**Official** England in The West Indies

[Richard]

really ..where you from then???

I take great pride in my 3\4 Welsh 1\4 Lancastrian heritage, while revelling in my Welsh birthplace and my Yorkshire early-years; I am a Geordie at heart, though, having spent the key 6th-11th years in with a home in Morpeth. Of course, my longest stay in a single city has been Exeter from the 12th year to now.

 

[Richard]

Why?

People have often listed the blatant flaws in it, but you won't listen.

No, I just won't listen when they tell me something reliant on luck is better, because I don't believe it is.
Not once have I ever claimed it is flawless.

 

[Pratters]

No, if a player is scoring runs without giving the chance of dismissal they're good enough.
If they're not actually scoring runs through their own good play and are simply being given opportunities others are getting far less of it's bullsh|t to say he is good enough.
Risk-taking isn't giving chances; that's suicide. Risk-taking is hitting the ball in the air (well, that's the biggest risk-take) and it's no surprise that most of the best batsmen rarely hit the ball in the air deliberately.

Sehwag scores his runs with risk taking. You feel he is not good enough. End of discussion.

 

[Richard]

No, I feel he is not as good as his luck makes him look.

 

[tooextracool]

yet smith has had more luck and hes the next bradman.

 

[Pratters]

Risk-taking isn't giving chances; that's suicide. Risk-taking is hitting the ball in the air (well, that's the biggest risk-take) and it's no surprise that most of the best batsmen rarely hit the ball in the air deliberately.

Lets get a bit paranoid. Going out to the middle is risk taking by your logic. Hitting a shot is a risk taking! Yuo could get out if you try to make runs. How is hitting in the air any different!? You see a batsman sees the opportunity to score a six, he is confident of his ability and goes for the kill.

Risk is different for different players Richard. For a Strokeless player, even hitting a single stroke would be a risk. The shots Lara play for instance, are risky for some players, Lara being the genius that he is, doesnt find risk in them and thus plays them regularly.

Sehwag takes calculated risks. He is aware of making runs at such an high average if he takes these risks. He is good enough to make those runs and the risks are taken for the rewrds of getting runs. Over the career he has shown every one he can make runs playing the way he does. So he is indeed good enough.

 

[Richard]

This is actually quite a good summary of the situation.
Yes, for some players, they're perceived to be taking a risk with a certain stroke, because that'd be a risk for other players, yet for them it's actually pretty safe.
But nonetheless giving chances is not risk-taking - it's, simply, getting out. If you give lots of chances you're not "taking calculated risks", you're playing poorly and getting out - and the fact that the fielders aren't good enough to complete the dismissal says nothing about your ability.

 

[Richard]

yet smith has had more luck and hes the next bradman.

No, he's not - no-one has suggested so.

 

[Pratters]

But nonetheless giving chances is not risk-taking - it's, simply, getting out. If you give lots of chances you're not "taking calculated risks", you're playing poorly and getting out - and the fact that the fielders aren't good enough to complete the dismissal says nothing about your ability.

Its more a question of whether the chances were intended and thus calculated or simply occured because of a player's lack of ability.

Sehwag intentionally goes for a six and so knows he has a chance of getting out. But he backs his ability which pays off more often than not and so its a calculated risk. It may result in chances but the player was aware of giving them for making the runs. So the player cant be called poor.

On the other hand, if a player is unable to get the bat on ball properly due to being completely foxed in a defensive mode with no calculated intention of making runs with a probability of giving a chance to the opposition, the player may be perceived to have a lack of judgement on that particular ball. If it happens for 3-4 times, and he makes a 50 for instance, then maybe he can be called lucky. Else, usually, even for players like Afridi who take calculated risks, its more of a well deserved 50 than one inspite of a lack of ability.

 

[Richard]

If a player gives a chance, it doesn't matter whether he's "taking a calculated risk" or not.
The simple fact is, if you give a chance, normally you're going to be out.
Therefore to deliberately give a chance is nothing short of incredibly stupid.

 

[Pratters]

Therefore to deliberately give a chance is nothing short of incredibly stupid.

So you do believe the sloggers are stupid. It works for some sloggers when there is a pay off of runs in taking the chances. The averages like in the case of Sehwag, other sloggers who help boost the run rate proves that.

 

[Richard]

What's slogging got to do with anything?
Anyone who plays in a way that results in them giving lots of chances (Afridi, for example) will usually amount to nothing. If they're inordinately lucky, they'll be assumed to have done better than they actually have.
Sehwag is extremely lucky and therefore is assumed to be a better Test opener than he actually is. He's still not the worst by any means, but he's nowhere near as good as he's been made to look.