Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Richard]

alot of Clarke's misfields most fielders wouldn't have got near

Rubbish, most I'm thinking of were impossible to not get near because they were straight at him.

 

[Richard]

well harder chances have been taken, it was certainly a chance.

No, very occasionally catches like that get caught, and when they do they're near-miracles.

 

[Richard]

no more like, you have no idea.

personally, i put great pride into my fielding - its certainly much better than any other part of my game - but anyways, i know that i know much more about fielding than most, and from what you have said particularly than you but you wont change your mind so i cant be bothered

I can assure you you don't know more about it than me, and probably plenty of others on this board.
You have no idea if you think Clarke is aught but a relatively poor fielder.

 

[Richard]

Clarke has only been in the team for a year. IN fact, he completed his first Test a year ago yesterday.

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/AUS_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/AUS_IND_T1_06-10OCT2004.html

He's been in the ODI side for about a year longer.
And he's been dropping and misfielding in that form of the game for about that time.
I can't think of a massive number of mistakes he's made in Tests.

Who said it doesn't exist? No-one, that's who. I certainly did. It's the proportion of stuff you attribute to luck or attempt to explain away with the term which is the problem.

The scorebook average pretends luck doesn't exist.
If you set greater import on the scorebook average than one that takes account of luck you ARE essentially pretending luck doesn't exist.

Yeah of course I've noticed them say that and in TEC's case (mostly in the official threads so that would explain why you haven't seen it), I've said something and in Marc's case, it's pretty clear he's speaking his mind. At least neither of them state their opinion and point to some idea like first-chances

No, they use something with even less credibility.

(I don't tlike everyone calling it a 'theory'; theories require proof and lots of it), as if to confer greater legitimacy to their opinions or something.

Idea, theory, whatever floats your boat.

When used in isolation, of course. At least their objective fact (descriptive stats of a player I mean) so that automatically makes them >>>>> than first-chance average.

Don't start the objective-fact thingy again.
The rules of cricket and scoring are opinion if you want to go down that route - and chances may be less close to objective than actual dismissals are but neither are exactly difficult for all to agree on.
IMO the slightly larger amount of disagreement is more than cancelled-out by the fact that luck IS accounted for.

Even without actually analysing it numerically, a few posters have done exactly that in the other thread.

No, they haven't, they've given me reasons which I've answered as to why they're not a problem.

There is no 'normal' amount of luck. 'Normal' infers being able to quantify (i.e. 'normal' amount of rain for the year) and luck one cannot quantify as it's random and subjective. Not without applying very strict and highly subjective criteria to it.

FCOL, everything doesn't have to be applied with such absurd exactness, y'know.
There is a normal amount of luck to everyone who does not feel the need for these levels of border-paranoia correctness.

 

[Richard]

I think a number of fielders in the Australian team would have caught it (or at least got into a position where it could be classed as a 'chance' under the chance theories). Again we're back to luck being about more than whether a batsman is dropped or not.

Tait fielding at fineleg = Pietersen wasn't lucky.
Ponting fielding at fineleg and dropping it = Pietersen being lucky.

Seeing as Pietersen would have played the shot regardless of who was fielding there, we have a logical fallacy and the only conclusion can be that Pietersen was 'lucky'.

You know Pietersen would have played the shot regardless?
Like the fact that there wasn't an extra-cover when a shot flashed through there, the fact is Tait WAS the fielder in position, and he had precisely no chance of catching it.

 

[Richard]

You're kidding, right?

KP couldnt catch a cold nor stop a bus.

Clarke is brilliant but inconsistent.

At present, KP is just plain useless.

No, he's not, he's exemplary in all respects bar one - something which, in ODIs, isn't incredibly important.
Clarke is poor in one much larger area - hands.
Pietersen is only poor at close-catching.

 

[greg]

No, he's not, he's exemplary in all respects bar one - something which, in ODIs, isn't incredibly important.
Clarke is poor in one much larger area - hands.
Pietersen is only poor at close-catching.

Am i the only one somewhat confused?

KP isn't very good at throwing the ball at the stumps to run people out.

 

[marc71178]

well harder chances have been taken, it was certainly a chance.

Exactly - and those 2 comments immediately show how flawed it is to introduce subjectivity into something that is suddoedly an objective statistic.

 

[marc71178]

I can assure you you don't know more about it than me, and probably plenty of others on this board.
You have no idea if you think Clarke is aught but a relatively poor fielder.

How ironic it is that you question a comment like that.

 

[Richard]

Am i the only one somewhat confused?

KP isn't very good at throwing the ball at the stumps to run people out.

Isn't he?
I find he has an excellent arm in strength and accuracy - hardly anyone makes direct-hits with any regularity.

 

[Richard]

How ironic

There's a surprise.

 

[marc71178]

What, that you cut out half of what I say?

 

[aussie]

Hmm, I wonder why that might be...
Clarke has definately dropped plenty and plenty of the things in the 2 years he's been established in the Australian team.

nah you watching the wrong Michael Clarke mate...

 

[Top_Cat]

The scorebook average pretends luck doesn't exist.
If you set greater import on the scorebook average than one that takes account of luck you ARE essentially pretending luck doesn't exist.

