-
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.
We want to see Richard's 1st chance averages
- Thread starter Swervy
- Start date
PY
International Coach
Maybe because he has better things to do than spend days (and it would take days!!) working them out and I think I'm right in saying he works as well so maybe not enough time.Mingster said:
I, for one, if there are any Tests on terrestrial TV in England will willingly give up 5 days of my life to vegetate in front of the TV ( :saint: ) and try and keep tabs on what people might have got in first chance terms. Might need definitions but I'd probably do it because as Swervy mentioned, I think they could have a little merit but not nearly as much as Richard does.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No, not at all, just spotted this thread for the first time.
I gave the example of Trescothick in another thread; I don't keep exact tabs, I have to work it out whenever anyone asks me. It's easy enough in series, takes a bit longer in careers if they're long.
It is a fair point that some people will dispute what is and isn't a let-off, but not very often. In fact, many people have made-up stuff like some of the things on this thread just to try and prove it's more subjective than it actually is.
Very rarely, I tell you, will you get disagreement on a let-off and not.
Incidentally, can anyone answer the question I have asked so many times; what is the difference, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, between a let-off and a scorebook-dismissal?
I cannot see the point in construing any example averages as still no-one will accept their merit, arguing as they do that there is too much subjectivity involved.
The answer, of course, is simple; just make-up your own averages on your subjective definition of a chance. And I tell you, there won't be much difference between anyone who takes the thing seriously. Any refusal to do this is simply denying the basic truth that there is no difference between a let-off and a scorebook-dismissal as far as the batsman's ability is concerned.
I gave the example of Trescothick in another thread; I don't keep exact tabs, I have to work it out whenever anyone asks me. It's easy enough in series, takes a bit longer in careers if they're long.
It is a fair point that some people will dispute what is and isn't a let-off, but not very often. In fact, many people have made-up stuff like some of the things on this thread just to try and prove it's more subjective than it actually is.
Very rarely, I tell you, will you get disagreement on a let-off and not.
Incidentally, can anyone answer the question I have asked so many times; what is the difference, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, between a let-off and a scorebook-dismissal?
I cannot see the point in construing any example averages as still no-one will accept their merit, arguing as they do that there is too much subjectivity involved.
The answer, of course, is simple; just make-up your own averages on your subjective definition of a chance. And I tell you, there won't be much difference between anyone who takes the thing seriously. Any refusal to do this is simply denying the basic truth that there is no difference between a let-off and a scorebook-dismissal as far as the batsman's ability is concerned.
badgerhair
U19 Vice-Captain
Re: Re: We want to see Richard's 1st chance averages
That's certainly something worth knowing.
But it seems to me that it would also be interesting to note what the interval between first and second chance was. Lara has a reputation, for instance, of being quite vulnerable very early on but utterly impregnable after he's reached 20, so it would be interesting to know what people like him earned on reprieve.
Picking batsmen is about risk assessment; do you go for someone who will pay off big time if he survives to double figures but only has a 50% chance of getting that far, or someone who always gets to 43 before he gives a chance, which in his case is always taken? There is no right answer to that question, at least in a hypothetical and abstract discussion, because it will depend on who and what and where and when and in what conditions. But I suspect that a balanced side would include both Mr Reliable and Mr Noughtor-Twohundred. I can't see any way in which you could reduce your entire assessment of a batsman to the first chance average any more than the scorebook average or his inside leg measurement. Not that Richard does - at least, he claims to use his own judgement as well as this statistic (and I think I'd actually be more interested in his judgement than a readout of what his numbers tell him).
But the process of recording chances given by batsmen could easily be adapted to recording chances generated by bowlers, and I think stats kept on those would be rather more interesting than the ones kept on the batsmen. It would certainly allow for easier comparison between bowlers from different countries, as some have the misfortune to have Mark Butcher and Ashley Giles fielding close in for them while others get Tillekaratne and Jayawardene.
Cheers,
Mike
Of course they would be at least vaguely interesting statistics. It ought to identify the nervous starters who take ages to get their eyes in at the beginning of an innings pretty accurately, if nothing else.PY said:
That's certainly something worth knowing.
But it seems to me that it would also be interesting to note what the interval between first and second chance was. Lara has a reputation, for instance, of being quite vulnerable very early on but utterly impregnable after he's reached 20, so it would be interesting to know what people like him earned on reprieve.
Picking batsmen is about risk assessment; do you go for someone who will pay off big time if he survives to double figures but only has a 50% chance of getting that far, or someone who always gets to 43 before he gives a chance, which in his case is always taken? There is no right answer to that question, at least in a hypothetical and abstract discussion, because it will depend on who and what and where and when and in what conditions. But I suspect that a balanced side would include both Mr Reliable and Mr Noughtor-Twohundred. I can't see any way in which you could reduce your entire assessment of a batsman to the first chance average any more than the scorebook average or his inside leg measurement. Not that Richard does - at least, he claims to use his own judgement as well as this statistic (and I think I'd actually be more interested in his judgement than a readout of what his numbers tell him).
