Warne on crowds

[Top_Cat]

Of course the above is predicated on the pretty broad assumption that the other batsmen, had catches been taken, would have scored exactly the same number of runs. For all you know, someone who got a big score might have made way for a subsequent batsman to score runs. Or maybe it COULD have gone the other way too. Either way, there's no way of knowing how other batsmen would have reacted had someone like Hodge been pouched on 13 so to say that catching cost SA the series is a vast over-simplification.

 

[Richard]

I see no reason to simply assume that Australia would have batted better. Especially with the Hussey one - that was it, if that catch had been taken. Innings over. No coming back.
What I see as the most likely scenario is that Australia would have made low totals in all 4 innings had South Africa taken their catches. This is NOT a certainty and I've not portrayed it as such. Except in the Hussey case. Even then, of course, there was still a second-innings.
I don't see why it's not a reasonable assumption to say that South Africa would've won that series having taken their catches.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't see why it's not a reasonable assumption to say that South Africa would've won that series having taken their catches.

Because that assumption is predicated on a bunch of others, none of which are supportable. Like I said, you're assuming all of the other players would have performed exactly the same. Having taken their catches, who's to say SA would have capitalised on their good work? If taking their catches won SA the first Test, who's to say that Australia, paranoid about losing their first home series in 1992, wouldn't have bounced back to win the last two? It cannot be treated as a certainty.

 

[Smudge]

And as soon as one catch is taken, it changes the whole complexion of how the game pans out. It's the old sliding doors theory.

 

[marc71178]

I don't see why it's not a reasonable assumption to say that South Africa would've won that series having taken their catches.

Try the fact that they're not actually anywhere near as good as Australia?

 

[honestbharani]

so, Warnie's an idiot. What's new?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I don't see why it's not a reasonable assumption to say that South Africa would've won that series having taken their catches.

There's no difference between saying that and "I don't see why it's not a reasonable assumption to say that South Africa would've won that series having batted/bowled better". You're making catches sound like they are an independent variable, not under the side's control.

 

[vic_orthdox]

And as soon as one catch is taken, it changes the whole complexion of how the game pans out. It's the old sliding doors theory.

She was hotter as a brunette, IMO...

 

[Top_Cat]

There's no difference between saying that and "I don't see why it's not a reasonable assumption to say that South Africa would've won that series having batted/bowled better". You're making catches sound like they are an independent variable, not under the side's control.

You're a Commerce student; what the hell would you know about statistical terms like 'independent variable'? Stick to prefix's like 'macro' and 'micro' and matrices and the world will be a better place.

That said, this;

She was hotter as a brunette, IMO...

is the mark of a truly analytical thinker.

 

[Richard]

Because that assumption is predicated on a bunch of others, none of which are supportable. Like I said, you're assuming all of the other players would have performed exactly the same. Having taken their catches, who's to say SA would have capitalised on their good work? If taking their catches won SA the first Test, who's to say that Australia, paranoid about losing their first home series in 1992, wouldn't have bounced back to win the last two? It cannot be treated as a certainty.

And as such I've not treated it as one.
It's more realistic, as far as I'm concerned, to imagine that Australia would have batted as poorly as they did, rather than batting better. Of course not all the scores would have been the same, but I reckon they'd have been more likely to have been similar than vastly different.

 

[Richard]

Try the fact that they're not actually anywhere near as good as Australia?

And of course we've never seen a team everyone thought was inferior go on to prove their superiority? (The Ashes, FOR INSTANCE?)

 

[Richard]

There's no difference between saying that and "I don't see why it's not a reasonable assumption to say that South Africa would've won that series having batted/bowled better". You're making catches sound like they are an independent variable, not under the side's control.

Catches are completely different from "batting better" and "bowling better".
We know for certain that a batsman's innings would have been terminated at a certain point had a catch been taken. For "better bowling" it's simply an intangible.

 

[marc71178]

And of course we've never seen a team everyone thought was inferior go on to prove their superiority? (The Ashes, FOR INSTANCE?)

Difference being that England team was untried.

This SA team isn't.

 

[Matt79]

I honestly don't think Warne was criticising Murali - though I understand both Murali and his fans might be sensitive to more perceived sledging by the Aussies. I think warne might be speaking naively - where can Murali start to 'win over' a bunch of ignorant morons who show up just to yell 'no-ball' at him.

Whatever you think of Murali's action, its quite unsporting of my country-men to do that to Murali.

Now, do you think Warne might be in a position to talk about sledging from crowds - he's given them plenty of ammo over the years - but he takes it like a man and gets on with his job. Another thing that makes him a champ.

 

[Matt79]

by the way, its silly to say that South Africa 'nearly' beat the aussies - except for the fact they can't field (witness dropped catches - what do school coaches tell you about taking catches and winning matches), their captain couldn't adapt to the conditions, and they couldn't keep themselves fit and on the track.

You can call Smith's declaration in Sydney 'brave cricket', or, with his bowling attack of second-string pacemen and a GREEN spinner that were never going to take ten wickets you can call it criminal stupidity. I know what I think.

 

[Goughy]

Catches are completely different from "batting better" and "bowling better".
We know for certain that a batsman's innings would have been terminated at a certain point had a catch been taken. For "better bowling" it's simply an intangible.

Could not disagree more. "completely different"? Cricket is a 3 skill sport and the game should test all 3. If you have a weakness and fail to perform in an area you do not deserve to win games.

Also and most importantly if a batsman misses a straight one or plays a bad shot it is the same as a dropped catch.
You say for certain that an innings would be terminated if a catch was taken
We can then say that an innings would not be terminated if a guy does not miss a straight one or play a shocker.

It is also tangible and definately comparable.

 

[Richard]

Difference being that England team was untried.

This SA team isn't.

England have had a far more settled side than SA have recently.
Therefore if anyone was untested, it was SA.

 

[Richard]

by the way, its silly to say that South Africa 'nearly' beat the aussies - except for the fact they can't field (witness dropped catches - what do school coaches tell you about taking catches and winning matches), their captain couldn't adapt to the conditions, and they couldn't keep themselves fit and on the track.

Yet despite this, barring dropped catches very few half-centuries would've flowed from Australian bats...

 

[Richard]

Could not disagree more. "completely different"? Cricket is a 3 skill sport and the game should test all 3. If you have a weakness and fail to perform in an area you do not deserve to win games.

Also and most importantly if a batsman misses a straight one or plays a bad shot it is the same as a dropped catch.
You say for certain that an innings would be terminated if a catch was taken
We can then say that an innings would not be terminated if a guy does not miss a straight one or play a shocker.

It is also tangible and definately comparable.

A batsman can quite easily be out without missing a straight one or playing a shocking shot.
There are deliveries - plenty of them - that batsmen have no realistic chance of keeping out. I call them RUDs - realistically unplayable deliveries.
And in any case - no batsman has ever kept on not gifting his wicket. It always happens eventually.
Bowling is on a scale - not just "good" or "bad". A catch is either dropped or caught - much, much simpler.

 

[Matt79]

So essentially, you're saying that if SA were a better side, more able to do the simple things, they might have beaten Australia?