• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

2004, it's over.

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No, not at all - I've actually thought the thing through about fifty times the number of times anyone's thought the conventional out-of-hand idea of chances.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
surely thats what makes cricket such a wonderful, albeit cruel, game. one day you get dropped five times and make runs, the next day your run out from a straight drive that scraped the bowlers hand and went onto the stumps. luck is one of the most essential parts of cricket, and what makes watching it enjoyable.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Maybe for some people - for mine, that's one of the most disappointing aspects.
There's nothing I hate more than a dropped catch or bad decision.
And it's all the more reason to use stats that disregard luck when trying to sum-up a batsman's ability.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
No, you'd much rather use a combination of a flawed system and a flawed person's opinion on players wouldn't you?
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
First chance - flawed owing to the fact that there is no clear definition of a catch.

Your opinon - flawed because you refuse to accept players can evolve from your first view of them.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Scorebook - flawed because it doesn't accout for luck.
It's all a question of what you place most value on.
I place most value on the eradication of luck.
You place most value on the non-use of opinion.
It's not a question of one bieng unquestionably better, as I've repeatedly pointed-out to you.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Your opinon - flawed because you refuse to accept players can evolve from your first view of them.
Oh - and how many times have I got to disprove that before you notice?
No, it takes longer to convince me that a player has changed than it does some, but that simply says that I'm more prepared to wait - and in cases such as Harmison, it might just see me proven right after all.
I am not totally unprepared to change my view of a player.
 

Top