*Official** New Zealand in England

[Richard]

I seriously would like to find out about these first chance averages.....Richard, do you have a site where you can get them from or you do this by yourself.....and I mean it, I would like to see 'first chance' averages for all batsmen, through out cricketing history.....might make for interesting reading!

I have to work them out by myself.
Sadly, I can't be bothered for most past batsmen.
I only do it for players of the past 3 years, really.

 

[Richard]

Where is it then?

Cricinfo don't seem to have it on their site...

Nope - because sadly hardly anyone recognises the merits of it until I point it out to them.
Even then, there are some contrarions.:rolleyes:

 

[Kent]

Perhaps, then, you have misdefined it.
Just because someone is a blocker, doesn't mean they can't be a flat-track bully.
A flat-track bully is someone who scores well on flat tracks and fails when the ball is nipping around or up and down. Eg. Hayden, Richardson.
Richardson's record, game by game:

I'm sorry Richard, I'm finding this bizarre! You seem to have focused primarily on the English home series and the first WI test; hence disregarding about 8 years as a domestic opener, the 'A' tour of England, the Indian home series (what did that series make Tendulkar and Ganguly in your terms?), the steepling bounce of the Jo'burg test, the variable wicket in Kandy, and formed the argument that he is only good on flat decks.

And he's a left-hander who doesn't like the ball moving back into him, you say? In terms of common dismissals, does that make Fleming a complete hack?

I make Richardson's test ave. where the scales were clearly tipped in the bowlers' favour to be about 34. Can you please name me some players (especially openers) who are doing better than that? And seeing just about everyone wants to eliminate bowler-assisting pitches from the face of the earth, why is this even relevant any more?

 

[Richard]

Because I still hold-out hopes of us and you, at least, realising something of history upholding is neccessary.
Steepling bounce won't trouble anyone unduly.
The wicket at Kandy was variable? First I've heard of it.

 

[Kent]

No TV coverage, but that's my memory of the radio commentary.

You think that attack we had could bowl SL out for less than 300 if it wasn't? You must be more of a fan of Oram and Wiseman than even I am.

 

[marc71178]

I have to work them out by myself.
Sadly, I can't be bothered for most past batsmen.
I only do it for players of the past 3 years, really.

Yet still feel able to comment on batsmen prior to that time period...

 

[marc71178]

Nope - because sadly hardly anyone recognises the merits of it until I point it out to them.
Even then, there are some contrarions.:rolleyes:

Well, no matter how much you seem to extol them on here - I'm yet to see anyone agree about them.

So we're all contrarions and you're the only one that's right then?

 

[Richard]

Yep - because something I have researched is that in general dropped catches, missed stumpings etc. happened less back in 't' day.
A generalisation, yes, but it's better than no research at all.

 

[Richard]

No TV coverage, but that's my memory of the radio commentary.

You think that attack we had could bowl SL out for less than 300 if it wasn't? You must be more of a fan of Oram and Wiseman than even I am.

Good batsmen do play poor strokes sometimes you know.

 

[marc71178]

Yep - because something I have researched is that in general dropped catches, missed stumpings etc. happened less back in 't' day.

You can only have researched it from past reports, and since earlier reporters preferred to concentrate on the positives (ie good batting and bowling) rather than the negative (dropped catches) - it somewhat renders the research irrelevant.

With the levels of training etc. and practise undertaken nowadays - I cannot see how fielding standards can have dropped from a time when they did nothing to improve their skills.

 

[Kent]

I might try going back to sleep. Should I stay up for comments on any of these Richard?

* From what I've been told, diving for a catch or a stop was a rare occurance 30-50 years ago. Because today's players get their hands to more and hence drop/miss more, does that make them worse fielders? From what I've seen, Inzi rarely drops a catch.
* Batsmen (openers?) with better ave's than 34 when bowlers "on top".
* S.P. Fleming; a complete hack for all his LB's?
* Tendulkar and Ganguly in NZ last season, your thoughts.

Please don't do an "O.J. jury" on the last one.

