***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[shaka]

Langer has much more than other openers in terms of chances go in his favour, but he makes full use of this luck

 

[Scallywag]

Langer has much more than other openers in terms of chances go in his favour, but he makes full use of this luck

What a pile of nonsense, Every cricket player has the same amount of luck as Langer.

 

[Richard]

I like Vaughan as a player (despite the fact that his technique has deteriorated markedly in the past 12-18 months)

His technique certainly hasn't deteriorated, his shot-selection is simply nowhere near as good as it was in the 195 at The Oval (2002), the 145 at The MCG and, best of all, the 183 at The SCG.

 

[Richard]

What a pile of nonsense, Every cricket player has the same amount of luck as Langer.

Where the hell do you get that idea from?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Where the hell do you get that idea from?

Because luck, by definition, is completely random, and therefore it is ridiculous to suggest that one player is "more lucky" than another? If something happens consistently, it is skill, not luck.

 

[Scallywag]

Where the hell do you get that idea from?

Well for a start records of players playing and missing have been kept and Dravid is noted as the luckiest player. Mind you they keep records on every ball bowled and not just the ones you saw.

So the statement that Langer is lucky gets shot down by the statistics.

Because you think differently to the records kept does that mean they have to be wrong.

 

[Richard]

BTW, Richard's theory that Ponting has been successful against Murali because the latter is not a conventional finger spinner (rather than simply admitting the former may not be quite as bad a player of spin as he would have us believe), ranks up there with his theories on McGrath, Flintoff, and first chances.

So... explain where I've said Ponting's success against Murali is because Murali isn't a conventional fingerspinner?
I've said it can't be explained by anything.
I've also said it doesn't prove that Ponting's had success against conventional right-arm-fingerspin, and it doesn't.

 

[Richard]

Because luck, by definition, is completely random, and therefore it is ridiculous to suggest that one player is "more lucky" than another? If something happens consistently, it is skill, not luck.

Absolute rubbush, luck is random and that's precisely WHY it's so stupid to suggest that every player has about the same amount.
No matter how many times a batsman gets dropped or given not-out when they're out, it's never due to their skill.

 

[Richard]

Well for a start records of players playing and missing have been kept and Dravid is noted as the luckiest player. Mind you they keep records on every ball bowled and not just the ones you saw.

So the statement that Langer is lucky gets shot down by the statistics.

Because you think differently to the records kept does that mean they have to be wrong.

Simple as - wrong statistics.
Luck isn't loads of play-and-misses, it's let-offs that allow more runs to be scored than should have been.
And there's no doubt that Langer has had plenty, even if he still has had periods where he's scored murderously by playing exceptionally well.

 

[age_master]

swings and roundabouts, it all roughly evens out in the end. the only reason Langer might get more let offs than other batsmen is because the Aussie team take their catches

 

[Scallywag]

Simple as - wrong statistics.
Luck isn't loads of play-and-misses, it's let-offs that allow more runs to be scored than should have been.
And there's no doubt that Langer has had plenty, even if he still has had periods where he's scored murderously by playing exceptionally well.

can you tell me how you came about these facts and how you compared them to other players for example. I'm interested to know how Dravid compares in let-offs that allow more runs to be scored as compared to Langer.

Have you compared him to any other batsman or is it just in your head that Langer gets more let-offs.

 

[Richard]

swings and roundabouts, it all roughly evens out in the end. the only reason Langer might get more let offs than other batsmen is because the Aussie team take their catches

Australia have dropped every bit as large a number of catches as everyone else (indeed more than some) since 2002\03.
And it certainly does not roughly even itself out. A player who's got the same net amount of luck as another is exceedingly rare.

 

[Richard]

can you tell me how you came about these facts and how you compared them to other players for example. I'm interested to know how Dravid compares in let-offs that allow more runs to be scored as compared to Langer.

Have you compared him to any other batsman or is it just in your head that Langer gets more let-offs.

I've not compared it exactly, no. I have with Gilchrist and Trescothick, and it's fact that they get more let-offs than most. With Langer it's not bothered me as much as those 2, but now I think about it it's not remotely inconceivable.
With regards the random example of Dravid, Dravid has - of course - had innings I can think of where he's benefited from let-offs. But off the top of my head he's had nowhere near as many as Langer.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I've also said it doesn't prove that Ponting's had success against conventional right-arm-fingerspin, and it doesn't.

And even if he was to, it'd obviously be against sub-standard bowlers or someone was in bad form and bowling horribly.

 

[Top_Cat]

Richard, when vic_orthdox is having a go at you, maybe there's some introspection required. We're talking about one of the most gentlemanly, articulate, intelligent and non-confrontational poster on CW.net here.

 

[Richard]

And even if he was to, it'd obviously be against sub-standard bowlers or someone was in bad form and bowling horribly.

Not neccesarily.

 

[Richard]

Richard, when vic_orthdox is having a go at you, maybe there's some introspection required. We're talking about one of the most gentlemanly, articulate, intelligent and non-confrontational poster on CW.net here.

I have to say I'm rather surprised at v_o's reaction but it's not one I've not heard from others.
But you're suggest I simply conform to convention because people refuse to accept what I see as the correct way?
Sorry, no can do.

 

[Mister Wright]

I have to say I'm rather surprised at v_o's reaction but it's not one I've not heard from others.
But you're suggest I simply conform to convention because people refuse to accept what I see as the correct way?
Sorry, no can do.

Only the Dark side deal in absolutes. The Dark side is strong in you young Richard, much fear I sense in you.

 

[Richard]

If that's a quote from Episode III I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Top_Cat]

But you're suggest I simply conform to convention because people refuse to accept what I see as the correct way?
Sorry, no can do.

Never said that. Introspection is thought, evaluation, re-evaluation, questioning the very basis of one's beliefs, etc., Not conforming at all.