Taking a punt

[GIMH]

Actually I do, but as I've said countless times to those ignorant of the first-chance idea, don't let your ignorance get in the way of a good dissing of the idea. Pretty much every single one of the last 20-or-so posts on the matter displays said ignorance in one way or another.

When did you first come up with the idea Richard?

 

[zaremba]

As for what Stephen Waugh said, I couldn't really give a damn. There is absolutely no way that Vaughan in 2002/03 was a patch on Gooch in 1990/91 or 1993. The player who does not say "so-and-so is the best player I've ever seen \ is damn good" when someone's just scored a whole heap of runs against their own team is in a small minority.

Steve Waugh - not a man given to over-effusive praise of his opponents IIRC. Anyhow I've no doubt you're a better judge of a batsman's ability than he is.

As for your theory re Vaughan essentially fluking his way through, this is an area where your views are so extreme that I sometimes wonder whether you and I actually watch the same game. We certainly don't have the same feeling for it. Which is not to say I'm right and you're wrong - there's a certain extreme fundamentalist logic to what you say - but we see things in very different ways.

One of the ways in which I think you underestimate players is by effectively writing off their achievements after giving chances. All players give chances, and how the batsman reacts can be a matter of supreme importance to the fate of a Test or a series (eg Pietersen at the Oval 2005). Also, I think that your definition of a lucky chance that should notionally bring an innings to an end for FCA purposes is entirely arbitrary - what logical basis is there for treating a drop any differently than a play-and-miss? (an issue that we've debated before of course).

 

[Manee]

Onions was quite the punt today

Still a dreadful selection, obviously. You could virtually have picked a decent club bowler (which is what Onions is mostly little more than) and he'd have run through the pathetic batting West Indies managed in that first-innings.

Guy takes 5-38 on debut and you still bash him. Jeez Rich, a bit of credit wouldn't go amiss once in a while.

Think I'm done with this thread now, no need to go round in circles

Wow Rich, quite the stance to take! Onions was not a statistically dreadful selection. He averaged 33.11 in the 2007 English CC season, then 28.12 in the Lions tour of India, 26.84 in 2008 and started 2009 brilliantly. I don't think he is an amazing bowler, but nor do I think he is a dreadful selection.

 

[Manee]

The issue I have with the first-chance average is that the context is so small; it is only the games you have watched and so that eliminates about a hundred years of Test cricket and at least one quarter of games throughout the period of cricket you have watched.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Actually I do, but as I've said countless times to those ignorant of the first-chance idea, don't let your ignorance get in the way of a good dissing of the idea. Pretty much every single one of the last 20-or-so posts on the matter displays said ignorance in one way or another.

Well mate, you've had every opportunity to make it clear. You can spend your whole life saying those who actually want a better explanation are 'ignorant', or you can actually make an effort to cover up all the holes. A theory only you understand isn't much good to anyone else.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'd venture to say that not a few of them don't; I'd also venture to say that some don't realise the importance of them because they're too concerned with telling themselves that they know better.

Of course. They should just ask you Richard.

 

[Richard]

Well mate, you've had every opportunity to make it clear. You can spend your whole life saying those who actually want a better explanation are 'ignorant', or you can actually make an effort to cover up all the holes. A theory only you understand isn't much good to anyone else.

I've made it clear to hundreds of people, hundreds of times. Some people simply don't like it so will always try to find more holes even as every one has been closed. It's difficult to find the will to bother to try any more.

 

[Richard]

When did you first come up with the idea Richard?

First time the thought crossed my mind was when England dropped Gilchrist about a million times in the first couple of Tests in 2001.

 

[Richard]

Steve Waugh - not a man given to over-effusive praise of his opponents IIRC. Anyhow I've no doubt you're a better judge of a batsman's ability than he is.

Waugh was going OTT there, pure and simple. If he'd said "Vaughan played better in that series than any England batsman ever has against Australia in my time" that'd just about be fair enough - just. Whether he never went OTT again in his life is irrelevant - he did so there, plain and simple.

As for your theory re Vaughan essentially fluking his way through, this is an area where your views are so extreme that I sometimes wonder whether you and I actually watch the same game. We certainly don't have the same feeling for it. Which is not to say I'm right and you're wrong - there's a certain extreme fundamentalist logic to what you say - but we see things in very different ways.

One of the ways in which I think you underestimate players is by effectively writing off their achievements after giving chances. All players give chances, and how the batsman reacts can be a matter of supreme importance to the fate of a Test or a series (eg Pietersen at the Oval 2005). Also, I think that your definition of a lucky chance that should notionally bring an innings to an end for FCA purposes is entirely arbitrary - what logical basis is there for treating a drop any differently than a play-and-miss? (an issue that we've debated before of course).

I don't write-off achievements after a let-off. I specifically pointed-out why I wasn't doing that in the Vaughan-opener case.

I quite clearly said that it's particularly criminal for an opening batsman to get to 20 or 30 quickly then give a chance, because they're doing neither of the jobs openers should be doing - ie, seeing-off the new ball and holding the innings together with a long innings. I am quite willing to fully credit Vaughan for going chancelessly and gloriously from 19 to 197 as he did at Trent Bridge in 2002, but that does not make him a good opener.

 

[zaremba]

I've made it clear to hundreds of people, hundreds of times. Some people simply don't like it so will always try to find more holes even as every one has been closed. It's difficult to find the will to bother to try any more.

Please don't take my previous posts as indicating any interest in getting involved in a debate about, or a request for an explanation of, the FCA. I've never had it explained to me, but it doesn't really interest me at all. All I was trying to do in my previous post was to make some rather more general points.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've made it clear to hundreds of people, hundreds of times. Some people simply don't like it so will always try to find more holes even as every one has been closed. It's difficult to find the will to bother to try any more.

If people are asking questions still though it is possible they either don't understand your explanation, or the explanation wasn't adequate. Just because you think it is doesn't mean anything if you can't explain it well to other people. Getting annoyed when people say "Well what would you do about this?", or "I don't think it works because of this", isn't necessarily productive. If you've made it clear and it works perfectly there wouldn't be any questions.