Michael Vaughan is awesome

[Tom Halsey]

What the hell? Multiple dropped catches happen to everyone. You don't have an argument because you're using Richard's rhetoric which is wishy-washy bollocks. You haven't shown Collingwood to be more lucky than anyone else, so you do not have an argument.

Multiple dropped catches don't happen to everyone (unless you're talking whole careers). You continually bemoan Plunkett being "luckless" whenever a catch is dropped, goes through the slips, or whatever (which I happen to agree with, because at Test level, drops aren't that common).

 

[Scaly piscine]

That was a good innings, it's other innings that weren't.

How many times was he dropped when he scored 96 and 80 v Pakistan? Or his 134*? I can find one drop in his 186. Found one drop (very tough chance) in his 96.

Your argument is baseless.

 

[PhoenixFire]

How many times was Collingwood dropped during his double century then?

He wasn't.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Multiple dropped catches don't happen to everyone (unless you're talking whole careers). You continually bemoan Plunkett being "luckless" whenever a catch is dropped, goes through the slips, or whatever (which I happen to agree with, because at Test level, drops aren't that common).

They'll practically happen to everyone. The last series I watched Bell was dropped twice v Australia and he only made a fifty, KP was dropped god knows how many times against Australia in the last Test.

 

[Tom Halsey]

How many times was he dropped when he scored 96 and 80 v Pakistan? Or his 134*? I can find one drop in his 186. Found one drop (very tough chance) in his 96.

Your argument is baseless.

Not only drops, given inexplicably not out caught behind in his 186 to Mohammad Sami.

Shall search other innings if I can be particularly bothered.

 

[Tom Halsey]

They'll practically happen to everyone. The last series I watched Bell was dropped twice v Australia and he only made a fifty, KP was dropped god knows how many times against Australia in the last Test.

Over time, yes, and I think it is fairly pointless tryng to say "X has been luckier than Y" over 100 Tests. And if Collingwood plays 100 Tests and ends up averaging mid-40s then fair play to him, but I don't think it will happen.

 

[Piper]

How many times was Collingwood dropped during his double century then?

Everyone has their luck.. Doesn't mean that their innings was bad. I can't remember a player who went on to make a century not having luck during their innings.

 

[TT Boy]

They'll practically happen to everyone. The last series I watched Bell was dropped twice v Australia and he only made a fifty, KP was dropped god knows how many times against Australia in the last Test.

It's not a KP ton if it doesn't feature multiple lifes or no ball stumpings of the bowling of Chris Gayle...

 

[Richard]

Crackpot, lunatic, nutcase, fruitcake. None of them can do you justice.

Haha. In the past, you say...

I'll see what happens if I report this post, out of interest...

 

[Richard]

Richard's efforts at producing first-chance averages actually suggest that some batsmen ARE in fact, for whatever reason, consistently lucky. And if that's the case, that's a good attribute to have.

It's always a case of has been, though. As Rob says, no-one can have luck pre-guranteed to them, regardless of how long they've been being lucky for.

Someone like Virender Sehwag, for instance, has actually had his luck dry-up of late (or maybe it's just that he hasn't faced Pakistan for a while...). Let's hope it's permanent - Trescothick, too, had his luck dry-up for a time, but it returned with a vengence in summer 2005.

 

[Richard]

But what some people here assert is that some batsmen have been consistently lucky throughout their careers. So I ask, if you think some people are consistently more lucky than the norm over a decent period of time - thus suggesting you don't think these things "even themselves out" -on what basis do you say, "they'll soon stop being so lucky"? The long career of unreasonable "luck" they've enjoyed would suggest otherwise actually.

I'm not seriously suggesting that some people are charmed and will be lucky indefinitely. What I'm saying is that labelling someone "lucky" is a generally meaningless and hideously overused puerile excuse proffered up when people dislike either the technique or sometimes even the personality of players who succeed and they can't supply proper argument as to why that player is not good that has not been disproved by the facts. Player A averages 12 runs more per innings than Player B, but you want to believe Player B is better? Player A must be lucky - cheating bastard that he is. A bowler you think is not equipped to succeed at Test level consistently takes wickets? Must be lucky.

Somebody can be lucky over a short period, but to suggest that success over the course of more than two or three innings can be solely, or even in large part, put down to luck is insulting to the player in question's ability and the intelligence of those of us reading it.

You might as well not say anything at all if that's the best you can come up with...

I'm not saying that sort of thing doesn't get said sometimes by some people. But I'd hope you know better than to suggest I'd ever do such a thing.

If someone is consistently lucky, I'll say he is. And I'll form my judgement on that, not form my judgement then say "he's lucky" because his luck has made my judgement appear incorrect.

 

[Richard]

Not only drops, given inexplicably not out caught behind in his 186 to Mohammad Sami.

Shall search other innings if I can be particularly bothered.

I'll do it for you...

Lahore 2005\06 - 2 let-offs in the first-innings 96, on 54 and 70-odd; possibly may have been one in the second-innings 80 too, but not absolutely certain

Lord's 2006 - three let-offs in 186

Lord's 2007 - three let-offs in 111

So given that those innings are not what they seem, he's played 2 excellent innings in Australia, one at Nagpur, and done virtually nothing else of note in his entire Test career.

 

[marc71178]

Haha. In the past, you say...

I'll see what happens if I report this post, out of interest...

Judging by what you still get away with, nothing should.

 

[Richard]

If you only knew...

 

[marc71178]

Judging by the way you carry on, I doubt if you do.

 

[Richard]

I know a hell of a lot more than you do about how much trouble both you and me have been close to getting in.

 

[marc71178]

I'm sure you do...

Funny how I'm not privy to such information isn't it?

 

[Richard]

Not really funny at all if you think about it.

 

[Burgey]

Gentlemen, please....

On the luck thing, some players are "lucky" players, or at least look that way. Mark Taylor used to look a bit lucky, coz he'd play and miss a fair bit. But then, I heard it said that he was "good" at playing and missing, because he tended to play the first line of hte ball, and not adjust his stroke towards it as it moved.

On Vaughan, I thought when he came out here last Ashes tour that he was the best English batsman I'd seen since Gower, maybe since Boycott. Technically he is very correct, save for when he's out of form his feet don't move and he loses his off stump a fair bit. But when he's in form, he's a really good player to watch - his cover drive is a thing of beauty, and he can play off both feet. Well done him.

 

[James]

Crackpot, lunatic, nutcase, fruitcake. None of them can do you justice.

Regardless of the situation or the comments being made, there's absolutely no need to drop to that level. I would have expected that you would have realised that by now.