saddest thing?

[Armadillo]

My point is that these kind of things have happened in all major cricketing countries in various degrees. I can also cite examples in other countries, but what's the point? Has an umpire ever been hauled up for bias or at the very least, for extreme incompetence? Not to my knowledge. So, the sensible way is to accept this as part of a grey area in cricket which, thankfully isn't too widespread and in which no member country is really a saint.

I agree with fraz here as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if he offended you he apologised.

 

[marc71178]

even if he offended you he apologised.

Isn;t the key not to offend in the first place?

 

[Mister Wright]

Tell me, pray, how does a batsman deserve credit for a dropped catch?
Was it sad that Gilchrist was caught by Giles at gully at The 'Gabba in the first-innings in 2002\03, because otherwise he would have gone on to regain the record for fastest Test double-century?
A dropped catch and a caught catch are the same as far as the batsman's ability is concerned.

Whether a batsman is caught or dropped has no bearing on his ability. Just say a batsman creams one off the middle of the bat , it's sailing for six and suddenly a fielder comes out of nowhere and pulls in a remarkable catch, does that mean the batsman has less ability than someone who top-edges one over the keeper's head for six? I think not. And if in that same situation the fielder drops what would have been a remarkable catch, does that mean that the batsman has less ability either?

You've mentioned many times that it is the object of the batsman to score runs without getting out, that is true, so does that mean a bowler who goes for one run in their innings has no ability? Because afterall it is the object of the bowler to go for less runs.

 

[FRAZ]

Once when I was a kid I was very very passionate about playing cricket even under backing sun of 48 c . My dad used to give me long lectures that cricket is this cricket is that . He used to give me many odd examples like USA is way ahead of Britain cuz they Banned cricket and promoted other short version of games . Cuz its a time wasting material . Hmm yeah' He told me a story that once "Hitlor" was cheif guest to witness a test match between two german local teams . On the first day he witnessed the match for a little while , Then he went to do his other official activities and came back on the fifth and final day for the prize ceremony and asked "Who won"? ..The officials told him Its a draw .. He said you "MF's" have been playing for 5 days and got no result ,What a terrible wastage of time . He asked all the players to fall in one line and then he ordered to shoot all the players . And after wards He said "from now on Cricket is banned in Germany and to be never played in Germany ............
I thought its a fake story that my father just for fun made it ... But afterwards I heard the same story from some of my other friends . I could'nt find any evidence about it .But if it was true then It must be the saddest moment of the cricket history .......

 

[marc71178]

I'm afraid it's completely made up.

 

[AUST_HiTMaN]

Hmm well i wouldn't class it the saddest moment in cricket, but a sad point for me was the collosion between Jason Gillespie and Steve Waugh. Where Gillespie ended up with numerous injuries out of it including a broken leg. Was a sickening sight.

Yes some of you may say it was stupid due to the lack of communication ect ect. It definently could of been avoided, but it still was sad. Gillespie's career has been riddled with injuries, he could of been an even better bowler if he hadn't had so many injuries.

Ohwell, thats life i guess.

Cheers

 

[Richard]

Whether a batsman is caught or dropped has no bearing on his ability. Just say a batsman creams one off the middle of the bat , it's sailing for six and suddenly a fielder comes out of nowhere and pulls in a remarkable catch, does that mean the batsman has less ability than someone who top-edges one over the keeper's head for six? I think not. And if in that same situation the fielder drops what would have been a remarkable catch, does that mean that the batsman has less ability either?

You've mentioned many times that it is the object of the batsman to score runs without getting out, that is true, so does that mean a bowler who goes for one run in their innings has no ability? Because afterall it is the object of the bowler to go for less runs.

