Botham vs Flintoff

[Richard]

Chances are a part of cricket mate, I'm going to use AFL for an example, if I kick seven goals nine, that doesn't mean the outcome is that I get 16 goals.

Well I don't understand AFL so you'll have to give a more transparent example.
Let-offs are a part of cricket but they're not a part of quality batsmanship.

 

[Richard]

Richard, you said Harmison didn't deserve credit for his one over to Kallis, because at the end of it Kallis was still there. That's pure outcome reasoning (or "scoreboard journalism", as a Dutch soccer coach of some fame calls it).

But you have on countless occasions derided big batting scores (notably, Lara's big innings, Sehwag's 309) as lucky extensions after spilled catches, etc; the opposite of outcome reasoning.

I can't see the consistency in your argumentation.

I said Harmison doesn't deserve much credit for a single decent over. Even if it had contained a RUD he'd still not have deserved an enormous amount more.
Simple fact is, Sehwag would have been out on 77 if the chance in the deep had been caught; Lara would have been out on 44 and not have had the chance to get 213 if Mark Waugh hadn't dropped the sitter.
The reasoning for Harmison not deserving much credit for the over is less because it didn't get a wicket and more because it was such a massive anomaly.

 

[Shounak]

Whether or not the outcome of the innings was 309, fact is another outcome was 2 dropped catches in the 70s, and nothing will change the fact that he doesn't deserve any credit for those.

There is one outcome for the batsman at the end of the innings, the score. The batsmans score is not an outcome for the team. It is part of the process, for the team. The outcome for the team would be win, lose or draw.

Sehwag's dropped catches can be counted as part of the process which contributed to the outcome of his 309.

I realise that you will probably keep arguing that the drop catches are an outcome, so I got a definition of outcome from dictionary.com.

Outcome - An end result; a consequence.

The end result was not two dropped catches, the end result was his score of 309. The only slack im prepared to give is that the dropped catches were some of the phenomena that contributed to the outcome of 309. But the outcome remains the same.

How can you possibly argue with this??

 

[Richard]

No, for each innings there a number of outcomes - for a 410-ball innings, there are 410 outcomes.
Understand?

 

[Shounak]

I said Harmison doesn't deserve much credit for a single decent over. Even if it had contained a RUD he'd still not have deserved an enormous amount more.
Simple fact is, Sehwag would have been out on 77 if the chance in the deep had been caught; Lara would have been out on 44 and not have had the chance to get 213 if Mark Waugh hadn't dropped the sitter.The reasoning for Harmison not deserving much credit for the over is less because it didn't get a wicket and more because it was such a massive anomaly.

The fact that the over was an anomaly is completely irrelevant. The discussion isn't about his over relative to the rest bowled.

Kallis did survive, but it still was an over of exceptional bowling. Kallis (not exactly the worst batsman) was clueless. That he survived was a minor distraction. IIRC, he got hit on the glove and was beaten twice.

It is possible to bowl ONE exceptional over and the rest being crap. Just as it's possible to bat terribly and come out with ONE awesome shot. Steulen's praising one of Harmisons overs. Not his entire innings. Therefore your remarks above are redundant.

 

[Shounak]

No, for each innings there a number of outcomes - for a 410-ball innings, there are 410 outcomes.
Understand?

UNBELIEVABLE.. There is one outcome for a batting innings.

Outcome - An end result; a consequence.

AN does not mean multiple outcomes. Result does not refer to numerous results. A consequence does not refer to a number of consequences. There is no plurality. There is ONE result or consequence for a batsman at the end of his innings.

That ONE end result is his innings.

Would you say that ONE end result is that he got dropped on 77? Hardly.

 

[Richard]

How many times - I am aware of the meaning of outcome.
The point is one innings DOES NOT HAVE ONE OUTCOME!!!!!!!!!

 

[Richard]

The fact that the over was an anomaly is completely irrelevant. The discussion isn't about his over relative to the rest bowled.

Isn't it?

 

[Shounak]

How many times - I am aware of the meaning of outcome.
The point is one innings DOES NOT HAVE ONE OUTCOME!!!!!!!!!

It has a highly quantifiable outcome, that can be objectively measured. It's called the score. It's the consequence of a number of strokes being played, and quite possibly even drop catches. This score is the outcome.

No, for each innings there a number of outcomes - for a 410-ball innings, there are 410 outcomes.
Understand?

For a 410 ball innings, there is one outcome but each ball has an infinite number of potential outcomes. Seeing as we're in the dictionary.com spirit , I'm going to define potential. "Capable of being but not yet in existence".

When Sehwag was dropped on 77, that particular ball had a number of potential outcomes, the outcome that occurred from that ball was a not out. You're saying that "the fielder could have caught it so that's what the particular outcome must be.

But then you can apply that same logic to every run out. The fielder "could have thrown it in, and the keeper could have knocked the bails off. Therefore his innings only counts for the score he was on when the run out attempt occurred".

No Richard, That's just not cricket.

 

[Shounak]

Isn't it?

Kallis did survive, but it still was an over of exceptional bowling. Kallis (not exactly the worst batsman) was clueless. That he survived was a minor distraction. IIRC, he got hit on the glove and was beaten twice.

This time I'll point out exactly what I wanted you to see, rather then simply bold it. "AN OVER". Not "AN INNINGS". "AN OVER of exceptional bowling". You can surely understand that when Steulen says it was "an over of exceptional bowling", he is referring to the ONE over in question.

