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

[Richard]

It could be because players are human and not robots tha can be programmed to catch 100% of their catches.

No, it couldn't, because even Mark Waugh dropped the odd catch.
Australia's catching in 1999-2002 wasn't robotic, but it sure wasn't a million miles short.
Since 2002\03 it's been nothing other than poor.

 

[Richard]

So is that not the luck we are talking about?
The game is all about luck and taking chances when they present themselves
Teams that dont take at least 90% of the chances offeres to them will seldom come out on top.....Luck also goes hand in hand with hard work and persistance,,,

No, it doesn't - sometimes it flies in the face of it. Luck is a great and terrible thing - depending on which end if it you're on.
TEAMS and luck\taking chances is not relevant, because a TEAM that has dropped catches isn't unlucky. A bowler who's had a catch dropped off a good piece of bowling is unlucky. Similarly, a batsman who's had a let-off doesn't deserve credit for it.

 

[Richard]

I agree 99%, I suppose if you are playing full blooded shots instead of defensive, it must make it harder to catch?

It doesn't turn something that should be caught into something that shouldn't.

 

[Richard]

In some cases yes but getting dropped at first slip when you are still in single figures has nothing to do with creating on your part

Getting dropped at first-slip has nothing to do with creating on your part whatever you're on.

 

[Richard]

If Cricinfo research on every ball bowled is irrelevant can you please give me the stats for the more relevant actual dropped-catches and let-offs.

You do have the stats and are not just making this up Richard. You do have statistics to back up your statements.

you do have a comparision of dropped-catches and let-offs of Langers to compare to other batsmen dont you Richard.

You are not dismissing Cricinfo research without solid evidence to show Langer gets more let-offs and dropped-catches than anyone else are you Richard.

So please show how Langer is the luckier batsman.

Like I say - I would, if I could.
I don't have the mind to spend 3 hours reading-up on all the Langer innings I haven't seen or don't remember exactly, then doing the same for 9 other randomly selected batsmen.
But that I don't doesn't add any weight to any other evidence drawing upon irrelevant matters.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It doesn't turn something that should be caught into something that shouldn't.

It often does make something easy to catch into something harder to catch, increasing the chances that the catch will be dropped, and is something that the batman causes himself, therefore he can take some, however little, credit for.

 

[Richard]

It might make an easy catch into a slightly less than easy catch.
And forgive me for not being concerned whether a catch was easy or difficult.
All I care about was whether it should have been taken or not, because a catch is a catch and is far more often than not taken.

 

[marc71178]

Even BW couldn't tell us that... sadly scorebooks make no mention of when a chance was given.

Probably because they only record the FACTS.

 

[Richard]

And a chance being something other than an easily identifiable FACT is exceptionally rare.

 

[marc71178]

No, it is not, and no matter how often you say it, it will remain a matter of opinion, which is thus too random to base any meaningful statistic on.

 

[archie mac]

It often does make something easy to catch into something harder to catch, increasing the chances that the catch will be dropped, and is something that the batman causes himself, therefore he can take some, however little, credit for.

This is the point I was making, Chappelli often makes the point 'at least if you go for your shots, it takes a lot more catching' (not an excact quote) So would this not be increasing your luck?

 

[archie mac]

Even BW couldn't tell us that... sadly scorebooks make no mention of when a chance was given.

I do notice on the 'box' when they show a players wagon wheel they often have a couple of little red dots, denoting a missed chance? But if any one will have kept stats on these it would be the Bearded wonder

 

[Mister Wright]

No, it couldn't, because even Mark Waugh dropped the odd catch.
Australia's catching in 1999-2002 wasn't robotic, but it sure wasn't a million miles short.
Since 2002\03 it's been nothing other than poor.

Mark Waugh is one of the most over-rated catchers of all time he dropped more than he should have.

 

[archie mac]

Mark Waugh is one of the most over-rated catchers of all time he dropped more than he should have.

Every now and then he would drop an easy one, but I think he took some catches that very few players in the history of the game could claim.

I bit of poetry there

 

[social]

Mark Waugh is one of the most over-rated catchers of all time he dropped more than he should have.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

He was one of the best ever catchers in any position.

 

[Top_Cat]

Mark Waugh is one of the most over-rated catchers of all time he dropped more than he should have.

But were the catches he 'dropped' ones that no-one else would have gotten anywhere near?

I saw plenty of Mark Waugh field and I have on video some catches he dropped but they were extremely tough. The one over-riding thing I remember about Mark Waugh is that yes he took the screamer no-one else could take but also, when a catch was coming his way which was pretty awkward, his fantastic technique ensured that he took it easily. Ian Chappell once said that you'd pay good money just to watch Mark Waugh field (let alone bat!) and Waugh is certainly just about the only player I could do that for.

 

[aussie]

Dravid is the luckiest batsman and the statistics prove it. QUOTE]

I find this statement very foolish, but before i argue show me these statistics that prove dravid is the luckiest batsman in the world, becuase i have seen a lot of dravid in the last four years & thier is nothing lucky about the way he plays or scores his runs.

 

[aussie]

No, it couldn't, because even Mark Waugh dropped the odd catch.
Australia's catching in 1999-2002 wasn't robotic, but it sure wasn't a million miles short.
Since 2002\03 it's been nothing other than poor.

but still better than most sides in international cricket

 

[aussie]

Mark Waugh is one of the most over-rated catchers of all time he dropped more than he should have.

na man, i dont think Mark Waugh is an over-rated catcher at all, he is without doubt one of the best slip fielder i have seen, coming down to the end of his career he began to drop some easy ones but before he was extremely safe.

For me the praise Mark Waugh gets for his slip fielding is warranted

 

[Scallywag]

Dravid is the luckiest batsman and the statistics prove it. QUOTE]

I find this statement very foolish, but before i argue show me these statistics that prove dravid is the luckiest batsman in the world, becuase i have seen a lot of dravid in the last four years & thier is nothing lucky about the way he plays or scores his runs.

http://content.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/146254.html

Go right ahead and argue, but your arguement is with S Rajesh who produced the stats, you show me something other than " I think Dravid is not the luckiest cricketer" and I will compare that to his assesment.

And the most dropped batsman since 2003 is Sehwag, Ponting, Trescothic and Bashar.

But its Dravid that cashes in on the dropped catches.
Since the start of 2003, Dravid has been given let-offs six times, and has made the opposition pay to the tune of 378 runs - that's 63 per dropped chance. Include the fact that he's remained unbeaten on two of those occasions, and the average shoots up to nearly 95.

So dont let the facts get in the way, even though Langer has less let-offs than most batsmen people just cant get past their biases and accept the quality of this batsman.

So you go right ahead and put up your arguement.