saddest thing?

[Jono]

Richard, does your dropped catch theory also correspond with bottom edges that just miss the stumps? What about run out opportunities where the fielder misses the stumps, or the bowler/keeper thumbled it? What about LBW decisions that weren't given? What about edges to 2nd slip when there was only 1 slip in place? Does this then mean that the rest of the runs they scored is worthless?

Example, Gibbs (first player that came to my mind) comes out to bat with SA chasing over 300 to win (like they are tonight against the West Indies). First ball, Gibbs looks to cut and bottom edges it just missing the stumps. Or maybe he edges it to the slips but it goes wide, forcing the 2nd slip to dive and get a slight finger tip to it. He then goes on to make 150+ and win the game for South Africa. He's played one bad shot at the beginning of his innings of 150 which he could of got out to, but didn't. Does this make his 150 not so good? Worthless?

The problem with your theory is it doesn't cover all areas of what a 'chance' is, and as you mentioned when criticising Tendulkar's innings against Pakistan at the WC 03 where he scored an amazing 98 (how you can deny this innings is beyond me), he was dropped by Razzaq which was a tough chance, and if he had taken it, it would of been a blinder (I just watched that match on tape today so it's fresh in my mind).

 

[SquidAU]

I wonder if there is actually a cricketer or team or innings or anything that Richard actually likes.......seems to me he thinks the glass is always half empty....with everything cricket mind you....

I personally think an innings is great, dropped catches, near runouts or mistimed shots......makes it all the more exciting!

 

[Richard]

Richard, does your dropped catch theory also correspond with bottom edges that just miss the stumps? What about run out opportunities where the fielder misses the stumps, or the bowler/keeper thumbled it? What about LBW decisions that weren't given? What about edges to 2nd slip when there was only 1 slip in place? Does this then mean that the rest of the runs they scored is worthless?

Example, Gibbs (first player that came to my mind) comes out to bat with SA chasing over 300 to win (like they are tonight against the West Indies). First ball, Gibbs looks to cut and bottom edges it just missing the stumps. Or maybe he edges it to the slips but it goes wide, forcing the 2nd slip to dive and get a slight finger tip to it. He then goes on to make 150+ and win the game for South Africa. He's played one bad shot at the beginning of his innings of 150 which he could of got out to, but didn't. Does this make his 150 not so good? Worthless?

The problem with your theory is it doesn't cover all areas of what a 'chance' is, and as you mentioned when criticising Tendulkar's innings against Pakistan at the WC 03 where he scored an amazing 98 (how you can deny this innings is beyond me), he was dropped by Razzaq which was a tough chance, and if he had taken it, it would of been a blinder (I just watched that match on tape today so it's fresh in my mind).

It really does get tiresome going over this time and again.
A let-off is a let-off. Very rarely will you get disagreement over what is a let-off.
These are the constitutions of a "let-off":
When the ball is hit in the air and a fielder should have caught it (of course, some people don't understand what is and isn't realistically catchable, but most will give in in the end)
When a clear lbw decision that should have been out was given not-out.
When a clear stumping is missed (again, realism must be used when "should have been stumped" is discussed).
When a clear run-out is missed, where the problem has resulted from the bad running\calling of he who should have been run-out.
Anything else (whether it is an edge just past the stumps of a fraction out of realistic reach of a fielder) is not a let-off - the batsman has done well enough to avoid getting out, simple as.
The conclusion could easily be jumped to that "my" theory (it is simply a theory that I recognise, I did not invent it) does not cover all apects, but in fact, it does.
If Razzaq should have caught the catch in the Tendulkar 98, the innings was far less "amazing" than most realise. Maybe it was "hard", but if it was catchable, it was catchable. If it wasn't (and I haven't seen it), then fair enough.
But descriptions at the time suggested that it should have been caught, even if it wasn't an absolute sitter.

 

[Armadillo]

It really does get tiresome going over this time and again.
A let-off is a let-off. Very rarely will you get disagreement over what is a let-off.
These are the constitutions of a "let-off":
When the ball is hit in the air and a fielder should have caught it (of course, some people don't understand what is and isn't realistically catchable, but most will give in in the end)
When a clear lbw decision that should have been out was given not-out.
When a clear stumping is missed (again, realism must be used when "should have been stumped" is discussed).
When a clear run-out is missed, where the problem has resulted from the bad running\calling of he who should have been run-out.
Anything else (whether it is an edge just past the stumps of a fraction out of realistic reach of a fielder) is not a let-off - the batsman has done well enough to avoid getting out, simple as.
The conclusion could easily be jumped to that "my" theory (it is simply a theory that I recognise, I did not invent it) does not cover all apects, but in fact, it does.
If Razzaq should have caught the catch in the Tendulkar 98, the innings was far less "amazing" than most realise. Maybe it was "hard", but if it was catchable, it was catchable. If it wasn't (and I haven't seen it), then fair enough.
But descriptions at the time suggested that it should have been caught, even if it wasn't an absolute sitter.