 

[anzac]

ok I'll join in the fun............here's my take on it........

IMO there was less emphasis on missed chances in yesteryears, until such time as the teams started to cotton on to the ideas that:
* lifting your fielding could save you runs in a chase;
* create pressure on the batsmen to force their shots out of their comfort zone;
*create opportunities in the field re run outs etc.

Once they started 'field' training then they started paying attention to what was going on so as to be able to judge their progress / effectiveness..........

Furthermore there are also more 'chances' in todays game as a result of the more 'aggressive' attitude of todays batsmen, as a result of there being fewer 'defensive' players like Richardson......

Lastly the greater general athleticism of todays cricketers (Inzi apart ) also creates more 'chances' out of nothing - where yesteryears players would not have even attempted todays fielders expect to get at least a hand on it...........if not for the catch then to at least hope to stop it carrying to the boundary & thus saving runs (see point No1 above)...........

as previously debated the term 'chance' is subjective & has changed over the years so far as the outstanding effort of yesteryear is now the expected result of today...........I have seen 'brilliant attempts' in yesteryear that have not been taken, where the reporters / commentators would not consider it a 'dropped chance' because of the effort required to make the attempt into a 'chance' (although agreeing that it may have been a 'chance' technically speaking), but today those same efforts are the norm for many of todays top fielders.......and are expected to be accepted on most occaisions..........

bottom line in this perspective is that '1st chance averages' are basically meaningless unless it is a glaring miss to a straight forward opportunity.........

any unofficial 'research' is also subjective as we have no indication as to your parameters, data, controls or methodology......

if it gives you a warm fuzzy then good - but don't expect to convince us of too much otherwise...........or not to get a good debate out of it.......

 

[Mingster]

Good batsmen do play poor strokes sometimes you know.

Thus your term of first-chance averages is flawed then bastard.

 

[Craig]

Personal insults get you no where.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Thus your term of first-chance averages is flawed then bastard.

Regardless of what you or anyone thinks of Richard personally, that was completely unnecessary. :!(

 

[Mingster]

It was not an insult.

Just what I thought of his idea, not the person.

 

[Richard]

Thus your term of first-chance averages is flawed

What has the first-chance score theory have to do with the fact that good batsmen play poor strokes?

 

[Richard]

You can only have researched it from past reports, and since earlier reporters preferred to concentrate on the positives (ie good batting and bowling) rather than the negative (dropped catches) - it somewhat renders the research irrelevant.

My research indicates otherwise.
Individualistic style of writing and observations are different among different writers and there have inevitably been some reporters who have had things in common with those of 70 years later.
Good reporters, from any day, have preferred to concentrate on the facts of the day's play - not letting supposed "being negative" get in the way.

With the levels of training etc. and practise undertaken nowadays - I cannot see how fielding standards can have dropped from a time when they did nothing to improve their skills.

Because catchers were better then.
It seems batsmen were better too.
Hence it's not really surprising.
Ground-fielding wasn't anywhere near as good, that goes without saying, you don't even need to extensively read reports, but catching and stumping was far better.

 

[Richard]

* From what I've been told, diving for a catch or a stop was a rare occurance 30-50 years ago. Because today's players get their hands to more and hence drop/miss more, does that make them worse fielders? From what I've seen, Inzi rarely drops a catch.
* Batsmen (openers?) with better ave's than 34 when bowlers "on top".
* S.P. Fleming; a complete hack for all his LB's?
* Tendulkar and Ganguly in NZ last season, your thoughts.

Dropped catch is a slightly subjective term - some will not accept that something is not a chance because a fielder could not have got more than a fingertip on it.
?????
Not if he scores runs at a good average. Flaws only matter if they get you out cheaply.
Both poor. Didn't read the reporting extensively, so can't say whether they just got a load of RUDs or whether they constantly played poor strokes.

 

[marc71178]

Ground-fielding wasn't anywhere near as good, that goes without saying, you don't even need to extensively read reports, but catching and stumping was far better.

So you don't need to read reports or see it to know that.

Either you're psychic or you're taking a stab in the dark...