PhoenixFire
International Coach
I've heard it talked about, but not sure what it is, anyone?
-
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.
First Chance Average?
- Thread starter PhoenixFire
- Start date
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
It is the single greatest method of analysis ever invented by man.
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Basically, it is a batting average which is derived from the first chance (e.g. dropped catch, or LBW given not out which was out) that a batsman gives, rather than runs/dismissals. Also, if a batsman is given out when he was not out, then this is taken away from the denominator in the equation.
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Right, doesn't really make much sense tbh, but anyway.......
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
It's pretty hard to fail to make sense of it...
If batsman gives chance, you'd normally expect it to be taken, yes?
What does the batsman do differently when a chance is caught and when it's dropped?
Answer: nothing. Nothing whatsoever.
So therefore, as far as an anaylsis of the batsman's ability is concerned, a dropped catch and a caught one are the same.
Now then, it needs to be understood - getting the end of a finger on something is NOT a dropped catch. No fielder has ever caught a cricket ball without at least getting it into the flesh of the fingers. Therefore, hitting a ball into a fielder's fingertips is NOT giving a chance.
With slight rephrasing, the same can be said of a batsman getting out (caught off a think nick\glove that the Umpire doesn't spot, pretty plumb lbw - not something HawkEye suggests is grazing the top of leg - clear catch turned-down by Third-Umpire becuase he's 99.99% not 100% certain about it, etc.) and being given not-out.
Equally, if a batsman clearly gets a shocker against him (lbw to a ball pitching a foot outside leg, caught behind when he missed it by daylight, etc.) then he does not deserve to go, no? Indeed he doesn't. So we credit him with a not-out. This also applies if his partner sells him a dummy with a suicidal run.
Common consent is that these things even each other out. Anyone who has taken any note whatsoever of the reality of the situation will realise that this is complete and utter bull****. Virtually every batsman has more good luck than bad in a career - but some are luckier than others (in my time watching Gilchrist was incredibly lucky for a time, Hayden has been very lucky for much of his career, Trescothick is surely the luckiest batsman EVER, and Sehwag, especially when facing Pakistan, has been lucky beyond the bounds of decency). Another common misperception: ah, I spot a link! They're all hard hitters! Well, yes, but so are most of today's batsmen. The truth of the matter is most of these dropped catches have been sitters at slip and in the deep, not balls slammed at close-in fielders.
So therefore, to get a fair interpretation of the performance of a batsmen, we simply count a chance as the same regardless of whether the fielding side \ Umpire was good enough to take it. And we don't blame batsmen who get unlucky for their misfortune.
If batsman gives chance, you'd normally expect it to be taken, yes?
What does the batsman do differently when a chance is caught and when it's dropped?
Answer: nothing. Nothing whatsoever.
So therefore, as far as an anaylsis of the batsman's ability is concerned, a dropped catch and a caught one are the same.
Now then, it needs to be understood - getting the end of a finger on something is NOT a dropped catch. No fielder has ever caught a cricket ball without at least getting it into the flesh of the fingers. Therefore, hitting a ball into a fielder's fingertips is NOT giving a chance.
With slight rephrasing, the same can be said of a batsman getting out (caught off a think nick\glove that the Umpire doesn't spot, pretty plumb lbw - not something HawkEye suggests is grazing the top of leg - clear catch turned-down by Third-Umpire becuase he's 99.99% not 100% certain about it, etc.) and being given not-out.
Equally, if a batsman clearly gets a shocker against him (lbw to a ball pitching a foot outside leg, caught behind when he missed it by daylight, etc.) then he does not deserve to go, no? Indeed he doesn't. So we credit him with a not-out. This also applies if his partner sells him a dummy with a suicidal run.
Common consent is that these things even each other out. Anyone who has taken any note whatsoever of the reality of the situation will realise that this is complete and utter bull****. Virtually every batsman has more good luck than bad in a career - but some are luckier than others (in my time watching Gilchrist was incredibly lucky for a time, Hayden has been very lucky for much of his career, Trescothick is surely the luckiest batsman EVER, and Sehwag, especially when facing Pakistan, has been lucky beyond the bounds of decency). Another common misperception: ah, I spot a link! They're all hard hitters! Well, yes, but so are most of today's batsmen. The truth of the matter is most of these dropped catches have been sitters at slip and in the deep, not balls slammed at close-in fielders.
So therefore, to get a fair interpretation of the performance of a batsmen, we simply count a chance as the same regardless of whether the fielding side \ Umpire was good enough to take it. And we don't blame batsmen who get unlucky for their misfortune.
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Is that the royal "we"?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Nope, almost invariably a batsman's first-chance average will be lower (in the long-term, at least) than his scorebook one because, as I mentioned, almost all batsmen have more good luck than bad throughout a career. But things being what they are, there being something in the region of 56 batsmen in World cricket at one time (assuming all 8 Test nations were playing concurrantly and picking 7 batsmen), there is going to be one hell of a lot of variance in luck.
Therefore you need first-chance averages to get a picture of what's really happening when you take luck out of the equation.
Therefore you need first-chance averages to get a picture of what's really happening when you take luck out of the equation.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The royal?Is that the royal "we"?
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
As in "we are not amused".
Never mind, it wasn't very funny, which is why I made sure I posted it in Cricket Chat, not CH
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well... yes, I'd never really thought about that.
As I say, though - it's pretty unlikely, as any batsman with a reasonable-length career is pretty likely to end-up much luckier than not (this might change if we ever get a most-decisions-correct Umpiring system).
As I say, though - it's pretty unlikely, as any batsman with a reasonable-length career is pretty likely to end-up much luckier than not (this might change if we ever get a most-decisions-correct Umpiring system).
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
_Ed_
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't understand why this applies to batsmen only. Surely a bowler is doing nothing different when a yorker is miraculously or perhaps fortuitously dug out and when one clean bowls a batsman? Or perhaps when an inside edge narrowly misses the stumps and when it hits them?
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Its funny, I see the logic of it but it is flawed as it tries to look at luck but leaves as many questions unanswered as it addresses.
For example what if there is no second slip in place and the ball goes through the gap. That is still a mistake by the batsman and he would have been out if the fielding captain had put a fielder there.
An edge is still an edge whether there is no slip in place, a dropped catch or out. If you are trying to look at "luck" then false shots etc would have to be incorporated.
As it is, the system partially analyses a controversial idea and as such this partial data isnt enough to draw any real conclusions from.
For example what if there is no second slip in place and the ball goes through the gap. That is still a mistake by the batsman and he would have been out if the fielding captain had put a fielder there.
An edge is still an edge whether there is no slip in place, a dropped catch or out. If you are trying to look at "luck" then false shots etc would have to be incorporated.
As it is, the system partially analyses a controversial idea and as such this partial data isnt enough to draw any real conclusions from.
Last edited:
adharcric
International Coach
Exactly. There are far too many factors that need to be considered to get an accurate "first-chance average" for a batsman. Off the top of my head, you'd have to look at the placement of the ball, the batsman's intention (guided through slips, etc), field settings, the power with which the ball is hit, the quality of the fielder, etc. Pretty much impossible and a utter waste of time. Dropped catches are a part of the game; you can take the quality of the fielding side into account qualitatively but a quantitative approach is ridiculous IMO.
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
Almost invariably? I can't see how in any way possible the first-chance average could be higher than the scorebook average.