Understand. But is it generally correct that the fielding side has to appeal for an out before it is given?The catch will take precedence since it happened first. If it was later discovered to be a no ball then the run out would apply if the ball hadn't been declared dead before it.
Technically, but in practice a celebration is usually taken as an appeal. For obvious outs (bowled, most caughts) the batsman will walk and no appeal is necessary.Understand. But is it generally correct that the fielding side has to appeal for an out before it is given?
Hey! Don't fault my usage. Encyclopedia Britannica refers to cricket shots in the air as being fly balls. https://www.britannica.com/sports/cricket-sportWhat kinda fly does the batsman hit?
Housefly
Fruitfly
OK, it refers to runs as points too, but still, it is Encyclopedia Britannica.A ball hit to or beyond the boundary scores four points if it hits the ground and then reaches the boundary, six points if it reaches the boundary from the air (a fly ball).
Forgive if I am mistaken, but wasn't there a time when fielding teams felt it was dishonorable to appeal for decisions that they knew for certain would be incorrect, even if it was to their advantage? Perhaps a fielder knew he trapped a ball or that it touched the rope and that the umpire had not seen it. If so, has that changed with video coverage and DRS?Technically, but in practice a celebration is usually taken as an appeal. For obvious outs (bowled, most caughts) the batsman will walk and no appeal is necessary.
That still happens. The rest of the team might be celebrating, but the fielder who caught the ball will be the one to indicate that they didn't catch it cleanly/touched the rope. Although the more likely scenario is that they'll indicate that they're not sure and leave it up to the umpires to make the decision.Forgive if I am mistaken, but wasn't there a time when fielding teams felt it was dishonorable to appeal for decisions that they knew for certain would be incorrect, even if it was to their advantage? Perhaps a fielder knew he trapped a ball or that it touched the rope and that the umpire had not seen it. If so, has that changed with video coverage and DRS?
Yep. Umpires used to take their word for it too. Australia was notorious for such incidents.Forgive if I am mistaken, but wasn't there a time when fielding teams felt it was dishonorable to appeal for decisions that they knew for certain would be incorrect, even if it was to their advantage? Perhaps a fielder knew he trapped a ball or that it touched the rope and that the umpire had not seen it.
Captains and coaches tend to use their eyes quite a bitIs there something else that is used to assess the effectiveness of a bowler?
*doingInsanity is going the same thing over and over again..
*and expecting different results. Important part, otherwise trundler is making it sound like McGrath was crazy*doing
How dare you.*and expecting different results. Important part, otherwise trundler is making it sound like McGrath was crazy
Are you saying the eye test is more significant than the data sets? That's pretty old school, but I like it. For instance, economy is great unless not getting wickets against is the opponent's strategy is just to burn overs until the match ends in a draw, in which case economy achieved by defensive batting and stalling is hurting rather than helping.Average measures how well you pick up wickets over time, and may be of less use over a single match; it shows whether it is worth any wickets you may take given the runs you'll concede. The can help the selection committee, and within a single match, may be of help to the captain deciding who to allocate more overs to.
Economy indicates how much the batsmen like facing you, and/or how many wides and no-balls you bowl. In a single match, it can show (to the captain), for example, whether or not you can be trusted to bowl those few overs at the end.
I get that, but IMHO, being "loose" and wild seems like it would make batsmen very uncomfortable when facing him because he can get outs on any ball, and that the fact they get big bombs off him or that they can get tips and deflections for boundaries and extras from regularly doesn't mean they can feel they also feel they can really handle themselves against him sufficiently to prolong a game against him to a win or a draw. The data sets Economy and Average does not seem to me to reflect that he is effective at getting the game over despite giving up runs.A maiden may get you closer to the end of a match by affecting the mental state of the batsman. * * * * That Starc takes wickets in spite of bowling loosely is due to luck if nothing else, and he may not have brought the match closer to the end in a beneficial way to his side if he gives away too many runs whilst doing so.
Ok. I get that. I'm not sure why a pro necessarily has to yield to psychological pressure, but if you say that is happening, so be it.In general, a captain may do a mysterious thing called 'having a balanced attack', by picking the correct bowlers and allocating their overs so that, f'r'instance, an economical bowler can apply pressure to the batsmen, drying their runs up, and then they have to take more risks against Starc.
Are you speaking about batting strike rate (runs/balls X100) or something else? I can see batting strike rate as being an ambiguous metric. I take a strike rate of 100 as being a good thing if the batsman is out there for hours wearing out the opposition with a century but as a bad thing if it is a six, four dots and a bowled out wicket, and a what do you make of it thing if all he is doing is burning up overs at an insufficient run rate to catch the other side. In isolation, they are the same on paper; in reality very different animals. Is there something else besides run rate on a scorecard or elsewhere that is more indicative of how well it is going for a batsman?There is also a thing called 'strike rate', which measures balls per wicket; no appliaction has yet been discovered for this metric.
Cricinfo has a new stat - control - which is a useful way of seeing how well the batsman is playing. A high percent and they're generally doing well. A low percent and they're generally struggling.Is there something else besides run rate on a scorecard or elsewhere that is more indicative of how well it is going for a batsman?