Elliot should replace Langer

[Craig]

Absolutely not, I just felt like it was too good not to put it in.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Too right mate

 

[Richard]

Yes he deserves it because he the feilders were to crap to get him out ie there skill was not good enough to take the catch.

And because the fielders were poor, this is a reflection on the batsman's ability because...?

 

[Richard]

***Raising his glass of XXXX***

'Ere, 'ere!!

The raising of a glass of Castlemaigne about sums-up that.:P

 

[Richard]

maybe it's because your agruments are stupid.

Or just maybe it's because alternatives run-out so quickly.

hardly anyone ever agree's with you on any of your "philosopys" and "theories" and you are quite often proven to be wrong by overwhelming opinion yet you still insist you are correct !.

Of all the things that anoy me the fact you pass all your opinions off like facts has to be the worst. maybe you should look at that.

Maybe I should. Maybe you are mistaken. What, exactly, do you mean by "pass off"? I never say "scorebook averages should fade into irrelevance next-to first-chance ones". But surely it's pretty clear which one I place more value on when considering a batsman's ability.
I never try to force anyone else to as that would be wholly pointless. But nor will I change my mind. I do not see the merit of the argument, as you do not see that of mine.

 

[Eclipse]

And because the fielders were poor, this is a reflection on the batsman's ability because...?

Why does the oposition deserve the wicket if they drop the catch??

I mean if they drop the catch then surly they dont deserve the wicket. So why then does the batsman not deserve any more runs??

 

[Eclipse]

Maybe I should. Maybe you are mistaken. What, exactly, do you mean by "pass off"? I never say "scorebook averages should fade into irrelevance next-to first-chance ones". But surely it's pretty clear which one I place more value on when considering a batsman's ability.
I never try to force anyone else to as that would be wholly pointless. But nor will I change my mind. I do not see the merit of the argument, as you do not see that of mine.

Prehaps it's is my problem and not your's but I have had two people say the feel the same way as me.

You usualy state that you are giving an opinion but soon enough you are talking like
"He is better than .... and he is not as good as...." without any suggestion at it only being an opinion. that sort of thing is anoying.

Or maybe it's the fact you are rather assertive and as you said you wont change your mind and dont seem very willing to take on board other's opinions.

 

[Richard]

I never say "he is better than" etc. Something like that is always, and I mean always, opinion.
Don Bradman was only better than Kyle McCallaghan is because everyone says so.
I could probably tell you people's opinions that you forgot upon reading them. Believe me, I take things in. They don't neccesarily make any impact on me, because I've usually formed my opinions on things I place more value on, but I do not just take no notice whatsoever of what I read\hear. I wouldn't bother with these boards if I didn't.

 

[marc71178]

Why does the oposition deserve the wicket if they drop the catch??

I mean if they drop the catch then surly they dont deserve the wicket. So why then does the batsman not deserve any more runs??

Is that another petard I see?

Well said Eclipse!

 

[Richard]

Why does the oposition deserve the wicket if they drop the catch??

I mean if they drop the catch then surly they dont deserve the wicket. So why then does the batsman not deserve any more runs??

What does what the opposition deserve matter? I never said a team whose player drops a catch deserves the wicket. The first-chance score system has no concern whatsoever for results or anything other than batting scores.
The batsman doesn't deserve any more runs because he has given a chance, and that in normal circumstances would result in his dismissal. The fairest system is to count all chances as equal as far as I'm concerned - not pick, randomly, which ones count and which ones don't.

 

[mavric41]

What does what the opposition deserve matter? I never said a team whose player drops a catch deserves the wicket. The first-chance score system has no concern whatsoever for results or anything other than batting scores.
The batsman doesn't deserve any more runs because he has given a chance, and that in normal circumstances would result in his dismissal. The fairest system is to count all chances as equal as far as I'm concerned - not pick, randomly, which ones count and which ones don't.

