Soth Africa's boring tactics

[Richard]

You sound like the Indians and Pakistani fans who blame umpires, bad decisions, CHANCE and every thing except that they were fairly beaten. Same goes for English football team

Sehwag is a good player and its not due to CHANCE!

Nothing in common - it's not to do with any team or any match-result I was hoping against, simply to do with an individual. I've stated, somewhere, that I enjoyed Sehwag taking the runs of the rubbish Australian attack of 2003\04, but nonetheless he needed luck to do it.

 

[Richard]

Just 1 person expressing doubt immediately shows that there is no universal definition of a chance, whereas there is universal definition of a dismissal.

So? There are still dismissals that are disputed, they happen quite often.

 

[Pratters]

Nothing in common - it's not to do with any team or any match-result I was hoping against, simply to do with an individual. I've stated, somewhere, that I enjoyed Sehwag taking the runs of the rubbish Australian attack of 2003\04, but nonetheless he needed luck to do it.

Common in the sense people will see every thing except the obvious.. that the team was beaten by a better side.. that Sehwag can actually play good cricket and is not scoring runs cos he is LUCKY..

 

[marc71178]

Disputed or not, they are out.

A dispute on a chance means that it is not universally regarded as a chance, and hence it is a flawed basis.

Until you can remove this flaw, the so-called "first chance average" means nothing.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

Because it is not the case that every batsman scores 1 then gets dropped every innings.

but the fielders missed out on a run out chance (however slim the chance was).

 

[Richard]

Common in the sense people will see every thing except the obvious.. that the team was beaten by a better side.. that Sehwag can actually play good cricket and is not scoring runs cos he is LUCKY..

Never brought batsman, bowler etc. luck into results - almost without fail, the winner of a match will have been the better side. Holding your catches is all part of being the better side.
Luck, however, is not part of being a good batsman.

 

[Richard]

but the fielders missed out on a run out chance (however slim the chance was).

It might happen occasionally, yes, but mostly batsmen score more than 1 before even giving the slightest chance of dismissal.

 

[Richard]

Disputed or not, they are out.

A dispute on a chance means that it is not universally regarded as a chance, and hence it is a flawed basis.

Until you can remove this flaw, the so-called "first chance average" means nothing.

Until you can remove the flaw of scorebook averages including luck, it means nothing.
Can you not see? It is the same as the Snicko situation. Neither idea is perfect, but the one that is established is the one you see as better, so you want to see it superseded only by a perfect system. Yet a perfect system does not exist. I, on the other hand, simply want the fairest system to be the prevolant one.
I acknowledge the limitations of the first-chance system. You, however, do not acknowledge those of the scorebook one, because it is the one you are comfortable with.

 

[Pratters]

Never brought batsman, bowler etc. luck into results - almost without fail, the winner of a match will have been the better side. Holding your catches is all part of being the better side.
Luck, however, is not part of being a good batsman.

So a drop catch helping the batsman score a century means he is not a good batsman. And a missfielding allowing a side win means the winning side is good.

Luck is a part and parcel of cricket. Looking at it minutely is impossible.

Thats why when people started writing statistics for fielding, they removed catches dropped and only kept catches taken

 

[ReallyCrazy]

It might happen occasionally, yes, but mostly batsmen score more than 1 before even giving the slightest chance of dismissal.

it actually happens everytime coz if the fielder and bowler were the absolute best, no run would be allowed/batter will get out.

 

[Richard]

So a drop catch helping the batsman score a century means he is not a good batsman. And a missfielding allowing a side win means the winning side is good.

Luck is a part and parcel of cricket. Looking at it minutely is impossible.

Thats why when people started writing statistics for fielding, they removed catches dropped and only kept catches taken

No, it's because the result is the first and foremost thing.
Nonetheless, what contributes to the result is not the foremost thing that contributes to the rating of the skill of the batsman.

 

[Richard]

it actually happens everytime coz if the fielder and bowler were the absolute best, no run would be allowed/batter will get out.

Yes, but robotic bowling and fielding doesn't happen.
Assumptions of robotic catching and Umpiring are the best ways to assess a batsman's skill, for the reason that they are very different and have far, far less variable than bowling and batting.

 

[Pratters]

No, it's because the result is the first and foremost thing.
Nonetheless, what contributes to the result is not the foremost thing that contributes to the rating of the skill of the batsman.

