The lucky bowlers, and the luckless ones

Manee · 26-09-2010, 03:51 PM

Apologies if this has been brought up before, but I thought this can help increase the proof behind an often used luck argument for bowlers in international cricket.

The lucky bowlers, and the luckless ones | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

Uppercut · 26-09-2010, 03:57 PM

It's not really statistically viable as a means of quantifying luck. But the article's good fun nonetheless.

Prince EWS · 26-09-2010, 04:14 PM

I'd like to know they defined "rapped on the pads" particularly after seeing Giles top the list of the unluckiest bowlers.

Marcuss · 26-09-2010, 04:45 PM

Don't understand how you bowl less balls that can potentially take a wicket than balls that actually do take a wicket.

marc71178 · 26-09-2010, 05:04 PM

Rank pie slapped to a fielder?

Somerset · 26-09-2010, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcuss

Don't understand how you bowl less balls that can potentially take a wicket than balls that actually do take a wicket.

Hayward's ratio certainly had me bemused too. To be perfectly honest, and although the Numbers Game often produces some very good analysis, I can't really buy into this set of statistics.

Prince EWS · 26-09-2010, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcuss

Don't understand how you bowl less balls that can potentially take a wicket than balls that actually do take a wicket.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somerset

Hayward's ratio certainly had me bemused too. To be perfectly honest, and although the Numbers Game often produces some very good analysis, I can't really buy into this set of statistics.

Obviously he's had a fair few wickets caught off the middle of the bat.

Athlai · 26-09-2010, 08:40 PM

A wrongly given wicket by the umpire maybe?

Xuhaib · 26-09-2010, 08:43 PM

sometimes the argument that a bowler being unlucky is a very filmsy argument put forward by crap bowler supporters.Sami fans are often using this to support their argument.Both Aamer and Asif have had quite a lot of drops of their bowling in the last 12 months yet they are still able to create enough chances to keep their averages low.If you are a good bowler eventually you will get your rewards as long as you are consistent the problem with Sami is he is just not patient enough.

TumTum · 26-09-2010, 09:06 PM

How do you know what balls are potential wicket taking ones?

This whole thing is stupid.

vcs · 26-09-2010, 09:15 PM

Finally a table of bowlers with plenty of Indians in it. Get in!

Flem274* · 27-09-2010, 01:52 AM

All the unlucky bowlers are average at best....

All the lucky bowlers are very good bowlers....

Somehow I don't think luck comes into this at all. It's who makes the most chances, because there are always going to be dropped catches in cricket.

Jayzamann · 27-09-2010, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I'd like to know they defined "rapped on the pads" particularly after seeing Giles top the list of the unluckiest bowlers.

Might have just ran a query to find how many times key terms like 'rapped' and 'pads' were used when in relation to his bowling. You can get rapped on the pads a few times per over, but as long as it's pitching a foot outside leg it means nothing.

I enjoy S Rajesh's articles, but this was... a long bow.

Prince EWS · 27-09-2010, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TumTum

How do you know what balls are potential wicket taking ones?

This whole thing is stupid.

They explained that in the article FFS.

I think people are just getting too fixated on the name they've give to that calculation.

Jono · 27-09-2010, 02:16 AM

Stats since September 2001 hey?

Maybe Richard is right, cricket did change after September 2001

26-09-2010, 03:51 PM	#1 (permalink)
Manee Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Heaven Posts: 8,202	The lucky bowlers, and the luckless ones Apologies if this has been brought up before, but I thought this can help increase the proof behind an often used luck argument for bowlers in international cricket. The lucky bowlers, and the luckless ones \| Regulars \| Cricinfo Magazine \| Cricinfo.com

26-09-2010, 04:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
Prince EWS Global Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New South Wales Posts: 37,820	I'd like to know they defined "rapped on the pads" particularly after seeing Giles top the list of the unluckiest bowlers. __________________ ~ Cribbage

26-09-2010, 05:04 PM	#5 (permalink)
marc71178 Eyes not spreadsheets Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: England Posts: 56,346	Rank pie slapped to a fielder? __________________ marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good! Anyone want to join the Society? Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

26-09-2010, 08:43 PM	#9 (permalink)
Xuhaib Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Karachi Posts: 9,394	sometimes the argument that a bowler being unlucky is a very filmsy argument put forward by crap bowler supporters.Sami fans are often using this to support their argument.Both Aamer and Asif have had quite a lot of drops of their bowling in the last 12 months yet they are still able to create enough chances to keep their averages low.If you are a good bowler eventually you will get your rewards as long as you are consistent the problem with Sami is he is just not patient enough.

26-09-2010, 09:06 PM	#10 (permalink)
TumTum International Regular Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Australia Posts: 3,343	How do you know what balls are potential wicket taking ones? This whole thing is stupid.

26-09-2010, 09:15 PM	#11 (permalink)
vcs International Coach Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: India Posts: 10,305	Finally a table of bowlers with plenty of Indians in it. Get in!

27-09-2010, 02:16 AM	#15 (permalink)
Jono Request Your Custom Title Now! Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Virat Kohli Posts: 47,551	Stats since September 2001 hey? Maybe Richard is right, cricket did change after September 2001

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)