***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[LongHopCassidy]

Regardless, Langer was a far more dour batsman during the first half of his career. I wouldn't put it past him, as a Test-quality player, to use that technique.

Geoff Boycott was a pioneer in "soft hands" defence as well.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Ridiculous. That says more about his technique than his luck. Dravid plays with such soft hands that edges are not likely to carry to close in fieldsmen. That's what makes him such a solid and brilliant batsman - even if he is not in control, he's not likely to get out to it.

I think much of this post entails why Dravid has been underrated for so long. His brilliance does not come as much from his flashing blade, like a Lara, or his demoralisation of attacks like a Tendulkar or Ponting, but through the intelligence of his batsmanship. He just makes it so hard for oppositions to get him out, using things like soft hands, positioning at the crease, and other little intricacies better than anyone else in the game.

 

[tooextracool]

Sorry for the confusion, I am referring to the 3rd Test here, and the pitch India bowled on in the 1st inns.

oh my mistake.....
the point though is not that they should have restricted them to below 300, it was that they should have restricted them to a lot below 558

 

[tooextracool]

I guess we will never know how Warne would have bowled on that strip, but the way the indian's batted especially the little master, taking no risks I don't think he would have made a huge difference.

I agree they had no chance of victory, what I am saying if it was such a tough pitch, I think they would have been playing with more caution, after all they lost 6 wickets, and still had Katich in.
Not 9 wickets and holding on.

no but it did look like at one point that they were looking down the barrell. and it wasnt such a tough pitch, on the last 2 days it was more like what a typical subcontinental wicket would be on days 2 and 3. so its still pretty effective, even if it was very very poor on the first 3 days or so.

 

[Richard]

I don't know if there are any stats, but my gut feeling would be that less than 30% of batsman scoring 200+ would do so without giving at least one chance.

I'd say it was nearer 50%, and yes, that only shows that batsmen are not as good as assumed.

I don't think Australia has ever replaced Mark Waugh and to a lesser degree Taylor in the slips. Just as well they would be almost unbeatable otherwise.

They would be unbeatable? Are they not close enough already?
Yes, they'd probably win even more emphatically but can we honestly say the dropped catches have caused them to lose many matches?
Since Mark Waugh dropped those 2 in that Pakistan Test (the start of it all) Aus have lost 4 Tests and drawn 5: vs Eng, SCG; vs WI, Recreation Ground; vs India, 'Gabba; vs Ind, Adelaide; vs Ind, SCG; vs SL, Cairns; vs NZ, Basin Reserve
2 of these were severely disrupted by rain and would have been drawn anyway; one was a miracle and I can't remember whether there were any significant drops in the run-chase (don't remember any); I don't remember any at Cairns against SL; and while the drops definately let Indians score more than they should have at Adelaide and The SCG I'm not totally certain they'd have changed the SCG draw, though it might have changed it at Adelaide; but certainly they cost the match against us.

 

[Richard]

As was done in the case of the bowlers, here too, the numbers were dug out for the total number of deliveries that a batsman wasn't in control of in the period starting from September 1, 2001 (when we started recording ball-by-ball data for every delivery in every Test match). Each ball when the batsman played and missed, edged, miscued or was rapped on the pads added to the not-in-control (NIC) counter

You are wrong Richard

Dravid is the luckiest batsman and the statistics prove it. You have no evidence except that you think Langer is lucky. Unless you have something concrete to prove your theory then I can only conclude that you just make things up.

You can, but I'm not too worried about that because even if I could recall all Langer and Dravid innings exactly and show that Langer's difference between scorebook-average and first-chance-average was far larger than Dravid's you'd still manage to find something else because you can't understand that an Australian could be luckier than a non-Australian.
Not to mention the fact that both Langer and Dravid's careers stretch back beyond 2001.
I'd be interested to see if tec could give us some data, because I'd back him above anyone else on here to remember the relevant facts.

 

[Richard]

On average it has been down yes. I saw an interview with John Buchanan where he said that with the amount of travel etc it's becoming increasingly harder to give 100% to every area of the game - which might explain a slight decline in standards set a few years back.

It might explain a slight decline, yes, but it hardly explains how they've gone from dropping maybe a catch every 3 games to dropping 2 or so per game.
And I find it hard to conceive that the travel increased in 2002\03 - I'd say it was more likely to have done so 3 or 4 years before.

