sangakkara (26 matches).
The qualification was that they had to have played what I considered regularly for one of the Test-standard teams in 2002 (ie no Bangladeshis) and be specialist-batsmen; I collated their scorebook-averages in the period inclusive of all Tests in 2000, 2001 and 2002, then did my best shot at first-chance averages for the lot of them.
These were compared to Marcus Trescothick and Adam Gilchrist, two players who I'd thought numerous times "what lucky baastuds" in those 2 years. For Trescothick I could do an exact first-chance average with absolute certainty; for Gilchrist it was just near-certainty to within a decimal-place or two.
And I was right in my perception that they benefited far more than most do.

 

[Richard]

No side plays 4 or 5 specialist bats.

Also, to define luck under your theory, surely you need to look at what they do average as a percentage of what they'd average if dropped catches (that could actually be agreed upon) were held.

Therefore, every player is relevant, not just 4 or 5 players a team.

Why so?
There are only 4 or 5 batsmen who will play regularly in a year, take a look at the records. Hardly any team has a settled batting-line-up throughout a year.

 

[Richard]

if you did then how come you managed to pick all 15 that you dont like? and why wasnt your favorite player smith in it?

Smith wasn't in it because he wasn't selected.
And where on Earth d'you get the idea that I "don't like" all the 15?

 

[Richard]

which changes the fact that smith has been lucky how? whether or not smith scores more after being let off is irrelevant, it only shows how much he benefits from being dropped. i'd like to see the first chance average of both smith and sehwag along with the number of let offs that they've had. of course i wouldnt be surprised if you came up with some sort of excuse to save bradmanesque smith from being found out to be worse than mediocre sehwag.

As I've said, you're in a far better position to do that than me, given that I presume with the amount of cricket you watch you've seen nearly every game the two have played.
You really are getting nowhere continually describing Smith as Bradmanesque.

 

[Richard]

This first chance thing is an interesting way of looking at the world.

But...

If you depend on a simplistic formula -- "the failures of the opposition should not be taken into consideration, the chance should have been taken, all chances should be seen as out" (which is what I understand the first-chance thing to imply) -- then you have to also include other factors.

For example, a more skilled captain might have set different fields, so things that aren't even seen as chances would've been chances if a fielder had been in the right position. Therefore the runs shouldn't count to the batsman's name.

Or, a better bowler would have got the batsman out earlier; the fact the batsman was able to score so many runs is not due to his own ability as much as the failure of the opposition to bowl better, or the failure of the opposition captain to rotate his bowlers appropriately. Therefore the runs shouldn't count to the batsman's name.

I'm sure there are many, many more.

The point is, the weaknesses of the opposition -- whether in terms of dropping chances, setting fields, bowling better, better captaincy -- are integral to not only the figures the batsman produces but also to the way he plays the game. It is his knowledge of this that in part determines his success. Sehwag is an example -- he knows he can get away with more than some others do because of the way he plays his game. Viv Richards was another -- he was so intimidating that captains set fields for him they would not otherwise have set.

So I reckon the first-chance business, while worth passing attention as a view on the game, is ultimately not worth a lot. Every batsman plays the opposition he faces, not a perfect opposition; and the knowledge the opposition is less than perfect is integral to the batsman's approach to his innings.

Surviving chances is not always luck; it may be down to intimidation, aggression, calculation...

Anyway, that's my 2 cents

Most weaknesses cannot be quantified - field-setting, bowling quality, etc.
Dropped catches are discrete, exact, and there's no "might have" in it. It is set-in-stone: he would have been out, not he "might" have done not as well if this or that.
Surviving chances is down to luck; most catches give a split-second's reaction time, there's no time for the fielder to be intimidated; others are so simple you can never expect anything but an easy swallow.
Dropped catches and Umpiring reprieves are like nothing else in batting; you cannot expect to be dropped or given not-out incorrectly (or out, for that matter). You can, however, know that no bowler is anything remotely close to perfect, and has far, far more ways to go wrong than fielders or Umpires. There is a massive field and scope for bowling and field-setting errors; for fielding and Umpiring errors, it's either a do or don't; you get it right, or you get it wrong. Catch the catch, no matter how many times you juggle it, you've got it right; give the lbw (or caught) decision correctly, however borderline, you've got it right. The same applies to getting it wrong.

 

[Richard]

and those 2 cents appear to be worth a lot more...bravo

Still think so? ^^^^^
Presumably - because some of us won't budge from our conventional ways.

 

[marc71178]

Why so?

How else will you find average luck when the sample of the whole population is so small.

And most sides play more than 4 or 5 specialist bats.

 

[marc71178]

You really are getting nowhere continually describing Smith as Bradmanesque.

Oh, the irony.