Michael Vaughan- Jekyll and Hyde?

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Richard

I'll try again - under no circumstances, EVER, can a play-and-miss be out if the laws of cricket are followed correctly

Agreed but I don't see the relevance. You can't be out either, EVER, if the fielder drops the ball.

Originally Posted by Richard

I see it as reasonable to view a play-and-miss as a minor stroke of luck which is inevitable in any innings and will never result in dismissal, and a let-off as a major stroke of luck which should and normally would have resulted in dismissal.

If you play and miss you've probably done worse as a batsman than the chap who, as they say, has been "good enough to edge it". So to me it's far from clear that the batsman who has been dropped has had a bigger slice of luck than the chap who played and missed.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Agreed but I don't see the relevance. You can't be out either, EVER, if the fielder drops the ball.

But the fielder dropping the ball happens after the batsman has done his bit and the batsman has no power to influence it (unless of course he wilfully obstructs the field) - the batsman missing or hitting the ball is the batsman's bit.

If you play and miss you've probably done worse as a batsman than the chap who, as they say, has been "good enough to edge it". So to me it's far from clear that the batsman who has been dropped has had a bigger slice of luck than the chap who played and missed.

He certainly had a bigger slice of luck - he evaded dismissal by something that would normally result in it. Someone who plays and misses has evaded dismissal in a manner which is not remotely unusual - in fact no closer to being unusual than prodding forwards and getting a forward-defensive smack in the middle of the bat so that the ball drops dead on the pitch.

The notion that someone who's played and missed has played worse that delivery than someone who's edged one has plenty going for it, but would you then propose the premise that a play-and-miss results in dismissal while a nick does not? I doubt it. Cricket doesn't work that way. A batsman has to hit the ball to be out caught.

[zaremba]

We've done this one before Richard - and neither of us has changed his view since then. We could waste thousands of words on this topic, and you'd still be wrong at the end of it , so let's agree to disagree.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Richard

I'm a big believer in the butterfly-hurricane theorem (it's the reason I find the notion that some things are pre-ordained and others mould around these pre-ordained things so utterly ludicrous) and thus I have no time for those who argue that the significance of a single let-off is trivial - one let-off can change the course of an entire series. Nonetheless, the first-chance theory is not any attempt to reshape history, merely a way of reflecting important events that scorebook records alone do not adequately show.

I'll try again - under no circumstances, EVER, can a play-and-miss be out if the laws of cricket are followed correctly - there is no provision, anywhere, for a play-and-miss to legitimately result in dismissal (about the only time they can be out is if the Umpire hallucinates an edge or is fooled into believeing there's been one by a flick of the shirt etc.); however, when a chance is given, under normal circumstances this will result in dismissal. Equally, expecting an innings of any great size to be constructed without some sort of false stroke (be it play-and-miss or attempted leave that hits the bat or anything besides) would be an utterly unrealistic expectation;on the other hand expecting an innings of substance to be constructed without let-offs is not remotely unrealistic and it happens all the time.

Thus I see it as reasonable to view a play-and-miss as a minor stroke of luck which is inevitable in any innings and will never result in dismissal, and a let-off as a major stroke of luck which should and normally would have resulted in dismissal.

. Wow haha. After 5 years i think i actually may agree with this FCA theory stuff son. This makes perfect sense & i dont recall you ever explaining it this well ever before.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by aussie

. Wow haha. After 5 years i think i actually may agree with this FCA theory stuff son. This makes perfect sense & i dont recall you ever explaining it this well ever before.

Oh no! Please don't provoke me into a 3-way multiquote marathon with both you and Richard. I don't think I have the strength...

[Richard]

Originally Posted by zaremba

We've done this one before Richard - and neither of us has changed his view since then. We could waste thousands of words on this topic, and you'd still be wrong at the end of it , so let's agree to disagree.

Well I'd not still be wrong, but the objections of the objectors would remain in place, so yes, fair enough.

Maybe one day.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Oh no! Please don't provoke me into a 3-way multiquote marathon with both you and Richard. I don't think I have the strength...

You're a fully qualified legal official, you have the strength for anything if you wish to have it. Remember these things.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Richard

You're a fully qualified legal official, you have the strength for anything if you wish to have it. Remember these things.

I have visions of Mr. Z saying that to himself in front of a mirror every day before going to work.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Oh no! Please don't provoke me into a 3-way multiquote marathon with both you and Richard. I don't think I have the strength...

Haha. Ok sir i wont get involved, i'll let you two debate.

But i definately see the FCA from a different perspective now though.

[Black_Warrior]

I thought he was a pretty good player..unfortuantely injuries took its toll on him. I will always remember Ian Chappell's comments on him after the 2002 series...he said something along the lines of "he is a very unenglish English batsman"