Bolwer rotation for tests

[Richard]

No, the only thing you can say is that they were less frequently reported.

And I can also say that that makes it likely that they were less common.

The fact that World Standards in fielding and catching are constantly improving makes it extremely unfeasible that less catches were dropped then than now.

It makes it inconceivable for some of the more rigid-minded.

 

[Richard]

Similarly with batting, but for some reason you clinge to the hope that one day the flaws won't exist any more and it will be a viable statistic.

Same way you cling to the hope that one day the flaws in the scorebook average won't exist.
Nothing is flawless.

 

[nzidol]

If that was me I would never agree to it. I have respect for the forthright way in which the ACB generally conducts itself, however this would be a shocker!

 

[marc71178]

And I can also say that that makes it likely that they were less common.

It makes it inconceivable for some of the more rigid-minded.

How does it?

There is not one piece of logical reasoning which suggests that standards are going up, but more mistakes are being made.

 

[SJS]

How does it?

There is not one piece of logical reasoning which suggests that standards are going up, but more mistakes are being made.

There's no way to tell that standards are going up. But clearly more mistakes can be seen and confirmed to have been mistakes.

 

[Richard]

People watched as closely then as they do now, you know!
Well, you certainly should know - being acquainted with more of the game's history than most of us.

 

[Richard]

How does it?

There is not one piece of logical reasoning which suggests that standards are going up, but more mistakes are being made.

No, you do not see one.
I do.

 

[Son Of Coco]

But as I've said - there is no if about giving chances. It is fact - it definately did happen, beyond all question.

No, there isn't - I try not to.
On some occasions, though, I have no choice.
I don't think you could accuse me of being wildly inaccurate.

This is a waste of time, we're just going around in circles. A large percentage of chances involve little or no individual interpretation, but certain areas are still open to a person's own personal bias......there's a large 'if' involved when you're trying to work out what happens after that point though, as I said - stats don't deal with ifs and buts after the fact, it's about what has happened up until a certain point........and you're using a great deal of individual interpretation to achieve this.

Again, we're not going to agree though so........(the clock ticks around to 6:00, the umpire removes the bails........gentlemen, that's stumps.)

 

[marc71178]

There's no way to tell that standards are going up.

Apart from watching the efforts in the field?

 

[marc71178]

No, you do not see one.
I do.

Well please explain how such a thing can happen then, including proper evidense, rather than relying on reporting standards.

 

[Craig]

Oh no, there's no such thing as unlucky bowlers - only lucky ones (think McGrath and Pollock!)

Well I thought you required luck to get close to/over 800 Test wickets.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Ok then, well you might be able to explain todays events for me. I bowled 9 overs, 7 maidens and took 0-6. I had one catch dropped in slips, so that's unlucky for me cause it was a good ball. I had the opening batsmen playing and missing, cut them in, cut them away, bowled my first 30 balls to the same batsman who got bat on it 3 times, hit him on the elbow, hit him in the ribs, he only got off the mark (or I should say got away) when they ran through for a legbye. Beat a leftie with one that jagged back (it went over middle) then beat the outside edge twice with balls that cut away......................but didn't take a wicket...............am I unlucky? Or just crap?...........OR is it possible to bowl quite well and not get any wickets? Because today I bowled a lot of good balls and got nothing, so I'm starting to doubt this 'a wicket-taking ball always takes a wicket' thing, because it kind of depends on the level of the batsman and whether he's actually good enough to get himself out (i.e: through an edge).

 

[Richard]

This is a waste of time, we're just going around in circles. A large percentage of chances involve little or no individual interpretation, but certain areas are still open to a person's own personal bias......there's a large 'if' involved when you're trying to work out what happens after that point though, as I said - stats don't deal with ifs and buts after the fact, it's about what has happened up until a certain point........and you're using a great deal of individual interpretation to achieve this.

Again, we're not going to agree though so........(the clock ticks around to 6:00, the umpire removes the bails........gentlemen, that's stumps.)

