Fidel Edwards VS Andrew Flintoff as test bowlers

[benchmark00]

False shot is a false shot.

[centurymaker]

I get your point, but I was referring to a batsmen edging a delivery vs playing and missing the exact same delivery, in which case it's pretty obvious who's erred more.

thats what im getting at.

Nah that's silly. The art of good seam bowling is to pitch it on a length that the batsman considers driveable, but by the time it reaches the bat it has deviated just enough to take the edge.

If the ball is pitched back , you have slightly more time to adjust, don't you?
but i agree that the way cricket is played thats how you should go about it.

However we are here taking about how that's an odd facet of the game when you consider that those fuller deliveries are in a way inferior as a batsman is more likely to score off them and also more likely to edge rather than play & miss them. (edge < play & miss error-wise)

I know it might sound stupid as we all perceive an edge to be far better than a play and a miss even though it's a smaller mistake.
Think of it like this-
A thick edge to gully off a fuller length compared to a play & a miss off a same fuller length?
In which case did the batsman make a bigger error?

[BoyBrumby]

Why is that so weird re: an edge being a smaller misjudgement? If you're trying to middle the ball, it stands to reason that the more you miss it by, the "worse" you've done. Ofc this doesn't take technical considerations like following the ball with your hands into account, but it's a fair point

Seem to recall Ed Smith arguing the same point in a recent(ish) article on cricinfo about luck in the sport.

You need a lot of skill to make a hundred. But you almost certainly need luck as well. After all, how many hundreds are reached without a single play-and-miss? Not many. And yet, as we all know, a play-and-miss is a worse shot than an edge to the slips. Not a worse outcome. But worse in terms of the degree of distance from the batsman's intention (which is hitting the ball with the middle of the bat) and the end result (an air shot). In cricket, if you really mess up and miss the middle of the bat by a foot, then the ball travels safely through to the wicketkeeper. But if you only mess up by a small amount, and miss the middle of the bat by half the width of the bat face, then the ball catches the edge and you trudge back to the pavilion. Go figure.

[Cabinet96]

Stats and spreadsheets aren't the be-all and end-all .etc .etc

The raw stats (I.e. average) still sway it Flintoff's way anyway though

[centurymaker]

Seem to recall Ed Smith arguing the same point in a recent(ish) article on about luck in the sport.

there's no doubt that luck is a huge factor in this sport on an individual basis.. (although it may balance out over the whole team)

a guy may make his first mistake on 30 runs and get out.
another guy may make numberous mistakes and still get a 100.

and we'd praise the latter and bash the former.

A luck-less patch may put one out of form, while a lucky period may bring one back in form.



the more you give thought to it, the more you realize that the sport is odd and that numbers only reveal half the story.