You just dont get it do you Richard? it was a ******* brilliant innings by tendulkar and an ******* excellent match all around, im pakistani and i can admit it

 

[Richard]

I wonder if there is actually a cricketer or team or innings or anything that Richard actually likes.......seems to me he thinks the glass is always half empty....with everything cricket mind you....

I personally think an innings is great, dropped catches, near runouts or mistimed shots......makes it all the more exciting!

Maybe an innings is exciting, but it doesn't say anything as to the batsman's ability if he needed luck.
I like one cricket team more than most, Yorkshire, but it doesn't blind me to anything regarding any players.
Of course there have been many, many innings that I have thoroughly enjoyed watching and many cricketers who I think have\had fantastic ability (Malcolm Marshall to name one).
"Glass is half-empty" theorems don't suit cricket. I don't try to see the best in everything, however, like many, and I am consistent in my views. Therefore I don't think it's anything other than a difference in opinion.

 

[Richard]

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......

What the hell is wrong with viewing everything and commenting on it? If I've the time, I shall spend it how I like.:P

 

[Richard]

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

Just because something's happened many times doesn't mean it can't be fortune.
Why can't fortune be lasting?

 

[Richard]

Tongue in Cheek, I'd guess.

And you'd be right.

 

[Armadillo]

What the hell is wrong with viewing everything and commenting on it? If I've the time, I shall spend it how I like.:P

What kind of loser would spend all of his time on here writing essays? :duh:

 

[Richard]

You just dont get it do you Richard? it was a ******* brilliant innings by tendulkar and an ******* excellent match all around, im pakistani and i can admit it

Excellent match, did I ever say otherwise?
Whether you are a Pakistani doesn't mean your commendation of the innings is more worthwhile than my degradation of it.
Especially as I gave a constant reason.

 

[marc71178]

Just because something's happened many times doesn't mean it can't be fortune.
Why can't fortune be lasting?

So it's just coincidence?

Lee again had superb figures today, and according to those who saw it, bowled very well - yet you still insist its fortune?

 

[Richard]

I saw it.
And I don't think he bowled very well, no. I think he could have gone for far more runs than he did, and Tendulkar's wicket was a delivery which was average at best.
And one more occasion hardly adds weight to your argument. If Lee had gone for 90 without a wicket today he'd still have superb career figures.
Not co-incidence, however - just something which happnes over and over again.
I can't explain it, of course - if I could, I'd most certainly email every batsman in The World and tell them the answer.
Lee is by no means the only one. But why can you not accept that bowling well does not simply constitute having wickets next to your name?

 

[marc71178]

I saw it.
And I don't think he bowled very well, no.

But is that because in your mind he is incapable of bowling well?

I would suggest so.

 

[Armadillo]

But is that because in your mind he is incapable of bowling well?

I would suggest so.

I agree with marc, richie youre too critical.

 

[SquidAU]

Brett Lee has had a reasonable couple of games.....a poor test series...but never the less, he has had the Indian's on their toes the last couple of games, and this should have happened earlier....with all of the Aussie bowlers!

 

[Richard]

But is that because in your mind he is incapable of bowling well?

I would suggest so.

Then you suggest ludicrously.
No-one, but no-one is incapable of bowling well. Most are just incapable of doing it very often. Lee is one of them AFAIC. Sadly, he doesn't get punished nearly as often as most of us do; indeed, he gets rewarded.
And Squid - the Indian batsmen, as mentioned, have simply run out of runs\steam. Like I say, it couldn't go on forever. Sadly for them, it ended at the most crucial time.

 

[marc71178]

Sadly, he doesn't get punished nearly as often as most of us do; indeed, he gets rewarded.

But could that be because, shock horror, he is actually a very good bowler in ODI.

Series after series he maintains a very low average, yet, you still insist he doesn't bowl well.

If he continues for another 3 or 4 years and still has an average of around 22 - will you still insist he's poor?

 

[Richard]

If he still bowsl poorly, yes.
Once again, forgive me for not basing everything on statistics.

 

[marc71178]

Once again forgive me for think you're spouting tripe.

I accept that it is completely possible that he can bowl terribly yet pick wickets up with a superb average.

You quite clearly know so much more about him and other players than other people who can only actually go on watching the players perform.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Once again, forgive me for not basing everything on statistics.

That's just it. You base everything on stats when it suits you and when it doesn't, "forgive me for not basing everything on statistics".