• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Fidel Edwards VS Andrew Flintoff as test bowlers

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I defs see it as a bowler has erred by moving it further than required/not pitching it full enough, not that the batsman has made a bigger error and resulted in a play and a miss.

Batsman will play at the ball regardless, up to the bowler to pitch it full enough/make it move just enough so the batsman nicks it.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah, pitch the ball up an extra little bit and the play and miss becomes an edge.

Ofcourse pitch it up too much and it becomes a half volley.
 

centurymaker

International Captain
A fully committed play-and-miss might be a bigger mistake than a nick, but not one where you go on to make a stroke, realise at the last fraction of a moment that you might nick it and then decide to lessen your commitment slightly to make sure you miss it, just. (I'm not talking aout withdrawing from the shot completely at the last moment, I'm talking about those cases where you don't even have the time to withdraw from the shot - you just slow down your hand movement slightly, slow down your bat speed slightly at the last moment to miss it - if you understand what I mean).

And from personal experience, I would say it's very difficult to distinguish between the two from a spectators PoV. I would say more than half the play-and-miss that we see are of the 2nd type.
never fully thought about it. good point.
like a batsman may be uncertain at the very last sec about his ability to make proper contact to a given delivery and therfore mayslightly withdraw from its initial intended shot, which turns out to be enough to miss the ball..

it happens more when the bowler is on top of you or early on in a batsman's innings i think?
coz now that it's come to my realization, it's how Hussey kept getting beaten by miles by Morkel in the 2nd innings of the 1st test. . It seems like it's a uncertain state of mind that brings about that instinctive action.

on the contrary, if you are confident, then you're perhaps unlikely to make such slight withdrawals. you'd probably have more faith in your intended shot..
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Well I think re: Hussey vs Morkel in the Test, benchy's point about Morkel pitching way too short is pretty spot-on. He was never going to nick those on that length.
 

centurymaker

International Captain
I defs see it as a bowler has erred by moving it further than required/not pitching it full enough, not that the batsman has made a bigger error and resulted in a play and a miss.

Batsman will play at the ball regardless, up to the bowler to pitch it full enough/make it move just enough so the batsman nicks it.
i see it as batsman not being good enough to adjust to the swing/seam despite the ball having been pitched further back.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
i see it as batsman not being good enough to adjust to the swing/seam despite the ball having been pitched further back.
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.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Someone like Ishant Sharma beats the bat pretty often for someone with such a poor average, which also backs up the point about it being the bowlers mistake as well pitching it too short. But to say the batsmen has not erred is wrong imo. If the batsmen's intention was to make contact with the ball (unless the situation is the one that weldone described) and he's missed it, the batsmen has definitely made a bigger mistake there than if he'd nicked it.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Someone like Ishant Sharma beats the bat pretty often for someone with such a poor average, which also backs up the point about it being the bowlers mistake as well pitching it too short. But to say the batsmen has not erred is wrong imo. If the batsmen's intention was to make contact with the ball (unless the situation is the one that weldone described) and he's missed it, the batsmen has definitely made a bigger mistake there than if he'd nicked it.
Yes but in both instances the batsman has erred exactly the same, it's just one length is fuller than the other, getting the edge.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yes but in both instances the batsman has erred exactly the same, it's just one length is fuller than the other, getting the edge.
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.
 

centurymaker

International Captain
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?
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
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.

Ed Smith said:
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.
 

centurymaker

International Captain
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.

:laugh:

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

Top