Who determines the first chance?
Is it only dropped chances or does it include missed runouts, poor lbw decisions or caught off the pad?

The averages that are calculated are probably the fairest way of taking account all condtions and variables of the game. The same chance that might have been caught by a fielder early in the morning session on the first day of the test may be dropped by the same fielder late in the afternoon session.

 

[Eclipse]

First chance avrages are never going to happen. I think most people are happy enough with normal avrages.

They would be to hard to work out as well.

 

[Mister Wright]

Not much action on this thread today...wonder why?

Must be because Langer got a hundred today....

 

[Gaijin-san]

Well it's put Langer-bashers back in their place. I wasn't one of them, though :saint:, I'm a patriotic little WA boy.

 

[mavric41]

Not much action on this thread today...wonder why?

Must be because Langer got a hundred today....

And they can't up tp 16!!

 

[Richard]

Not much action on this thread today...wonder why?

Must be because Langer got a hundred today....

Yep, and fair does he played well. One close lbw, but I suppose there was some doubt. That catch at short-leg was astonishing. Never seen anything like it.
However, the fact is he has ceased for now any doubts about his Test form.

 

[Richard]

First chance avrages are never going to happen. I think most people are happy enough with normal avrages.

They would be to hard to work out as well.

Never going to "happen". Rather a curious choice of phrase. An average can't "happen".
What you mean is they're never going to be valued above the scorebook-average by most people. And I have never disputed that.
But let me assure you, they're not hard to work-out at all.

 

[Richard]

Who determines the first chance?
Is it only dropped chances or does it include missed runouts, poor lbw decisions or caught off the pad?

The averages that are calculated are probably the fairest way of taking account all condtions and variables of the game. The same chance that might have been caught by a fielder early in the morning session on the first day of the test may be dropped by the same fielder late in the afternoon session.

This is a totally optimistic view and hopes for many unlikely incidences.
A first-chance average is a very simple thing; OK, you will never have absolute certainty about what should and shouldn't be out, but most people will agree when a batsman has received a let-off and when he has been dismissed unluckily.
Hence, if you take luck out of the equation you get a better assessment of skill. If you allow each batsman a slightly different amount of luck - which, when you think about it, is completely inevitable - you will get different distortions of skill.
First-chance and scorebook averages will almost invariably take a similar pattern. Don Bradman's scorebook and first-chance averages will always be higher than Kyle McCallaghan's, at any level of the game. But the first-chance average takes out anomalies, like (IMO - I've still yet to prove this conclusively) Hayden, Trescothick and Gilchrist - it shows which batsmen have an abnormal amount of luck and takes it out of the equation when assessing skill.

 

[marc71178]

Hence, if you take luck out of the equation you get a better assessment of skill.

But isn't a batsman unlucky to get a snorter of a delivery early on considering how infrequent they are?

So you don't rule luck out at all.

But the first-chance average takes out anomalies, like (IMO - I've still yet to prove this conclusively) Hayden, Trescothick and Gilchrist

I bet you never will do.

 

[luckyeddie]

Never going to "happen". Rather a curious choice of phrase. An average can't "happen".
What you mean is they're never going to be valued above the scorebook-average by most people. And I have never disputed that.
But let me assure you, they're not hard to work-out at all.

What he's saying is that almost no-one cares so it'll never be determined - and it would be utterly impossible to determine anyway.

Even in test matches you get insufficient camera angles to determine with 100% certainty whether the close catch was grassed, whether the ball would have swerved alarmingly in the last 3 or 4 feet if the pad hadn't been there (yes, Even 'Hawkeye' is fallible).

As far as first-class 'first chance' averages, that's a non-starter. Who's going to transport a television studio and a dozen cameras to Derby in may for a county match? Multply that for every game up and down the country - it would have to be done by the ECB because no TV company is going to touch it - and that means another thousand employees or so.

You would have more officials at county games than spectators - and for what? To lower everyone's 'first chance' average by approximately the same percentage as everyone else.