Worst drop in history

[marc71178]

Mercifully, I can barely remember 5 dropped catches in the recent SA-Eng Test-series.

Which kind of makes your point about universal agreement on drops rather useless.

Harmison alone had 5 dropped off him.

The total in the series was at least 3 or 4 times as many as you say.

 

[Richard]

I don't claim to remember every single dropped catch.
How many dropped catches were there that proved significant to the batsman's score?
AB de Villiers in the first-innings at Centurion is one. Any others? Certainly South Africa's catching was outstanding, even if England's did wear a bit towards the end (worrying - with The Ashes on the horizon yet again).

 

[Richard]

Herschelle Gibbs 1999 World Cup Super 6 Aus v Sa

You've just dropped the world cup mate

Hindsight suggests he did.
Yet Stephen Waugh has repeatedly stated he never made such a claim, and Gibbs has never (understandibly) commented on the matter.
It was invented by some clever journo.

 

[marc71178]

I don't claim to remember every single dropped catch.
How many dropped catches were there that proved significant to the batsman's score?

Since when has significance of addition been a defining factor as to a drop?

 

[Swervy]

So... go and take a look.
Even in this day and age of poor catching, a caught catch is still much more common than a dropped one.
Mercifully, I can barely remember 5 dropped catches in the recent SA-Eng Test-series.

still yet to be convinced by this.

I have recently read 'Bodyline Autopsy'...many references to dropped catches(as in loads of them) (including the great Wally Hammond)...also reference to one game not apart of that series why apparently 14 catches were dropped in one SESSION.

anyway.....

 

[marc71178]

But Swervy, standards were so much better then, because Richard has said so, ignoring anything from more learned people which debunks his theorems.

 

[Jono]

People can claim all they like that batting and bowling was of a higher standard 'back in the day' (which most users haven't seen), but you'll find it extremely hard to convince me that today's catching (and fielding in general) is of a lower standards than previous eras. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the matter (like some of our users do, you see if they read a book its true despite never seeing it) but I find modern day catching to be brilliant, and its becoming very common to see a 'screamer' in just about every game.

 

[Swervy]

People can claim all they like that batting and bowling was of a higher standard 'back in the day' (which most users haven't seen), but you'll find it extremely hard to convince me that today's catching (and fielding in general) is of a lower standards than previous eras. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the matter (like some of our users do, you see if they read a book its true despite never seeing it) but I find modern day catching to be brilliant, and its becoming very common to see a 'screamer' in just about every game.

i agree..I find it very hard to believe that ground fielding has improved so much (even in the last 15 years the standard has improved massively) and yet catching the ball has dropped so much.

 

[Langeveldt]

Hmm... there are a few, for different reasons:
Chris Scott's off Lara on 17 in June 1994 - created the opportunity for a record which, while neat in that it gave the same batsman the hightest Test and First-Class score, will always be wholly hollow for mine because it could so easily have been averted.

yeah, waste of time in the end, 500 and all that...

 

[Langeveldt]

Worst drop was Graeme Thorpe, off Matt Elliott when he went on to make 199(?) Ended Smith's test career before it had even begun..

 

[marc71178]

Although in hindsight that may not have been a bad thing Rich!

 

[Richard]

Because Mike Smith was so clearly proven to be such a terrible bowler, wasn't he?

 

[Richard]

still yet to be convinced by this.

I have recently read 'Bodyline Autopsy'...many references to dropped catches(as in loads of them) (including the great Wally Hammond)...also reference to one game not apart of that series why apparently 14 catches were dropped in one SESSION.

anyway.....

From what I've read (and seen) many "catches" went down in the leg-cordon; not surprising given the speed on and off the bat; things which convince me that certain writers were simply concoting chances when in fact it was not remotely realistic to claim they were such - something, funnily enough, there have always been writers who've done down the years, and equally there've always been those who've given a better impression. Something most people haven't actually looked at in detail, and find it hard to take that there is the odd person (me, for instance) who actually has.

 

[Richard]

Since when has significance of addition been a defining factor as to a drop?

Err - what the hell does a dropped catch matter if you get the batsman out next ball?
It doesn't matter in the slightest.
There were very, very few innings played in the Test-series where batsmen benefited from luck - and as a result the cricket was of a pretty high standard.

 

[marc71178]

Because Mike Smith was so clearly proven to be such a terrible bowler, wasn't he?

He was another typical county pro - can take lots of wickets at that level but no more.

 

[marc71178]

the cricket was of a pretty high standard.

You what?!!!!

I don't think anybody else has described it as a series with high standard cricket.

 

[Richard]

He was another typical county pro - can take lots of wickets at that level but no more.

And of course we know that for absolute certainty, don't we, because he was given so many chances at Test-level?
If you judged people on a single Test you'd have written-off Tendulkar as a typical Ranji pro who's been prematurely introduced to Tests - can score runs at that level but no more.
I'm pretty confident Mike Smith'd have had a hell of a lot more success if Thorpe had taken that catch.

 

[Richard]

You what?!!!!

I don't think anybody else has described it as a series with high standard cricket.

So you've missed people talking of it as a thrilling series between two well-matched sides, then?
(And given that people seemed to reckon England were actually playing some pretty high-standard cricket, therefore given that they were well-matched it must mean both sides are)

 

[marc71178]

Yes it was a tight series, but where have people reckoned England played some high-standard Cricket?

 

[Richard]

People have been saying it about England since West Indies (and erroneosly beforehand) - you have been no exception.