 

[Richard]

Langer's technique is good, but not as good as Dravid's. I'm pretty sure they were talking about Langer's 'luck' regarding edges that do carry (but dropped), or lbw's given not out anyway.

Scallywag is trying to bring this largely irrelevant CricInfo research into the matter.
I'm trying to point-out that far more relevant is actual dropped-catches and other let-offs.

 

[archie mac]

oh my mistake.....
the point though is not that they should have restricted them to below 300, it was that they should have restricted them to a lot below 558

Maybe they would have in they would have kept them out in the field a little longer. In the end Aust won by 9 wkts. I still think it was their 1st inns. batting that cost them that Test.

 

[archie mac]

no but it did look like at one point that they were looking down the barrell. and it wasnt such a tough pitch, on the last 2 days it was more like what a typical subcontinental wicket would be on days 2 and 3. so its still pretty effective, even if it was very very poor on the first 3 days or so.

I think we have reached an agreement, sort of in a kinda round about way

 

[archie mac]

I'd say it was nearer 50%, and yes, that only shows that batsmen are not as good as assumed..

It would be interesting to know, I wonder if anyone can tell us? Maybe James should employ Bill Frindall

 

[social]

Langer's technique is good, but not as good as Dravid's. I'm pretty sure they were talking about Langer's 'luck' regarding edges that do carry (but dropped), or lbw's given not out anyway.

Just to clarify matters, I was only talking about the way Langer resurrected his test career.

He went through one of those patches where everything that could have gone his way did.

Ive never seen a player whose career at the top level was, for all intents and purposes, teetering on the brink, benefit from so many pieces of good fortune in such a small amount of time.

Nowadays he is, of course, one of the world's leading players but things could have been decidedly different if players with better claims on the position had been chosen or regulation dismissals been confirmed.

 

[Mister Wright]

It might explain a slight decline, yes, but it hardly explains how they've gone from dropping maybe a catch every 3 games to dropping 2 or so per game.
And I find it hard to conceive that the travel increased in 2002\03 - I'd say it was more likely to have done so 3 or 4 years before.

It could be because players are human and not robots tha can be programmed to catch 100% of their catches.

 

[jlo33692]

I Think good players make there own luck

 

[Blaze]

I Think good players make there own luck

In some cases yes but getting dropped at first slip when you are still in single figures has nothing to do with creating on your part

 

[archie mac]

In some cases yes but getting dropped at first slip when you are still in single figures has nothing to do with creating on your part

I agree 99%, I suppose if you are playing full blooded shots instead of defensive, it must make it harder to catch?

 

[jlo33692]

In some cases yes but getting dropped at first slip when you are still in single figures has nothing to do with creating on your part

So is that not the luck we are talking about?
The game is all about luck and taking chances when they present themselves
Teams that dont take at least 90% of the chances offeres to them will seldom come out on top.....Luck also goes hand in hand with hard work and persistance,,,

 

[vic_orthdox]

So is that not the luck we are talking about?
The game is all about luck and taking chances when they present themselves
Teams that dont take at least 90% of the chances offeres to them will seldom come out on top.....Luck also goes hand in hand with hard work and persistance,,,

One could well argue that hard work and persistance makes occurrances of so-called "luck" actually skill, and quality of execution.

 

[Scallywag]

Scallywag is trying to bring this largely irrelevant CricInfo research into the matter.
I'm trying to point-out that far more relevant is actual dropped-catches and other let-offs.

If Cricinfo research on every ball bowled is irrelevant can you please give me the stats for the more relevant actual dropped-catches and let-offs.

You do have the stats and are not just making this up Richard. You do have statistics to back up your statements.

you do have a comparision of dropped-catches and let-offs of Langers to compare to other batsmen dont you Richard.

You are not dismissing Cricinfo research without solid evidence to show Langer gets more let-offs and dropped-catches than anyone else are you Richard.

So please show how Langer is the luckier batsman.

 

[Richard]

It would be interesting to know, I wonder if anyone can tell us? Maybe James should employ Bill Frindall

Even BW couldn't tell us that... sadly scorebooks make no mention of when a chance was given.