Sehwag vs Smith

[James_W]

On a serious note, I think its inappropriate to judge someone on mundane concepts like let-offs

Anybody who understands sports knows the let-offs are a part and parcel of the game .... There are other intangibles like a batsman being given a wrong decision, a nick or a close bat and pad given / not given by the umpires and so on .... If we are to consider 'let-offs' then why don't we consider the 'let-downs' like false decision going against the batsman

Does anyone remember one of the knock-out games in the soccer world cup between Australia and Italy? I though that the Australians were playing better football than the Italians in that game. In the dying mins of the game, Italy got a penalty and it scored and advanced to the next level. The replays showed that Australians were hard done by the decision. There was never a case for a penalty for Italy in the first place. But still Italy advanced and then went on to win the world cup. Now what if someone were to say that Italy only won coz it got a 'let-off' against Australia. It would be unfair to Italy to say that and would be an unsporting comment. That would be undermining Italy's achievement

Grosso won Italy the WC tbh. They didn't deserve to get past Australia.

 

[ret]

http://img410.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fifa2006xr0.jpg

 

[Manee]

Do you understand what is being implied here?

A shot thats reasonable close to Rhodes would be taken, while that may not be the case with Munaf .... It's not abt dropping the ball, it's abt catching

Now replace Munaf in Rhodes place, and everything that was being taken at that position by Rhodes would probably not be even a chance with Munaf

Same was implied earlier with the Ambrose and Kallicharan's example. A taller Ambrose would pull out a catch for e.g. at the boundary but if Kalli were there, it could go for a 6

Point: It's subjective

Yes, I know, I was just been flippant - calm down.

 

[slowfinger]

So... That's the line then between the two, innit?

 

[Richard]

How would you know that someone is not a flat track bully?

Because they've scored (chanceless) runs on pitches offering something to bowlers.

 

[Richard]

On a serious note, I think its inappropriate to judge someone on mundane concepts like let-offs

Mundane!

Anybody who understands sports knows the let-offs are a part and parcel of the game .... There are other intangibles like a batsman being given a wrong decision, a nick or a close bat and pad given / not given by the umpires and so on .... If we are to consider 'let-offs' then why don't we consider the 'let-downs' like false decision going against the batsman

Of course we do - they're more "saw-offs" than "let-downs" though. They're not intangibles, however - neither of them.

 

[Richard]

..................and a chance dropped by Curtley Ambrose could have been three feet over Alvin kallicharran's head.

So it wouldn't have been a chance if Kalli had been the fielder. It would if Ambrose had been.

 

[pasag]

On a serious note, I think its inappropriate to judge someone on mundane concepts like let-offs

............

Over a career it has very little merit as has been mentioned in depth by its opponents (nearly everyone). However on an individual inning's basis, it is a very important factor in judging an innings. It's not the only thing that's important, but let's say there are two equal innings, one a player got dropped on 10 and that didn't get dropped at all, the chanceless one is superior, obviously.

 

[Richard]

Over a career it has very little merit as has been mentioned in depth by its opponents (nearly everyone).

It's not nearly everyone, really.

 

[Swervy]

Over a career it has very little merit as has been mentioned in depth by its opponents (nearly everyone). However on an individual inning's basis, it is a very important factor in judging an innings. It's not the only thing that's important, but let's say there are two equal innings, one a player got dropped on 10 and that didn't get dropped at all, the chanceless one is superior, obviously.

what if:

Player A, gets dropped on 10, then absolutely creams the ball for an otherwise faultless 200*

Player B, technically doesnt give a chance, but, its full of near drag ons, loads of edges to the boundary, caught off a no-ball etc

Is Player Bs innings still the superior one?

 

[Swervy]

It's not nearly everyone, really.

really?


Maybe we need to define 'nearly' then! I reckon everyone bar one counts as 'nearly'

 

[Richard]

what if:

Player A, gets dropped on 10, then absolutely creams the ball for an otherwise faultless 200*

Player B, technically doesnt give a chance, but, its full of near drag ons, loads of edges to the boundary, caught off a no-ball etc

Is Player Bs innings still the superior one?

Caught off a no-ball is a let-off, and in any case did Gelman not say if everything else is equal?

 

[Richard]

really?


Maybe we need to define 'nearly' then! I reckon everyone bar one counts as 'nearly'

Yeah, but it's not everyone bar one.

 

[iamdavid]

what if:

Player A, gets dropped on 10, then absolutely creams the ball for an otherwise faultless 200*

Player B, technically doesnt give a chance, but, its full of near drag ons, loads of edges to the boundary, caught off a no-ball etc

Is Player Bs innings still the superior one?

Thought Richard classed caught off a noball as a chance ?

 

[pasag]

what if:

Player A, gets dropped on 10, then absolutely creams the ball for an otherwise faultless 200*

Player B, technically doesnt give a chance, but, its full of near drag ons, loads of edges to the boundary, caught off a no-ball etc

Is Player Bs innings still the superior one?

As Richard pointed out, that's why I specifically said all other things being equal.

Obviously any innings must be judged and compared on many, many factors and being dropped early on is merely one of them.

 

[ret]

Because they've scored (chanceless) runs on pitches offering something to bowlers.

As I said there is little info available to know on how the innings played were chanceless

I m not someone who keeps tracks of a close lbw not given, a run out missed, a stumping missed, a catched dropped, or a nick not given by the umpire so you will have to show us how their runs were chanceless

IMO, It's not possible for anyone to have 100% chanceless runs, whether you like it or not

 

[Richard]

And IMO it is. And Dravid and Tendulkar, who are both magnificent players, have played a great many chanceless innings on wickets offering something to seam (and spin) over their careers.

 

[ret]

And IMO it is. And Dravid and Tendulkar, who are both magnificent players, have played a great many chanceless innings on wickets offering something to seam (and spin) over their careers.

Could you be 100% sure that none of them ever survived a close LBW?

 

[Pup Clarke]

Don't think Hawk-Eye was around in the early part of their careers, so obviously it would of been hard to judge with one look.

Obviously since 2000 () that problem would have been eradicated and we could of had as many looks at contentious lbw's.

 

[Richard]

The HawkEye system was first used in 2001, IIRR - certainly that's the first time it was used in this country.