Bolwer rotation for tests

[marc71178]

No, he doesn't.
He experiences loss, but bad luck only if he deserved a wicket.
He didn't unless the ball was a wicket-taking ball.

It is bad luck if the catch does not go to hand, because if it had done then the bowler and the team would've had a wicket.

Is it really that hard to understand ?

 

[Linda]

Keep on arguing, this is quite humorous..

 

[mavric41]

Keep on arguing, this is quite humorous..

Boring more like it.

BTW - a wicket taking ball usually takes a wicket.

 

[sledger]

pah i agree withe the fact that if the catch doesnt go o hand it is bad luck for the bowler. what if its a bad ball and an amzing catch does that make up for it ?

 

[Richard]

If someone drops one of your catches, you are unlucky, whether it is a good ball or not. You'd be lucky to get the wicket, and unlucky to have it dropped.

Incidentally, I'd like to see you say "oh well, I didn't deserve it anyway" after the deep square leg fielder dropped an easy catch off one of your long hops.

I do it all the time - especially if the fielders get all guilty and apologetic.
People often tell me I'm unlucky if I get catches dropped off crap balls, or got loads of play-and-misses because the ball's swinging or seaming all over the place. I simply say "I didn't bowl enough good balls - I didn't get as many wickets as I might have".
I practise what I preach.

 

[Richard]

It is bad luck if the catch does not go to hand, because if it had done then the bowler and the team would've had a wicket.

Is it really that hard to understand ?

Is it really that hard to understand that losing-out on something you did not deserve in the first place is not bad luck, it's poetic-justice?
Same way a thief who attempts to steal something and his car stalls as he attempts a get-away has not experienced bad luck but rather has had poetic justice inflicted upon him.

 

[Richard]

pah i agree withe the fact that if the catch doesnt go o hand it is bad luck for the bowler. what if its a bad ball and an amzing catch does that make up for it ?

Whatever the fielder's done it doesn't affect the bowler.
Will people stop getting the issues of teams mixed-up in this?

 

[Richard]

Boring more like it.

BTW - a wicket taking ball usually takes a wicket.

Err, it always takes one. Otherwise it's not a wicket-taking ball.
A ball that has a wicket against it's name is not always a wicket-taking ball, however.

 

[Richard]

Or.................good luck can only last a short time before it has to be considered that what a certain player is doing/achieving may not be solely due to a perceived amount of luck on your part.

Yes, and I've analysed the thing and explained why I think otherwise.

Despite all this forward thinking about the game Richard I doubt that even you can be entirely objective when considering different players and their respective careers. I'd suggest that in certain cases you've also made up your mind in one direction or the other based on a very small sample of what's happened over a player's entire career.

I've never done anything of the sort - there are plenty of players I've never denied have made improvement (Flintoff and Symonds, to name two).
I am, however, far more loath than some to jump quickly to the conclusion that players have made improvement, as recently exemplified by my saying that I don't believe 3 or 4 ODIs of wicket-taking makes-up, yet, for 3 years of being totally useless with regard Ian Butler.

As I've said before, you can't explain away 400 wickets + by saying a player has been lucky.......and I think you know who I'm referring to in this particular instance. If you watched the test the other day, you might have seen why this player gets so many wickets in cases where other bowlers of his ilk struggle. The ball that got Fleming and the ball that got Oram in the second innings are two such examples.........look to how NZ bowled in this test for examples of how not to bowl on a batsman's paradise.

Both were exceptional balls, I've almost never seen McGrath bowl those sort of balls on this type of pitch before - gotta say I really do wonder why I've never seen it (I've seen most of his Test-matches in the last 3 years) given how many chances he's had to produce it.
I've never attempted to explain away 400+ wickets, just 137. Indeed, it's actually fewer than that because a few of those wickets will have been gathered on pitches I've never said McGrath is anything but magnificent at exploiting.
Please stop saying that to me.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yes, and I've analysed the thing and explained why I think otherwise.