I find that last paragraph a little confusing. Do you mean "does that mean a bowler who goes for one run in their innings has lots of ability?"?
I will assume you do.
In the one-day game it is the object of the bowler to go for as few runs as he can. Therefore if he bowls 10 overs for 1 run, yes, he's bowled exceptionally well.
In the First-Class game it's a bit different, as the object of the game is not to concede as few runs as you can off as many overs as you can bowl, it's to take as many wickets for as few runs (well, except in exceptional circumstances, like last-session run-chases). So, even if someone bowls 10 overs for 1 run in a First-Class game, it's still not a spell that's fulfilling your ultimate objective. It's a pretty good spell, clearly, but not one that's fulfilling the objective.
Quite what it has to do with the question of chanceless run-scoring I don't know, but I hope I've answered what you were asking me.
Regarding the other question, if someone hits the ball in the air and a fielder suddenly learns to fly and catches something that would have gone for six clearly the batsman is rather unfortunate. If someone hits the ball in the air and a fielder catches it, whether it would have gone for six or not, you would still expect that catch to be taken.
A top-edge over the wicketkeeper's head, meanwhile, isn't a good stroke, but it's still good enough not to get out, because you've hit the ball away from the fielders.
If you're seeking faultless batting you're never going to be satisfied, unless you can find a ball-by-ball video of Bradman's 254 at Lord's in 1930.
I have always said you must be realistic about what you call a chance. If someone has a catch taken which, frankly, had no right to be taken, then that should be remembered, eg Trescothick-Arnold-Hettiarachchi at The SSC in 2000\01. There is such thing as a lucky catch.
Similarly, there is such thing as a let-off and generally it's possible to get near-universal agreement on what should and shouldn't have been out.
If you are dropped, you are lucky. If you are missed stumped or given not-out when you should be out, you are lucky. If you get given out when you shouldn't have been, or caught when the catch didn't bear anything to the ability of the fielder, then you're unlucky. If you get a realistically unplayable delivery, you're unlucky.
And so it goes on. Only some things are included in the first-chance average. But others should be equally remembered.
If you are not out when, under normal circumstances, you would be out, of course it reflects on your ability.
Because I stand by the statement that the ability in batting is scoring runs without getting out. If you get out, you can't score runs. If you do something which would normally result in your dismissal but, for whatever reason, doesn't, you don't deserve credit as if you had avoided it.
I also ask yet again, the question: what is the difference, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, between a dropped catch and a caught catch?

 

[Mister Wright]

I find that last paragraph a little confusing. Do you mean "does that mean a bowler who goes for one run in their innings has lots of ability?"?
I will assume you do.
In the one-day game it is the object of the bowler to go for as few runs as he can. Therefore if he bowls 10 overs for 1 run, yes, he's bowled exceptionally well.
In the First-Class game it's a bit different, as the object of the game is not to concede as few runs as you can off as many overs as you can bowl, it's to take as many wickets for as few runs (well, except in exceptional circumstances, like last-session run-chases). So, even if someone bowls 10 overs for 1 run in a First-Class game, it's still not a spell that's fulfilling your ultimate objective. It's a pretty good spell, clearly, but not one that's fulfilling the objective.
Quite what it has to do with the question of chanceless run-scoring I don't know, but I hope I've answered what you were asking me.
Regarding the other question, if someone hits the ball in the air and a fielder suddenly learns to fly and catches something that would have gone for six clearly the batsman is rather unfortunate. If someone hits the ball in the air and a fielder catches it, whether it would have gone for six or not, you would still expect that catch to be taken.
A top-edge over the wicketkeeper's head, meanwhile, isn't a good stroke, but it's still good enough not to get out, because you've hit the ball away from the fielders.
If you're seeking faultless batting you're never going to be satisfied, unless you can find a ball-by-ball video of Bradman's 254 at Lord's in 1930.
I have always said you must be realistic about what you call a chance. If someone has a catch taken which, frankly, had no right to be taken, then that should be remembered, eg Trescothick-Arnold-Hettiarachchi at The SSC in 2000\01. There is such thing as a lucky catch.
Similarly, there is such thing as a let-off and generally it's possible to get near-universal agreement on what should and shouldn't have been out.
If you are dropped, you are lucky. If you are missed stumped or given not-out when you should be out, you are lucky. If you get given out when you shouldn't have been, or caught when the catch didn't bear anything to the ability of the fielder, then you're unlucky. If you get a realistically unplayable delivery, you're unlucky.
And so it goes on. Only some things are included in the first-chance average. But others should be equally remembered.
If you are not out when, under normal circumstances, you would be out, of course it reflects on your ability.
Because I stand by the statement that the ability in batting is scoring runs without getting out. If you get out, you can't score runs. If you do something which would normally result in your dismissal but, for whatever reason, doesn't, you don't deserve credit as if you had avoided it.
I also ask yet again, the question: what is the difference, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, between a dropped catch and a caught catch?