The fact that it was an anomaly further ameliorates Steulens remark. If an unknown Bangladeshi leg spinner pulled off a delivery similar to the Gatting ball, against an opposition such as Australia, it would be huge. Most likely made even bigger because the rest of his deliveries were crap. People would also have the right to praise that one delivery, independent of his other deliveries.

 

[Richard]

Have you even read the way this started?
Steulen's 1st post on the issue referred to the exact fact that it was an extreme anomaly.

 

[Richard]

It has a highly quantifiable outcome, that can be objectively measured. It's called the score. It's the consequence of a number of strokes being played, and quite possibly even drop catches. This score is the outcome.



For a 410 ball innings, there is one outcome but each ball has an infinite number of potential outcomes. Seeing as we're in the dictionary.com spirit , I'm going to define potential. "Capable of being but not yet in existence".

When Sehwag was dropped on 77, that particular ball had a number of potential outcomes, the outcome that occurred from that ball was a not out. You're saying that "the fielder could have caught it so that's what the particular outcome must be.

But then you can apply that same logic to every run out. The fielder "could have thrown it in, and the keeper could have knocked the bails off. Therefore his innings only counts for the score he was on when the run out attempt occurred".

No Richard, That's just not cricket.

Sorry, it's not cricket? WTF?
Missed run-outs are even more uncommon than dropped catches - usually if an easy run-out presents itself it's taken. If it's missed, of course it's exactly the same as a dropped catch.
Whatever potential outcomes of the deliveries are, that's not relevant. All that matters is what did happen. And Sehwag DID give the chance, and nothing else matters - whether it was dropped or caught is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Shounak]

All that matters is what did happen.

I couldn't agree with you more. What did happen was that Sehwag was not given out.

whether it was dropped or caught is utterly irrelevant

You're also right, but what relevance does Sehwag giving a chance have? Absolutely nothing. The only relevant detail is that it's a dot ball (or whatever).

These relevant details are noted in the scorecard, drop catches are not.

 

[Shounak]

Have you even read the way this started?
Steulen's 1st post on the issue referred to the exact fact that it was an extreme anomaly.

Steulen merely praised an over. In his eyes it was an "an over of exceptional bowling". That's how he feels. Doesn't matter whether or not it's an anomaly.

 

[Richard]

I couldn't agree with you more. What did happen was that Sehwag was not given out.



You're also right, but what relevance does Sehwag giving a chance have? Absolutely nothing. The only relevant detail is that it's a dot ball (or whatever).

These relevant details are noted in the scorecard, drop catches are not.

What is recorded in the scorecard is not all that matters, otherwise there'd be no point anyone except the scorers watching.
The relevant details are all that happens off every ball of every innings - and cricket isn't just about blindly looking at the scorebook and forgetting everything else.

 

[Richard]

Steulen merely praised an over. In his eyes it was an "an over of exceptional bowling". That's how he feels. Doesn't matter whether or not it's an anomaly.

This was Steulen's first post on the matter:

Harmison is a strange fellow, surely.

He was hopeless in SA, apart from one over to Kallis (I think it was in the Cape Town Test) which invoked memories of Donald vs. Atherton. Then he went back to pie-throwing.

He's just horribly inconsistent. An unstable mind, perhaps? (Worse, he seems to have infected former Mr. Reliable Hoggard with the same virus).

Harmy's first spell in the first Ashes Test may well make him or break him for the series

Which seems to demonstrate well enough that he was talking about the anomaly that was that over.

 

[Steulen]

Harmison is a strange fellow, surely.

He was hopeless in SA, apart from one over to Kallis (I think it was in the Cape Town Test) which invoked memories of Donald vs. Atherton. Then he went back to pie-throwing.

He's just horribly inconsistent. An unstable mind, perhaps? (Worse, he seems to have infected former Mr. Reliable Hoggard with the same virus).

Harmy's first spell in the first Ashes Test may well make him or break him for the series

OK, this was the post that got it started.

My point thus being that Harmison throws pies one minute, is Donaldesque the next, before reverting to a piethrowing.

Thereafter, the debating point became whether that one Donaldesque over should actually count as anything special, because at the end Kallis was still there. Can we at least agree on that?

 

[Steulen]

This was Steulen's first post on the matter:

Which seems to demonstrate well enough that he was talking about the anomaly that was that over.

I was, but the debating point became whether said over was actually anything special.

 

[Shounak]

What is recorded in the scorecard is not all that matters, otherwise there'd be no point anyone except the scorers watching.
The relevant details are all that happens off every ball of every innings - and cricket isn't just about blindly looking at the scorebook and forgetting everything else.

The fact that Sehwag gave a chance is in no way a relevant detail.

Also more generally, using chances given by batsmen as a means of determining "everything" about how they played is highly erroneous. A dropped catch may be looked upon in a number of different ways. Jonty may see a dropped catch of his as sloppiness. Inzi or Ranatunga dropping the same catch may see it as an awesome bit of fielding.

A catch cannot be used to judge "everything" about how a batsman played. Nor is it relevant in determining how he played at all.

 

[marc71178]

How many times - I am aware of the meaning of outcome.
The point is one innings DOES NOT HAVE ONE OUTCOME!!!!!!!!!

Erm, yes it does.