I've never done anything of the sort - there are plenty of players I've never denied have made improvement (Flintoff and Symonds, to name two).
I am, however, far more loath than some to jump quickly to the conclusion that players have made improvement, as recently exemplified by my saying that I don't believe 3 or 4 ODIs of wicket-taking makes-up, yet, for 3 years of being totally useless with regard Ian Butler.

Both were exceptional balls, I've almost never seen McGrath bowl those sort of balls on this type of pitch before - gotta say I really do wonder why I've never seen it (I've seen most of his Test-matches in the last 3 years) given how many chances he's had to produce it.
I've never attempted to explain away 400+ wickets, just 137. Indeed, it's actually fewer than that because a few of those wickets will have been gathered on pitches I've never said McGrath is anything but magnificent at exploiting.
Please stop saying that to me.

If you've never made up your mind about anything without fully analysing the situation then I'm starting to doubt that you're actually human. Some of these players you're talking about have been around for 10 years, so you were 9 when they started playing. In McGrath's case I'm not suggesting improvement just denying the involvement of a large amount of luck. I've watched him bowl since he started playing for Aus and he has always bowled in similar fashion, producing a lot of good balls due to the line and length he bowls. His accuracy produces a lot of wickets, some of which in hindsight I guess you could say the batsman could have left/didn't have to play - but it's not that easy....

I think what i was referring to was taking a proportionate part of a players career and looking at it rather than possibly going 'gee Gilchrist was lucky in this series........I wonder if he's that lucky all the time' without comparing his 'luck' to every other player who played the game and coming up with some sort of comparitive statistic over a career. There's a lot of work to do before you can prove one way or another than a certain player is/isn't luckier than another. Given that the scale you are using to define luck (purely what you consider to be luck) is so subjective to your own thoughts and ideas I doubt it could be proven to a satisfactory level of significance.......but I'm interested to see what you'd come up with.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Is it really that hard to understand that losing-out on something you did not deserve in the first place is not bad luck, it's poetic-justice?
Same way a thief who attempts to steal something and his car stalls as he attempts a get-away has not experienced bad luck but rather has had poetic justice inflicted upon him.

But if you bowl a good ball, that forces the edge, and it doesn't go to hand, how is that poetic justice?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Err, it always takes one. Otherwise it's not a wicket-taking ball.
A ball that has a wicket against it's name is not always a wicket-taking ball, however.

What about in the case of an LBW appeal from a ball that straightens and hits the man in front, only to be given not out..........then is shown to actually be out on the television replays. Is this a wicket-taking ball cause it should have taken a wicket, or is it a non wicket-taking ball due to the fact that human error has let the batsman off the hook? If it is a wicket-taking ball do you correct the bowlers averages so they correspond with the batsmen who are being made accountable for an 'out' that didn't occur? If so, how do you account for runs that occur from that point onwards - do they go towards the bowlers overall total, or do any runs that batsman makes from then on not count towards the bowlers either? If the runs count how do you account for the fact that a new batsman in may not have scored as quickly as the man at the crease who was let off?

That's a lot of questions I know........but if you're going to mess with stats you have to make sure you account for everything.....and I think that list is just the beginning haha

 

[tooextracool]

its one of his most ridiculous claims, he barely considers the fact that several balls such as the hogard-richardson ball at headingly would get very few batsman out. of course in this case it would be considered a wicket taking ball, yet if another batsman wasnt good enough to get an edge on it its no longer a wicket taking ball. therefore the bowler is criticised for not bowling wicket taking balls despite the fact that in reality the batsmen is not good enough to edge them.

 

[age_master]

Err, it always takes one. Otherwise it's not a wicket-taking ball.

umm i think that was his point....

 

[Richard]

But if you bowl a good ball, that forces the edge, and it doesn't go to hand, how is that poetic justice?

It's not - it's an injustice (which is why I almost always would have a third-man in position to stop insult being added to injury and one being turned into four).
But cricket is full of little injustices - it's the big ones you've got to try and iron-out.

