Shane Warne

[marc71178]

No, but you can do something equally fair in counting them as not-outs.

How is that fair?

Oh, that's right, it's not, and just further shows how flawed this is.

 

[Richard]

I could ask a more appropriate question:
How is it not fair?

 

[Richard]

It's the same thing, written a different way.

It is not the same thing, it's a more accurate summary of the same thing.

Not outs still won't accurately estimate how many runs he'd go on to score on that occasion, he could go on to score 100 or be out legitimately the next ball.....with run outs do you then count the batsman whose fault it was as out?

No, you don't. Clear missed run-outs (ie fumbled fielding - not missed direct-hits, you've got to say if it hits it hits, if it doesn't it doesn't - you can't expect everything to hit, indeed you can only expect a small proportion to) are like any other let-off, but no, you can't say "if he'd thrown it to the other end".
No, you can't guess what would have been scored, but that's cricket - nothing is perfect. You just have to do the fairest thing you can.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It is not the same thing, it's a more accurate summary of the same thing.

No, you don't. Clear missed run-outs (ie fumbled fielding - not missed direct-hits, you've got to say if it hits it hits, if it doesn't it doesn't - you can't expect everything to hit, indeed you can only expect a small proportion to) are like any other let-off, but no, you can't say "if he'd thrown it to the other end".
No, you can't guess what would have been scored, but that's cricket - nothing is perfect. You just have to do the fairest thing you can.

Which is then your estimate of what would have happened - so is entirely subjective..........look I understand what you're trying to do with the first chance average thing, but there is a lot of individual interpretation involved in the assumed dismissals, non-dismissals etc. As far as the run outs go, I was talking more about a batsman calling someone through for a run that wasn't there and having that other person run out..........surely not the fault of the batsman who is dismissed and not just a case of throwing to the wrong end.

 

[Richard]

Which is then your estimate of what would have happened - so is entirely subjective..........look I understand what you're trying to do with the first chance average thing, but there is a lot of individual interpretation involved in the assumed dismissals, non-dismissals etc.

Good to know, that's another one added to my list. There may be a bit of it, but really, think about it. Look at a few dropped catches. How many times do you think there will be any real doubt as to whether it should or shouldn't be out? I can understand why it would seem like there would be lots of individual interpretation and subjectivity going around (especially with marc hissing in your ear all the time) but really, I don't think there is - and I have studied the situation in quite a bit of depth. Really.

As far as the run outs go, I was talking more about a batsman calling someone through for a run that wasn't there and having that other person run out..........surely not the fault of the batsman who is dismissed and not just a case of throwing to the wrong end.

Yes, indeed, but you still can't say "if he'd thrown at the other end".

 

[The Argonaut]

The first chance average debate is a useless one. There is only one person on this forum who believes in them. They are not published anywhere. I have never heard the term mentioned by anyone anywhere except on this forum. As mentioned before the determination of a potential dismissal is highly subjective. Someone drops a catch that others would not have got a hand on, or gets 2 fingers on the ball, or a run out where the fielder aims at one stump and misses. These are hardly clear chances. Recording a bad decision as a not out is the best you can do but not really fair. If you get a bad one on 0 it doesn't matter.

I would encourage the debate to be stopped as it just goes around in circles. Believe me I've seen it before.

 

[marc71178]

I could ask a more appropriate question:
How is it not fair?

Apart from the fact that a sawn off batsman loses out extremely heavily?

 

[marc71178]

Good to know, that's another one added to my list.

Apart from the fact he pointed out the same flaw mentioned by most.

So how does that add one to your list?

 

[Richard]

Apart from the fact that a sawn off batsman loses out extremely heavily?

You don't know how heavily he loses-out.

 

[Richard]

Apart from the fact he pointed out the same flaw mentioned by most.

So how does that add one to your list?

Pointed-out by you, rather.
He said he sees the merits - something you and a few others are yet to do.

 

[Richard]

The first chance average debate is a useless one.

No, it's not

There is only one person on this forum who believes in them.

Depends what you call "believes".

They are not published anywhere.

So?

I have never heard the term mentioned by anyone anywhere except on this forum.

So?

As mentioned before the determination of a potential dismissal is highly subjective.

No, it's not.

Someone drops a catch that others would not have got a hand on, or gets 2 fingers on the ball, or a run out where the fielder aims at one stump and misses. These are hardly clear chances. Recording a bad decision as a not out is the best you can do but not really fair. If you get a bad one on 0 it doesn't matter.

2 fingers is not a chance; missed direct-hits are not a chance; it mightn't be fair but it's certainly fairer than the scorebook-average.

I would encourage the debate to be stopped as it just goes around in circles. Believe me I've seen it before.

New territory is unearthed each time.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Good to know, that's another one added to my list. There may be a bit of it, but really, think about it. Look at a few dropped catches. How many times do you think there will be any real doubt as to whether it should or shouldn't be out? I can understand why it would seem like there would be lots of individual interpretation and subjectivity going around (especially with marc hissing in your ear all the time) but really, I don't think there is - and I have studied the situation in quite a bit of depth. Really.

Yes, indeed, but you still can't say "if he'd thrown at the other end".

Until you have clear cut definitions of what falls into each category and have eliminated as many confounding variables as possible then it remains open to interpretation.......I didn't realise that we were fighting this battle on two fronts no wonder I was getting confused as to exactly where this discussion was taking place.......now I know why the old war cliche rings so true.

 

[Richard]

Look, it's not perfect - nothing is. It's not fair to say "it has no value because it's not perfect".
I'm glad you see the benefits of it, thank you for some polite, grown-up discussion rather than out-of-hand dismissal.