• 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.

First Chance Average Revisited

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Rich Dickinson's much maligned First Chance Average was a subject for considerable ridicule when I first joined CW, and quite rightly so, but I have just discovered that it does provide an interesting angle on the similarly slated idea that occasionally surfaces on CW, that being that someone other than The Don might be the greatest batsman who ever played the game - yes I can reveal Bradman's verified First Chance Average...


drum roll....



 
wait for it....



 
be patient ladies and gentlemen - another drum roll ................




 
Tests and ODI's only this ...............




 
74.79
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Is that seen as a large drop?
God knows, but I guess the point is his FCA is still larger than any other batsman's non-FCA adjusted average. Which, in itself, is pretty bloody impressive.

Assuming Fred hasn't just made up the number, of course.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
God knows, but I guess the point is his FCA is still larger than any other batsman's non-FCA adjusted average. Which, in itself, is pretty bloody impressive.

Assuming Fred hasn't just made up the number, of course.

I haven't made it up, though I suppose the bloke who calculated it (a retired Judge who is now deceased) could have - it comes from a distinctly hagiographical tome called "Bradman the Great" by Bernard Wakley and doubtless contains the details of the 24 occasions when he was apparently given a life

Of course now we have DRS I can see the FCA really coming into its own as a means of creating an alternative set of playe statistics
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I believe it to be the case however that Sachin has the highest Second Chance Average of all Indian players less than 170cm tall who have debuted after 1970, but quite apart from that as you well know BCCI refuse to recognise the FCA anyway
 

King Pietersen

International Captain
Ah, FCA. What a phenomenon. What happened to good old Richard?

Also, what's Jonny Bairstow's FCA? Does he make double figures?
 

Chubb

International Regular
Used to find Richard on FCA hilarious. He was so passionate, bordering on insane, about the whole idea. I believe he genuinely thought it was a Moneyball-type revolutionary use of stats in cricket.

For those who aren't acquainted with the rationale, behold this explanation from Richard in 2007:

"It's pretty hard to fail to make sense of it...

If batsman gives chance, you'd normally expect it to be taken, yes?

What does the batsman do differently when a chance is caught and when it's dropped?

Answer: nothing. Nothing whatsoever.

So therefore, as far as an anaylsis of the batsman's ability is concerned, a dropped catch and a caught one are the same.

Now then, it needs to be understood - getting the end of a finger on something is NOT a dropped catch. No fielder has ever caught a cricket ball without at least getting it into the flesh of the fingers. Therefore, hitting a ball into a fielder's fingertips is NOT giving a chance.

With slight rephrasing, the same can be said of a batsman getting out (caught off a think nick\glove that the Umpire doesn't spot, pretty plumb lbw - not something HawkEye suggests is grazing the top of leg - clear catch turned-down by Third-Umpire becuase he's 99.99% not 100% certain about it, etc.) and being given not-out.

Equally, if a batsman clearly gets a shocker against him (lbw to a ball pitching a foot outside leg, caught behind when he missed it by daylight, etc.) then he does not deserve to go, no? Indeed he doesn't. So we credit him with a not-out. This also applies if his partner sells him a dummy with a suicidal run.

Common consent is that these things even each other out. Anyone who has taken any note whatsoever of the reality of the situation will realise that this is complete and utter bull****. Virtually every batsman has more good luck than bad in a career - but some are luckier than others (in my time watching Gilchrist was incredibly lucky for a time, Hayden has been very lucky for much of his career, Trescothick is surely the luckiest batsman EVER, and Sehwag, especially when facing Pakistan, has been lucky beyond the bounds of decency). Another common misperception: ah, I spot a link! They're all hard hitters! Well, yes, but so are most of today's batsmen. The truth of the matter is most of these dropped catches have been sitters at slip and in the deep, not balls slammed at close-in fielders.

So therefore, to get a fair interpretation of the performance of a batsmen, we simply count a chance as the same regardless of whether the fielding side \ Umpire was good enough to take it. And we don't blame batsmen who get unlucky for their misfortune. "
 
Last edited:

Riggins

International Captain
baseball stats take it into account don't they? tracking fielding errors, and as an example not counting things as a hit if it was due to fielding error.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
The massive flaw is of course the grey area as to what constitutes a chance.

Would the Root non-catch count? Fielders didn't get close after all
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It is superficially attractive as a possible measure of something (although it's difficult to actually work out what) but the blindingly obvious problem is that even if you could articulate what it measures it would only work if there was no other possible mode of dismissal
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Fred you are a top bloke, so I say this advisedly:

THIS ENTIRE ****ING IDEA WAS A HORRID BLIGHT ON CRICKETWEB FOR YEARS, HAD NO BASICS IN FACT OR REMOTE COMMON-SENSE. IT WAS INVENTED FOR SOMEONE TO TALK DOWN PLAYERS HE DIDN'T RATE. TO EVEN MENTION IT AGAIN IS ****ING ********.

and yes, I am shouting.
 

Top