Well, Katich picks up 6-fer. Nice. We'll see how he goes on a slightly less spinner-friendly track.
And there's no doubt Gilchrist gets dropped a lot but putting a large chunk of the runs he's scored in Test cricket down to luck, considering the quality of bowlers at that level, is utter crap. And getting into whether batsmen scores runs they 'deserve' is a slippery slope which is ultimately futile because it is indeed rare that a batsman gets by without a little help from the luck faeries so do we then decide that records should be judged on 'earned' vs 'lucky' runs? Ludicrous.
Consider this; how many players drop their bundle after an anxious moment or a dropped catch and get out soon afterwards? Quite a few. So the fact that Gilchrist tends to take advantage of the 'luck' he does get suggests that maybe he's a better player than some are willing to give him credit for?
Either way, what's the point of debating the 'luck' of a player? Does it actually prove anything other than a player is 'lucky' sometimes or 'more than others'? There are no other inferences to be drawn from a debate on luck (making the mental exercise futile and at worst, degrading to the player concerned) because;
- You can't make an inferences about a player's ability based on luck because by definition you're talking about factors out a player's control, hence ability doesn't come into it. If ability was a part of 'luck' then you have a contradiction because then you negate the 'chance' element of luck which defines it. Without chance, luck can't exist. If an event doesn't happen by chance, you can't call it 'lucky'.
Let's face it; a player's ability is of most interest when it comes to playing a game of cricket.
- You can't make any inferences about whether a player 'deserves' the runs or not because you're talking about a primarily subjective concept here (the concept of what one 'deserves') and I can say with some certainty that there isn't a batsman alive who hasn't been on the receiving end of some 'luck' in their career. Anyone who claims otherwise, I can say with a similar amount of certainty, is either lying or not being completely honest with themselves.
- Using to decide that someone like Gilchrist would average a lot less is debateable too because there's no guarantee of that. What if, having been dimissed for 30 in the First test in India in 2001, Gilchrist was doubly determined to score a ton in the next Test and did? That 133 would have taken a physical toll so if he wasn't around to score it, he would have (presumably) had more energy for his next few innings. And of course there's nothing to say he wouldn't have just failed again too but then what if he scored more hundreds against NZ in the subsequent series?
The point is, no-one here can say with any certainty what would happen next if Gilchrist's luck changed for the worse. Of course batting higher up the order could mean a change in fortunes but negating the greater responsibility up the order is that he would face the second new-ball less often, he'd probably have a greater chance of being settled when it came along, there wouldn't be quite so much pressure on him to go for quick runs before a declaration and he would have a chance to build an innings, etc.
I also notice that those quick to point to his good luck neglect to mention the dodgy decisions he's gotten in his career too. Sure there haven't been as many but maybe those runs he didn't 'deserve' after being dropped in the field would have been scored had some of his innings not been nipped in the bud by dodgy decisions. Who knows?
So in my opinion, any debate on luck is ultimately useless except in situations where the intent is derogatory towards the player. If anyone has anything to add to this, please say so.