Hmm...
Personally I just think those uncommon grey areas are like anything - BOD to batsman.

 

[Richard]

Well please explain how such a thing can happen then, including proper evidense, rather than relying on reporting standards.

The only evidence is the reporting of games - there is no other full summary of games in the days before 1954, without televised games. Even for the first 15 years or so, footage is incredibly hard to obtain - anything from the 70s onwards is easy enough.
Anyhow, as I've explained, the reports are pefectly "proper" - have you looked at the matter as I have? No.

 

[Richard]

Ok then, well you might be able to explain todays events for me. I bowled 9 overs, 7 maidens and took 0-6. I had one catch dropped in slips, so that's unlucky for me cause it was a good ball. I had the opening batsmen playing and missing, cut them in, cut them away, bowled my first 30 balls to the same batsman who got bat on it 3 times, hit him on the elbow, hit him in the ribs, he only got off the mark (or I should say got away) when they ran through for a legbye. Beat a leftie with one that jagged back (it went over middle) then beat the outside edge twice with balls that cut away......................but didn't take a wicket...............am I unlucky? Or just crap?...........OR is it possible to bowl quite well and not get any wickets? Because today I bowled a lot of good balls and got nothing, so I'm starting to doubt this 'a wicket-taking ball always takes a wicket' thing, because it kind of depends on the level of the batsman and whether he's actually good enough to get himself out (i.e: through an edge).

9 overs for 6 seems pretty good to me! (I'm presuming it was a limited-overs game?)
There are interesting points to this - if the batsmen clearly aren't good enough to get the edge, you need to try harder to hit the stumps, for instance.
But the gist of it is: this is one match. Of course it's possible to be unlucky for a single game, or even a couple in a row. Once it starts happening lots, though, you've got to start asking questions.

 

[marc71178]

Anyhow, as I've explained, the reports are pefectly "proper" - have you looked at the matter as I have? No.

And how do you know the reports are proper and run under the same lines as they are nowadays?

You don't, and considering the improvement in world standards of fielding, are you seriously telling us more catches are dropped now than ever before?

 

[Son Of Coco]

9 overs for 6 seems pretty good to me! (I'm presuming it was a limited-overs game?)
There are interesting points to this - if the batsmen clearly aren't good enough to get the edge, you need to try harder to hit the stumps, for instance.
But the gist of it is: this is one match. Of course it's possible to be unlucky for a single game, or even a couple in a row. Once it starts happening lots, though, you've got to start asking questions.

It was a two day game actually, but second innings so we didn't get to bowl for that long. The problem with trying to hit the stumps is that the batsmen aren't that bad that they'll automatically miss it when you bowl at middle (it's 1st grade so.......they're not hopeless) so you're going to go for a lot more runs.

Just a question with regards to wickets coming off bad balls in tests/one-dayers - how do you make the decision as to whether it was a bad ball or not when you don't know exactly what the fielding team was trying to do at that given point? I know some balls (rank long-hops etc) are obviously unintended but when a bowler bowls a couple short and at the batsman and then pitches one up a foot or more outside off and gets the edge or puts in two gullies and a point and bowls a short one outside off (to a player like Damien Martyn for instance) how would you know whether it was a bad ball or it worked out as planned unless you knew what they were attempting to do?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Hmm...
Personally I just think those uncommon grey areas are like anything - BOD to batsman.

They're not that uncommon though.........it's everything that may have occured after the point at which the batsman should have been out/should not have been out.

 

[Richard]

And how do you know the reports are proper and run under the same lines as they are nowadays?

Because I've studied writing styles and whether comparisons are accurate.

You don't, and considering the improvement in world standards of fielding, are you seriously telling us more catches are dropped now than ever before?

Yep.

 

[Richard]

They're not that uncommon though.........it's everything that may have occured after the point at which the batsman should have been out/should not have been out.

With regards should have been out, it's simple - anything that happens after is no credit to the batsman.
With regards should not have been out, I've already explained what I think, why it isn't perfect, and why not being perfect is not a crime.