 

[Richard]

What about in the case of an LBW appeal from a ball that straightens and hits the man in front, only to be given not out..........then is shown to actually be out on the television replays. Is this a wicket-taking ball cause it should have taken a wicket, or is it a non wicket-taking ball due to the fact that human error has let the batsman off the hook? If it is a wicket-taking ball do you correct the bowlers averages so they correspond with the batsmen who are being made accountable for an 'out' that didn't occur? If so, how do you account for runs that occur from that point onwards - do they go towards the bowlers overall total, or do any runs that batsman makes from then on not count towards the bowlers either? If the runs count how do you account for the fact that a new batsman in may not have scored as quickly as the man at the crease who was let off?

That's a lot of questions I know........but if you're going to mess with stats you have to make sure you account for everything.....and I think that list is just the beginning haha

Big questions, simple answer - none of this applies to bowlers. First-chance stuff is for batsmen only. Yes, of course the bowler is unlucky to have a wicket turned-down if he should have had one with a good ball, but it just gets far too complicated if you start trying to use first-chance, or all-chance, or whatever, averages for bowlers.
I judge bowlers in a completely different way.

 

[Richard]

If you've never made up your mind about anything without fully analysing the situation then I'm starting to doubt that you're actually human. Some of these players you're talking about have been around for 10 years, so you were 9 when they started playing. In McGrath's case I'm not suggesting improvement just denying the involvement of a large amount of luck. I've watched him bowl since he started playing for Aus and he has always bowled in similar fashion, producing a lot of good balls due to the line and length he bowls. His accuracy produces a lot of wickets, some of which in hindsight I guess you could say the batsman could have left/didn't have to play - but it's not that easy....

I think what i was referring to was taking a proportionate part of a players career and looking at it rather than possibly going 'gee Gilchrist was lucky in this series........I wonder if he's that lucky all the time' without comparing his 'luck' to every other player who played the game and coming up with some sort of comparitive statistic over a career. There's a lot of work to do before you can prove one way or another than a certain player is/isn't luckier than another. Given that the scale you are using to define luck (purely what you consider to be luck) is so subjective to your own thoughts and ideas I doubt it could be proven to a satisfactory level of significance.......but I'm interested to see what you'd come up with.

I won't deny that I've foolishly jumped to conclusions at times, no. But upon reflection I've always tried to analyse the situations and work-out whether I was right or wrong to jump to those conclusions.
I admit, of course, that it's impossible to be totally certain about the luck situation down the years, but I have - very deliberately - researched dropped catches, and it does appear to me that they were far less common once upon a time than they are now.
Equally, though, I hate the assumption that so many people make that it must be the same for all players, because that's flagrantly not true, and it's just an excuse people use to avoid having to think about awkward things they'd rather ignore.

 

[Richard]

its one of his most ridiculous claims, he barely considers the fact that several balls such as the hogard-richardson ball at headingly would get very few batsman out. of course in this case it would be considered a wicket taking ball, yet if another batsman wasnt good enough to get an edge on it its no longer a wicket taking ball. therefore the bowler is criticised for not bowling wicket taking balls despite the fact that in reality the batsmen is not good enough to edge them.

He is criticised (or rather not praised) in this one-off situation, yes - but I always look at stuff in spells, rather than balls. If someone is bowling well, they'll keep bowling similar balls and eventually they'll get a wicket or two. If they're bowling accurately, those wickets will come cheaply.
If they're bowling poorly then suddenly produce one extraordinary ball - that does or doesn't get a wicket - the chances are they'll still not get especially good figures.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It's not - it's an injustice (which is why I almost always would have a third-man in position to stop insult being added to injury and one being turned into four).
But cricket is full of little injustices - it's the big ones you've got to try and iron-out.

I think what you're defining as 'little' injustices exist in size solely by your own interpretation.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Big questions, simple answer - none of this applies to bowlers. First-chance stuff is for batsmen only. Yes, of course the bowler is unlucky to have a wicket turned-down if he should have had one with a good ball, but it just gets far too complicated if you start trying to use first-chance, or all-chance, or whatever, averages for bowlers.
I judge bowlers in a completely different way.

Surely though, if a batsman is to be given the benefit of a poor decision via a not out or whatever there has to be a similar system in place for the bowlers that is comparable!?