No not at all. The socrebook doesn't pretend luck doesn't exist; it just makes no attempt to measure the unmeasureable. First chances, on the other hands, attempts to take into account a non-objective phenomena, apply it to objective numbers and hopes for a result which 'looks about right'. Not scientific AT ALL and in the case of measuring a player's effectiveness, should be discarded.

Idea, theory, whatever floats your boat.

There's a huge difference between the two and this is the part which gets me; you insist on absolute precision and consistency from everyone else yet now your response to me is 'Idea, theory, whatever floats your boat'!?!

Don't start the objective-fact thingy again.

Never let the words 'scientific', 'consistency', etc. get in the way of a decent crackpot idea, eh?

FCOL, everything doesn't have to be applied with such absurd exactness, y'know.
There is a normal amount of luck to everyone who does not feel the need for these levels of border-paranoia correctness.

Note this one down, everyone; Richard is calling ME pedantic.

Guess what? In the real world, I'm the 'normal' one. I'm not being pedantic at all, relative to what's expected by any generally decent standard. As I've said, in my field standards are high and I expect plenty of proof/evidence before I accept anything as even possible, let alone definite.

Like the fact that there wasn't an extra-cover when a shot flashed through there, the fact is Tait WAS the fielder in position, and he had precisely no chance of catching it.

Shaun has fully-functioning arms (well, he did at the time) and is a professional athlete so more co-ordinated and physicaly talented than others. There was definitely a chance, albeit a small one. It was an extremely tough catch and I would most definitely say that if he had caught it would have been an outstanding outfield catch, up there with the best. But, by definition, it wasn't impossible.

 

[Richard]

What, that you cut out half of what I say?

No, that you quoted a post from me and included the word "ironic" in your response.

 

[Richard]

nah you watching the wrong Michael Clarke mate...

No, I'm not.
I have watched quite clearly Michael Clarke the New South Welshman who made his ODI debut in that terrible game at Adelaide in 2002\03.
And he's made plenty of mistakes in the field.

 

[aussie]

No, I'm not.
I have watched quite clearly Michael Clarke the New South Welshman who made his ODI debut in that terrible game at Adelaide in 2002\03.
And he's made plenty of mistakes in the field.

yes & i have seen practically all of his ODI's since & i cant remember him dropping any sitters or misfielding any regulation stops in the outfield, if you do please refresh me?

 

[Richard]

No not at all. The socrebook doesn't pretend luck doesn't exist; it just makes no attempt to measure the unmeasureable. First chances, on the other hands, attempts to take into account a non-objective phenomena, apply it to objective numbers and hopes for a result which 'looks about right'. Not scientific AT ALL and in the case of measuring a player's effectiveness, should be discarded.

No form of cricket is in the slightest scientific - it's an absurd little game based on tiny margins where if a ball is an inch either way you can nick it on 0 or go on and get 207 against Australia if it misses.
PLEASE STOP THIS SCIENCE STUFF - it is not the logical way forward. Nothing about cricket, I repeat, is scientific.

There's a huge difference between the two and this is the part which gets me; you insist on absolute precision and consistency from everyone else yet now your response to me is 'Idea, theory, whatever floats your boat'!?!

I don't mind - that is the point.
Call it an idea or a theory - equal as far as I'm concerned.

Never let the words 'scientific', 'consistency', etc. get in the way of a decent crackpot idea, eh?

No, never let the words creep in where they don't fit anything remotely connected with the thing.

Note this one down, everyone; Richard is calling ME pedantic.

Guess what? In the real world, I'm the 'normal' one. I'm not being pedantic at all, relative to what's expected by any generally decent standard. As I've said, in my field standards are high and I expect plenty of proof/evidence before I accept anything as even possible, let alone definite.

Then you shouldn't be watching cricket - it's innumerably unscientific.
If you expect proof and evidence of everything, you'll eventually dig yourself a hole so deep you'll never escape.

Shaun has fully-functioning arms (well, he did at the time) and is a professional athlete so more co-ordinated and physicaly talented than others. There was definitely a chance, albeit a small one. It was an extremely tough catch and I would most definitely say that if he had caught it would have been an outstanding outfield catch, up there with the best. But, by definition, it wasn't impossible.

Nothing is impossible. Kevin Pietersen could leap 50 feet in the air and catch something heading out of the ground. And you can do all the scientific testing you want on the matter, you'll still not be able to "prove it impossible".
But realistically it was not remotely likely that Tait would take that catch.

 

[Richard]

yes & i have seen practically all of his ODI's since & i cant remember him dropping any sitters or misfielding any regulation stops in the outfield, if you do please refresh me?

As I've said before - there are too many to recall.

 

[Top_Cat]

If you expect proof and evidence of everything, you'll eventually dig yourself a hole so deep you'll never escape.

Well I've been doing it for 26 years now and I'm fine where I am, thank you asking.

Okay I'm done with this. Richard, you're way out of your depth if you honestly believe that there is no science behind cricket or that it's 'innumerably unscientific', etc. All I will say is, if you were in a genuine research environment like where guys like myself and C_C are, you'd be surprised by what is able to be measured/proven/inferred.