But the process of recording chances given by batsmen could easily be adapted to recording chances generated by bowlers, and I think stats kept on those would be rather more interesting than the ones kept on the batsmen. It would certainly allow for easier comparison between bowlers from different countries, as some have the misfortune to have Mark Butcher and Ashley Giles fielding close in for them while others get Tillekaratne and Jayawardene.
Cheers,
Mike
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Of course there are chance averages for bowlers as well - it's called the "all-chance average" (ie it takes into account all chances, not just the ones taken).
But for me assessing a bowler isn't about how many wickets (or chances) he's got next to his name, it's about how many good deliveries he's bowled and how accurate he's been in the meantime.
There is a far better means of assesing batsmen as Mike suggests than worrying about first- and second-chance averages (that can get kinda complicated
) - it's called the batting all-chance average. Very simple - runs in the book divided by number of chances given in the innings.
So for a 220 which needed 3 let-offs; 220 in runs, 4 in dismissals. For a 150* which needed 1 let-off; 150 runs, 1 dismissal.
That enables all good play to be counted and all things which should result in dismissal to be accounted for.
Some people much prefer this to the first-chance average and whenever I think about it it makes every bit as much sense.
But for me assessing a bowler isn't about how many wickets (or chances) he's got next to his name, it's about how many good deliveries he's bowled and how accurate he's been in the meantime.
There is a far better means of assesing batsmen as Mike suggests than worrying about first- and second-chance averages (that can get kinda complicated
) - it's called the batting all-chance average. Very simple - runs in the book divided by number of chances given in the innings.So for a 220 which needed 3 let-offs; 220 in runs, 4 in dismissals. For a 150* which needed 1 let-off; 150 runs, 1 dismissal.
That enables all good play to be counted and all things which should result in dismissal to be accounted for.
Some people much prefer this to the first-chance average and whenever I think about it it makes every bit as much sense.
Swervy
International Captain
ok fair enough....Richard said:
however the only way i can see how anyone can keep a record of this is by using the commentary thing on cricinfo..so surely you arent getting to see whether the chance is what YOU would consider a chance (only the guy's opinion who is typing out the commentary, which sometimes does show an element of bias...which is funny by the way)...and also a number of those 'commentators' exist so you cant really get a truly consistant idea of what was a chance
Swervy
International Captain
Richard said:Of course there are chance averages for bowlers as well - it's called the "all-chance average" (ie it takes into account all chances, not just the ones taken).
But for me assessing a bowler isn't about how many wickets (or chances) he's got next to his name, it's about how many good deliveries he's bowled and how accurate he's been in the meantime.
There is a far better means of assesing batsmen as Mike suggests than worrying about first- and second-chance averages (that can get kinda complicated
So for a 220 which needed 3 let-offs; 220 in runs, 4 in dismissals. For a 150* which needed 1 let-off; 150 runs, 1 dismissal.
That enables all good play to be counted and all things which should result in dismissal to be accounted for.
Some people much prefer this to the first-chance average and whenever I think about it it makes every bit as much sense.
who are these 'some people'??????
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
by your chance averages Brett Lee would be one of the best bowlers in the world, yet you still dont rate him, not even in OD cricket...
1st chance averages! Oh thats good. Hehe.
Anyways, where was I? Oh yeah. This whole thing is ridiculous and there are so many flaws it is just stupid.
Another flaw to consider is bad captaincy. A bad field placement or not? There are also the ones listed and also more.
Reply to this if you like Richard, but I'm not writing again.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah, good good, don't take any notice - it might mean you're right.
Not.
:rolleyes:
Just to point-out the flaws in this supposed flaw-spotting: if the fielder is there, the batsman knows it. It is poor batting if he hits the ball in the air to this fielder. If poor captaincy has meant there isn't a fielder where there should be, the batsman knows this, and knows it's safer to hit in the air there.
Not.
:rolleyes:
Just to point-out the flaws in this supposed flaw-spotting: if the fielder is there, the batsman knows it. It is poor batting if he hits the ball in the air to this fielder. If poor captaincy has meant there isn't a fielder where there should be, the batsman knows this, and knows it's safer to hit in the air there.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No, he'd be slightly less useless than he is.age_master said:
His average since 2001 would have gone down from nearly 40 to... about 35. Fantastic!