How would you judge the skill of a batsman if not by the amount of runs he makes? Thats what a batsman is set out to do. Whatever skills a batsman has, like the skill of concetration, defense or stroke play should ultimately contribute to the runs. Thats which would be a good parameter to see how skillfull a player is objectively. The runs a player makes in various conditions over a period of time.

Every other judgement like luck and missed chances are subjective and not things to be concerned with.

If a player makes runs over a time, he is skillfull and good and suitable for my team. Your team might comprise of totally skillfull players who cant make runs due to badluck like maybe Graeme Hick

 

[Richard]

How would you judge the skill of a batsman if not by the amount of runs he makes? Thats what a batsman is set out to do. Whatever skills a batsman has, like the skill of concetration, defense or stroke play should ultimately contribute to the runs. Thats which would be a good parameter to see how skillfull a player is objectively. The runs a player makes in various conditions over a period of time.

Yes - the runs he makes - not simply the runs he has against his name. It is scoring runs - earning runs - don't you see? - that makes a batsman.

Every other judgement like luck and missed chances are subjective and not things to be concerned with.

There is subjectivity in everything.

If a player makes runs over a time, he is skillfull and good and suitable for my team. Your team might comprise of totally skillfull players who cant make runs due to badluck like maybe Graeme Hick

Hick couldn't make runs because, for most of his Test-career, he wasn't good enough, not due to bad luck.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

Yes, but robotic bowling and fielding doesn't happen.
Assumptions of robotic catching and Umpiring are the best ways to assess a batsman's skill, for the reason that they are very different and have far, far less variable than bowling and batting.

I agree with you that robotic bowling and fielding does not happen. Robotic catching and umpiring does not happen either (this is inhuman too) and should not be assumed. That's what makes cricket what it is.

If sehwag lives by the sword (bats aggressively), he will more times than not die by the sword (get out playing an aggressive shot). That is his game. He is different from most batters in that, he will take a lot more chances and sometimes it pays off and other times, it does not. If it has paid off more times than not, then all credit to him. Even, in business, it is well known concept that the riskier the investment, the better the interest rates are going to be.

This is the same for a bowler like McGrath. He keeps bowling a nagging line outside offstump. He waits for the batter to make a mistake. Some may call it bland bowling but he's a very intelligent bowler and deserves all his wickets.

 

[Richard]

I agree with you that robotic bowling and fielding does not happen. Robotic catching and umpiring does not happen either (this is inhuman too) and should not be assumed. That's what makes cricket what it is.

If sehwag lives by the sword (bats aggressively), he will more times than not die by the sword (get out playing an aggressive shot). That is his game. He is different from most batters in that, he will take a lot more chances and sometimes it pays off and other times, it does not. If it has paid off more times than not, then all credit to him. Even, in business, it is well known concept that the riskier the investment, the better the interest rates are going to be.

This is the same for a bowler like McGrath. He keeps bowling a nagging line outside offstump. He waits for the batter to make a mistake. Some may call it bland bowling but he's a very intelligent bowler and deserves all his wickets.

Both are MOOs, and I'll leave it to say you think Sehwag and McGrath deserve whatever they have against their names and I think there's more to it than that.

 

[Pratters]

Yes - the runs he makes - not simply the runs he has against his name. It is scoring runs - earning runs - don't you see? - that makes a batsman.

There is subjectivity in everything.

There isnt subjectivity in the runs against the name of a batsman.

If a player drops a batsman, and then he goes on to make a century, does that mean the batsman has not earned the runs?

Making runs has a bit of luck but it cant be credited to luck like you are doing in case of Sehwag. That is great injustice to his efforts as a player.

There are people who will give a chance and then eventually give another chance. Making most of the luck is also some thing many players cant do.

And show me how Sehwag was completely lucky in the last 5 centuries he made..... and the runs were undeserved..

 

[Richard]

There isnt subjectivity in the runs against the name of a batsman.

No, but there is bias and skew.

 

[Pratters]

No, but there is bias and skew.

Which is not enough to proclaim averages are totally unrepresentative of a player's ability like you are doing in the case of Sehwag!

 

[Richard]

I've not claimed they are totally unrepresentative (Sehwag-the-opener's average up to 2003\04 was a very good illustration of him - good at home, not brilliant away).
However, since the Border-Gavaskar in Australia Sehwag's scorebook average has been a very poor representation of his play.