• 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.

The Lucky Batsmen!!!

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Deja moo said:
What changes does one bring into ones game in order to avoid chopping the ball onto the stumps ?
Don't get an inside edge on the ball? That's like saying it's unlucky to get an outside edge and be caught behind.
 

Deja moo

International Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
Don't get an inside edge on the ball? That's like saying it's unlucky to get an outside edge and be caught behind.
Do you mean to say that the batsman who gets an inside edge which doesnt touch the timber is actively doing something correct as opposed to one whose inside edges consistently hit the stumps?
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Deja moo said:
Do you mean to say that the batsman who gets an inside edge which doesnt touch the timber is actively doing something correct as opposed to one whose inside edges consistently hit the stumps?
No, edging it past your stumps unintentionally is an error just like playing it onto your stumps, but if you get an inside edge on the ball enough eventually it will get you out, hence ideally you wouldn't do any such thing. It's not bad luck to get out in such a fashion, it's a predictable result from an error in batting.
 

Deja moo

International Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
No, edging it past your stumps unintentionally is an error just like playing it onto your stumps, but if you get an inside edge on the ball enough eventually it will get you out, hence ideally you wouldn't do any such thing. It's not bad luck to get out in such a fashion, it's a predictable result from an error in batting.
I repeat...if two guys inside edge 10 balls, and one knocks his stumps 9/10 times and the other just 2/10 times, wouldnt you say the latter is luckier ?
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Deja moo said:
I repeat...if two guys inside edge 10 balls, and one knocks his stumps 9/10 times and the other just 2/10 times, wouldnt you say the latter is luckier ?
Yes, and the system discussed in this thread would count it as such - the second player would be considered luckier.

However on the same token I don't think the first player would have anything in particular to complain about in terms of being unlucky, since edging the ball past your stumps is a potentially fatal mistake that any player would try and avoid. If it happens a great deal it's undoubtedly a flaw in the technique. Mark Taylor is one player who I remember having a huge problem with this for a while, particularly early in the innings when the ball was moving around during his long mid 90s form slump. It seemed for a while like every second or third dismissal was from playing on.
 

Slats4ever

International Vice-Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
Yes, and the system discussed in this thread would count it as such - the second player would be considered luckier.

However on the same token I don't think the first player would have anything in particular to complain about in terms of being unlucky, since edging the ball past your stumps is a potentially fatal mistake that any player would try and avoid. If it happens a great deal it's undoubtedly a flaw in the technique. Mark Taylor is one player who I remember having a huge problem with this for a while, particularly early in the innings when the ball was moving around during his long mid 90s form slump. It seemed for a while like every second or third dismissal was from playing on.
hehe i remember that. that was soooo funny when tubby used to always get out chopped on... it happened like 100% of the time and everytime his face just got sadder and sadder
 

Deja moo

International Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
Yes, and the system discussed in this thread would count it as such - the second player would be considered luckier.

However on the same token I don't think the first player would have anything in particular to complain about in terms of being unlucky, since edging the ball past your stumps is a potentially fatal mistake that any player would try and avoid. If it happens a great deal it's undoubtedly a flaw in the technique. Mark Taylor is one player who I remember having a huge problem with this for a while, particularly early in the innings when the ball was moving around during his long mid 90s form slump. It seemed for a while like every second or third dismissal was from playing on.
Which is exactly my concern....I dont recall Dravid getting any more lives than any other batsman.

And one more thing, rather than looking at % of dismissals on deliveries not in control, shouldnt the actual % of said deliveries not in control be the critereon for defining an unlucky batsman ??
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Deja moo said:
What changes does one bring into ones game in order to avoid chopping the ball onto the stumps ?
umm dont play away from your body?
it was no coincidence that someone like kirsten used to chop an insane number of balls onto his stumps, many people termed it as unlucky, but the real reason behind it was because he played away from his body.
 

