Davisons day out

[Top_Cat]

So John Davison plays a horrible half-century where he hits the ball like crap and scores his highest List A score. Then he comes on bowling spin and gets 5 wickets without turning one of them to end up with his best List A bowling figures. And to top it off, he got the player-of-the-match and SA won the game.

Yep, I'm sure he's all torn up inside after such a horrible day.

 

[luckyeddie]

So John Davison plays a horrible half-century where he hits the ball like crap and scores his highest List A score. Then he comes on bowling spin and gets 5 wickets without turning one of them to end up with his best List A bowling figures. And to top it off, he got the player-of-the-match and SA won the game.

Yep, I'm sure he's all torn up inside after such a horrible day.

Darned right. The voice of common sense comes to the fore.

 

[Neil Pickup]

So John Davison plays a horrible half-century where he hits the ball like crap and scores his highest List A score.

Sorry Corey, ODIs are List A :P

 

[Top_Cat]

Errm, 'scuse I. Highest OD score in Australia, then.

:P

I've got highlights of his ton against WI and I'm amazed that a guy with that much talent with the bat has only shown us all NOW what he can do. Then I remember his eternal struggle with the short-ball in his career and it dawns on me.

I just thought it was hilarious listening to Dean jones commentate on the innings. As a former Vic team-mate of Davison's, he kept saying "I think the West Indies should probably aim to get the ball at around chin-height for Davison.". Then when he really got going, Deano kept re-iterating "I REALLY think the WI should be aiming for his chin if they want to keep him quiet!. I don't want to give anything away about Davison but I REALLY DO THINK the West Indies are bowling in the wrong area."

And then there was Michael Holding after Davison hit yet another 6: "Well, maybe the West Indies should have been listening to my co-commentator before the match. I could say something but what I have to say is.....well......not fit for a family program."

 

[Mr. P]

Davison didn't have a day out today, he was gone for a golden duck against the Tasmanians. Bet he bowls well though.

 

[Richard]

So John Davison plays a horrible half-century where he hits the ball like crap and scores his highest List A score. Then he comes on bowling spin and gets 5 wickets without turning one of them to end up with his best List A bowling figures. And to top it off, he got the player-of-the-match and SA won the game.

Yep, I'm sure he's all torn up inside after such a horrible day.

People have a strange way of believing they deserve what they've got against their name in the book.
Usually because they'd look a bit silly if they didn't.
Common-sense enough for you?

 

[Richard]

I made one in this thread at 0139 this morning.

And you've never made any others? In over 4200 posts?

 

[marc71178]

People have a strange way of believing they deserve what they've got against their name in the book.

And how many times do people get chopped off unfairly or play brilliantly but fall to a freak catch?

It averages itself out, and you cannot tell me that a half century and 5 wickets in the same Class A match is completely based on luck.

Common-sense enough for you?

Who's posted common sense - certinaly not you.

 

[Neil Pickup]

And you've never made any others? In over 4200 posts?

Shedloads.

But a lot more of late..

 

[Richard]

What the hell are you on about?! Neil wasnt being serious.:rolleyes: You didnt think he was, did you?

Err... no. I was simply responding to sarcasm in the way I usually do.

 

[Richard]

And how many times do people get chopped off unfairly or play brilliantly but fall to a freak catch?

It averages itself out, and you cannot tell me that a half century and 5 wickets in the same Class A match is completely based on luck.

I never said anything of the sort. Nothing can realistically be based entirely on luck. Every scoring shot would have to be a dropped catch.
Neither did I comment on this issue (ie John Davison in SA-Tas) - someone just used it as a generalisation and I attempted again to make the point.
And let me assure you - most batsmen are out to unlucky dismissals a hell of a lot less than they get let-offs! It certainly doesn't even itself out, but we can safely say that for most batsmen it's roughly equal over a career. However, to get it exactly equal you've got to use a different average to the scorebook one.

 

[marc71178]

Erm, any average based on opinion (which is what that would be) cannot be accurate.

 

[Richard]

Erm, any average based on opinion (which is what that would be) cannot be accurate.

Yes, there will always be an occasional doubt over a let-off, but little enough for most considerations to be the same. "Accurate" is simply an excuse for differences in opinion that happen very rarely.
Likewise you'll get people who argue that the rules of cricket are wrong so the scorebook average is subjective. A ridiculous argument, but one nonetheless that I've heard.

 

[marc71178]

You what?

Can anyone seriously have anything to back that up?

 

[Richard]

You what?

Can anyone seriously have anything to back that up?

Not in my opinion - but they said the rules had been re-written so many times, how could you say they were right any of the times?
It seemed a stupid argument to me, but so does that of "someone's doing better than everyone else, so you mustn't criticise them".
First-chance averages and the notion of forgetting what has gone before and judging wicket-getting balls on themselves and not on supposed "pressure" of previous accurate balls clearly seems strange to some people. It seems perfectly logical to me.

 

[Mr. P]

It seems perfectly logical to me.

Here lies the problem.:saint:

 

[PY]

the notion of forgetting what has gone before and judging wicket-getting balls on themselves and not on supposed "pressure" of previous accurate balls clearly seems strange to some people.

Forgetting in theory works but in practice, unless you are a machine, it doesn't. Human limits means we can't forget.

If you can forget about a ball which has just ripped off a length and grazed you in the forehead, you'd be playing for at least a county side because you've conquered the mental side of the game. Accuracy works the same way, if you haven't scored a run for 20 overs then that starts to play on your mind whoever you are. The need for runs is the most fundamental part of this great game.

 

[Richard]

If you get a ball that rips off a length and grazes your forehead, the chances are you won't need to get yourself out, because a RUD will come your way before too long. Plenty of club batsmen, quite justifiably, will get themselves out deliberately if they get deliveries like that, because if they're being produced the wicket is generally unfit for cricket and cricket, while a wonderful game, does come second to the preservation of your life and limbs. Even your teeth.
Similarly, if 20 overs go by without runs (it has happened in FC-cricket, but not for a long, long while) you could be forgiven for frustration in even a timeless match. However, 20 overs of scoring at 2-an-over even (which is very, very rare) cannot play on a batsman's mind such as he tries to score off one which he hasn't been for the last 20 overs if he wants to consider himself that good.
Scoring runs is the most fundamental part of the game - exactly. And you can't score them from in the pavilion.

 

[Richard]

Here lies the problem.:saint:

Exactly. My point exactly.

 

[Mr. P]

OK, this is now the official Davison-following thread. Did you guys see him on Sunday? Wasn't bad, blasted a 36 and took one wicket.