Firstly, I was responding to your comment that it is the batsman's job to make runs, and you have hinted that the more runs a batsman makes the better their ability. Therefore I was assuming that if you think that for batsman that must mean you must think that the more runs a bowler goes for, the less ability they have.

Secondly, there is no difference in a batsman's ability between a dropped catch and a caught catch. A particular catch may be taken on one day, and not the other. Alot of things have to be taken into consideration, tiredness of batsman and/or fielders, etc. As far as I'm concerned a batsman's ability cannot be judged on one dropped catch.

 

[Richard]

It's not judged on the dropped catch - it's judged on the fact that the catch was given! Just because the fielder was tired and most of the time fielders aren't doesn't reflect on the batsman.
And of course a bowler who goes for 100 off 20 overs is less talented than someone who goes for 40 off 20, but there are other talents (in the First-Class game, at least) than run-restriction. If you take 5 wickets in those 20 overs, it's better than someone who's taken 0 and gone for 40.
The different talents must be weighted against each other.
In the one-day-game, of course, you don't need to take wickets through good bowling if you can restrict runs (because generally wickets will come anyway if you do that - generally, not invariably) but if you do take wickets very quickly then you can have an excuse for staying in the side even if you're more expensive than would otherwise be considered ideal.

 

[NikhilN]

India losing to Australia in the World Cup final.

Word

 

[Richard]

???

 

[marc71178]

In the one-day-game, of course, you don't need to take wickets through good bowling if you can restrict runs (because generally wickets will come anyway if you do that - generally, not invariably)

The same happens in Test Cricket, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Mind you, you also refuse to accept wickets slow the run rate.

but if you do take wickets very quickly then you can have an excuse for staying in the side even if you're more expensive than would otherwise be considered ideal.

So, please explain to us why Brett Lee isn't a good ODI bowler, considering his ODI S/R is the 2nd best of all time...

 

[Richard]

The same happens in Test Cricket, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Mind you, you also refuse to accept wickets slow the run rate.

The same does not happen in Test-cricket when you are bowling at batsmen who know that the scoring-rate is all-but irrelevant, especially over a short period of time.
Wickets will slow the run-rate (if you bowl accurately) only for a short period of time if the new batsman is, like his predecessor, a strokeplayer.
If you dismiss a blocker and bring in a strokeplayer, that wicket will likely speed-up the run-rate.
Of course you can get some batsmen out simply by bowling a decent line and length at them for a short time but for the better ones, it doesn't affect them.
Because there is no limitation on the overs, scoreboard pressure isn't a factor in the First-Class game.

So, please explain to us why Brett Lee isn't a good ODI bowler, considering his ODI S/R is the 2nd best of all time...

He isn't good because he doesn't deserve half the wickets he's got against his name, how many times...
His record, however, is more than enough to keep him in the side as, as we all know, selection (and non-selection) can be done on statistics alone.

 

[marc71178]

He isn't good because he doesn't deserve half the wickets he's got against his name, how many times...

Of course he doesn't, yet again a player you don't like is performing well by luck and coincidence.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Marc, you must remember that "no-one is as clued-up about cricket as Richard".

 

[Richard]

Of course he doesn't, yet again a player you don't like is performing well by luck and coincidence.

Nope - yet again I don't like a player because he gets good figures through something that doesn't relate to his ability.

 

[Richard]

Marc, you must remember that "no-one is as clued-up about cricket as Richard".

Liam, that was TIC and you know it.

 

[marc71178]

Nope - yet again I don't like a player because he gets good figures through something that doesn't relate to his ability.

He's had a hell of a long career at the same level for it to be just fortune.

 

[twctopcat]

Liam, that was TIC and you know it.

What does TIC mean? I don't mean to be offensive but you do seem to be a bit of a smart arse and need to lighten up, you seem to comment on every thread in this forum, i mean there are opinions, then there are essays......

 

[Neil Pickup]

Tongue in Cheek, I'd guess.