C_C

International Captain
umm dont play away from your body?
that is not always the case....Dravid sometimes chops it on because his bat is too angled sometimes...especially when he plays on trying to flick a ball wide of offstump. But eitherway, he remains the most technically correct batsman playing today and one of the top 5 technicians alltime.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
C_C said:
that is not always the case....Dravid sometimes chops it on because his bat is too angled sometimes...especially when he plays on trying to flick a ball wide of offstump. But eitherway, he remains the most technically correct batsman playing today and one of the top 5 technicians alltime.
no obviously its not always the case, just like an outside edge is not always due to poor footwork. but the vast majority of the time inside edges have to do with playing with your bat away from your pad.there will always be the odd occasion where you get unlucky.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
a massive zebra said:
I refuse to believe that Ashraful and Styris are more in control of their shots than Tendulkar and Dravid.
My theory would be that Ashraful & Styris get out quickly when ever there are challenging conditions, so when it comes to the overall average, the tougher conditions barely make any difference to their in control figures - because nearly all the balls they have faced overall in their careers are on flat tracks or something similar, which would obviously increase the in control percentage. Compare this to Dravid & Tendulkar who bat through the tough conditions as well as the easy ones, so the contribution from the tougher conditions is much bigger and effects their in control percentage to a much bigger degree. Also another possible factor is whether they faced the bowlers from the previous CricInfo thing about the 'unlucky' bowlers (who seems to be mostly spinners or slower bowlers).
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I think Scaly has made some good points. IN tough conditions, when you are trying to grind out the opposition, u are often not in control all that much. And such, it might have affected Rahul's stats. And guys like Ashraful and Styris never stay there for that long.


On the other hand, it just shows how wrong the numbers can be... That is why it is wrong to just blindly conclude from numbers, they never say the whole story.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
absolutely no suprise to see Langer up there. I would have thought he'd be "most lucky batsmen"
 

SpeedKing

U19 Vice-Captain
have you people ever thought that edging the ball onto the stumps is a result of good bowling. some one who moves the ball both ways accurately like Jon Lewis can make a batman play on. if you give a batsman 3 outswingers pitched 15 centimetres outside off stump. Unless he is in full control of his game and in incredible form, he is going to pre-meditate and try and middle the out-swinger by playing away from there bodies.

if they have minimal footwork and the inswinger comes just as they pre-meditate the shot, believe you me he will insde edge the ball and if lucky it will run down to fine leg.

if they do have good footwork, they will inside edge it onto the pads as they get the front foot to the pitch of the ball. if the ball is too good, it will sneak through bat and pat and crush into the stumps. look at the malcolm marshall clip on this website
http//3lib.ukonline.co.uk/cricket
 
Last edited:

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Scaly piscine said:
My theory would be that Ashraful & Styris get out quickly when ever there are challenging conditions, so when it comes to the overall average, the tougher conditions barely make any difference to their in control figures - because nearly all the balls they have faced overall in their careers are on flat tracks or something similar, which would obviously increase the in control percentage. Compare this to Dravid & Tendulkar who bat through the tough conditions as well as the easy ones, so the contribution from the tougher conditions is much bigger and effects their in control percentage to a much bigger degree. Also another possible factor is whether they faced the bowlers from the previous CricInfo thing about the 'unlucky' bowlers (who seems to be mostly spinners or slower bowlers).
I find it very hard to believe when S.MacGill is so high up in the unlucky list.
 

Jnr.

First Class Debutant
zinzan12 said:
absolutely no suprise to see Langer up there. I would have thought he'd be "most lucky batsmen"
True to form, as always. Let off on zero yet again.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
from cricinfo

http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...NEWS/2005/MAR/208906_COL-STATS_18MAR2005.html


Dravid...the luckiest batsman?????

An interesting measuring method I think!!!!
Indeed, and I don't like it at all.
Play-and-misses are easily misinterpreted; being hit on the pads similarly (indeed, many happen in the same delivery).
Often all 4 variables can just be a slightly misjudged attacking stroke; these little bits of luck are really insignificant as far as I'm concerned.
It's so easy to see what really constitues luck; how many times you get let-off, and how many runs you benefit with after these let-offs. This stuff isn't neccessary if you ask me; it's akin to fishing for minnows when you can fish for salmon.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard..could you /would you post the first chance averages you have for various players (including Dravid, Thorpe...and some of the unlucy players in the article) so we have an idea of how they match up?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
in all seriousness, it would be interesting to see what figures Richard has for Dravid with the first chance average thing....
Dravid has had some luck in recent times (the 270 at Rawalpindi, plumb lbw on 21 and dropped on 71; dropped in both innings in his supposedly-all-time-great-performance match at Adelaide; and of course dropped on 168 in his 217 at The Oval) but not really any more than the conventional; all batsmen have quite a bit of luck, far more good than bad, and Dravid, particularly in the last 3 years in which he's scorebook-averaged 72.02 in 31 Tests, has still played many fantastic innings, however often he's edged, been hit on the pads etc.
 

Top