And as I say, I don't rate a bowler by statistics (however much one is fairer than the other) - I rate him by how well he's bowled. Not how well the batsmen have played him.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Some people I've talked about these *-chance averages to - a few examples: my Dad, Jeff Stanyer (my legendary club captain), Mike Browning (Neil's met him - he's just another old "fogey" at the club, but still a darn good bowler, far better than me), Mike that Sri Lankan guy on The ECF (sure Craig will remember him, and probably david too - the guy who always slagged Gilham off for his anacrastic attitude), and one or two other guys on The ECF.Swervy said:
I haven't discussed it with a massive number of people, and generally there has been more thoughtless dismissal of *-chance averages, but some do immidiately accept the merit, some after thinking about it change their ridiculing to intregue.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
You can get many reports of a day's play, even in Zimbabwe, and normally (along with any smidgen of pictures you can get hold of - ICC Cricket World is useful sometimes) it's possible to work-out what is and isn't a chance.Swervy said:
You learn very quickly who calls a "chance" something that touched a fielder's finger and who correctly calls a chance something that should have been caught.
Swervy
International Captain
Richard said:
well think the idea of a first chance average is a valid one.
I just think the method you are using is highly flawed I am afraid,the opinion of a chance is way way too subjective,and you cannot base opinions on players abilty on such a 'non-scientific' statistic...this is probably the rreason why such a figure hasnt been used in official statistics before.
I would accept it more if you had seen each and every innings played etc,then you would have set your own rules as to what constitutes a chance...as it is your method is so much open to difference of opinion in what is a chance, that your first chance averages just dont cut it.
You have said before that these averages etc are fact...i can tell you they are not fact...there is no scientific,(and therefore objective) method you are using...so as they arent not fact, you may as well be making the figures up.
And before you go on about A-level English, I have a degree in Astrophysics which is largely based onthe interpretation of data (and the gathering of that data as well) and a huge amount of statistical analysis...I can tell you straight, thatyour figures are garbage.
Although the THEORY behind them has merit
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Another point I'd question is the notion of a chance.
As a case in point I'll take Trescothick today.
Dwayne Smith went for a catch just before he was dismissed, but it went down.
Talksport described it as a drop, as did Cricinfo, but Liam was listening to the same incident on his radio and it was described as a brilliant piece of fielding...
As a case in point I'll take Trescothick today.
Dwayne Smith went for a catch just before he was dismissed, but it went down.
Talksport described it as a drop, as did Cricinfo, but Liam was listening to the same incident on his radio and it was described as a brilliant piece of fielding...
Ive always seen both sides of the coin on your little '1st chance averages' theory.Richard said:
I see the merit in your point , if a batsman offers what could be classified as a chance (ie a catch that should have been taken , an absolutely plumb lbw turned down or a snick behind given not out) , then really he deserved to be out & deserves no credit for the errors of the umpires/feilding side & thus I see how one could reason he deserves little to no credit for any runs made between the time he offered the chance & his eventual dismissal.
However Im of the view that these things are just part of cricket , they will generally even themselves out over the course of a players carear , although obviously some players will benefit from more luck than others (ie Trescothick , Gilchrist , Sehwag comepared to Steve Waugh , Hussain & Chanderpaul).
One day a player might walk out & get dropped 4 times in the proccess of making 120 , while another day he may walk out & have a ripper of a catch taken to dismiss him 2nd ball , or pad up & receive an incorrect lbw.
I think we just have to accept that these things are a part of cricket & form part of the games appeal.
IMO its fair enough to say a player was lucky to make the runs , or that a player has been lucky many times over the course of his carear , but I dont agree with saying "Gichrist didnt deserve his 144 because he was dropped on 11" or words to that effect.
It still dosent change the fact he played very well after the chance was offered & at the end of the day the scorebook is really all that counts.
Notice the common theme with the players who tend to be gifted a little more luck that others (Trescothick , Sehwag , Hayden , Gilchrist , etc) , they are all players who tend to hit the ball in the air alot , but they also hit it very , very hard which certainly dosent make catching it any easier.
this whole thing seems a load of tripe.
if your going to do that, than surely you must consider that a batsmen may have been unlucky by some superb fielding. i.e. only got 1 runs due to absolute freaky fielding when he shoulda got 4?? it works on the same principle.
At the end of the day, it's not what could have happened it's what has happened.
a batsmens average is not a true reflection on his ability, but at the end of the day, it's pretty much what counts........
if your going to do that, than surely you must consider that a batsmen may have been unlucky by some superb fielding. i.e. only got 1 runs due to absolute freaky fielding when he shoulda got 4?? it works on the same principle.
At the end of the day, it's not what could have happened it's what has happened.
a batsmens average is not a true reflection on his ability, but at the end of the day, it's pretty much what counts........