Botham vs Flintoff

[Richard]

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.

Dropped catches in relation to batting - forget what it means to fielding - are everything.
Quite simply, can you give me a reason why, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, a dropped catch is different to a caught one?
Fact is, if a batsman gets out it's a relevant detail - and it's equally relevant if they should have been out but weren't, because they have done the exact same thing on both occasions.

 

[Richard]

Erm, yes it does.

Only if it is just 1 delivery in duration.

 

[marc71178]

No, no matter how long an innings is, it only has one outcome - the final number of runs scored.

 

[Steulen]

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.

I'm diagnosing you with multiple personality disorder.

How can you say this and discount the Harmison over as nothing special because Kallis was still there at the end of it

 

[Shounak]

Dropped catches in relation to batting - forget what it means to fielding - are everything.
Quite simply, can you give me a reason why, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, a dropped catch is different to a caught one?
Fact is, if a batsman gets out it's a relevant detail - and it's equally relevant if they should have been out but weren't, because they have done the exact same thing on both occasions.

You can't say that a batsman should have been out. I've been in arguments with people over the issue of whether the outcome of a particular delivery was a missed catch opportunity or a good bit of fielding.

But how is a dropped catch different to a caught one with regards to "how well the batsman played", as you said. The batsmans ability should be judged by what he did with his innings. A dropped catch can be a relevant detail if you are talking of a batsman's inability to concentrate, or to slack off. But it certainly should not be used to judge "everything" about "how well the batsman played". The dropped catch carries very little weight when compared to what the batsman did with every other ball in the innings.

So I've conceded that a dropped catch can be used to judge a small portion of the batsman's gameplay in that innings. However, using it to judge the whole innings played by him is ridiculous.

 

[Shounak]

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

Steulen, I'm sure you found that over special. Hell that's why you mentioned it. You find that particular over special. Good on ya.

Richard does not. Well ok, good for him.

 

[Steulen]

Steulen, I'm sure you found that over special. Hell that's why you mentioned it. You find that particular over special. Good on ya.

Richard does not. Well ok, good for him.

Nevermind. I've had my fun with Richard again. It's better than doing what I'm paid to do

 

[Richard]

No, no matter how long an innings is, it only has one outcome - the final number of runs scored.

Nope, each delivery has an outcome.
Of course, there is a cumulative outcome, but there are many cumulative outcomes - one of which is the runs scored between the start of the innings and the first chance.

 

[Richard]

I'm diagnosing you with multiple personality disorder.

How can you say this and discount the Harmison over as nothing special because Kallis was still there at the end of it

Because Harmison didn't get him out.
Even if he did everything but.

 

[Richard]

You can't say that a batsman should have been out. I've been in arguments with people over the issue of whether the outcome of a particular delivery was a missed catch opportunity or a good bit of fielding.

Yes, occasionally you get grey areas.
More often than not, though, if people make any sense they realise what is a clear chance and what obviously isn't.

But how is a dropped catch different to a caught one with regards to "how well the batsman played", as you said. The batsmans ability should be judged by what he did with his innings. A dropped catch can be a relevant detail if you are talking of a batsman's inability to concentrate, or to slack off. But it certainly should not be used to judge "everything" about "how well the batsman played". The dropped catch carries very little weight when compared to what the batsman did with every other ball in the innings.

So I've conceded that a dropped catch can be used to judge a small portion of the batsman's gameplay in that innings. However, using it to judge the whole innings played by him is ridiculous.

So you'd say that to judge a batsman on whether he gave a chance (and the chance was taken) is ridiculous?

 

[Shounak]

Nope, each delivery has an outcome.
Of course, there is a cumulative outcome, but there are many cumulative outcomes - one of which is the runs scored between the start of the innings and the first chance.

The outcome of a drop catch delivery is a dot ball (or whatever runs were scored of that delivery).

The drop catch is a minor detail that can be used to judge other aspects of the batsmans game. But hardly an outcome in itself.

 

[Shounak]

Yes, occasionally you get grey areas.
More often than not, though, if people make any sense they realise what is a clear chance and what obviously isn't.

So you'd say that to judge a batsman on whether he gave a chance (and the chance was taken) is ridiculous?

YES.. If he scored another 232 runs in the innings. Then HELL YES I would say that using a drop catch to judge "everything" about his innings is ridiculous. Most reasonable people would.

 

[Richard]

The outcome of a drop catch delivery is a dot ball (or whatever runs were scored of that delivery).

The drop catch is a minor detail that can be used to judge other aspects of the batsmans game. But hardly an outcome in itself.

So you'd say a chance that resulted in dismissal was a minor outcome, would you?

 

[Swervy]

So you'd say a dismissal was a minor outcome, would you?

the point is if the ball is dropped, the outcome isnt a dismissal

 

[Richard]

YES.. If he scored another 232 runs in the innings. Then HELL YES I would say that using a drop catch to judge "everything" about his innings is ridiculous. Most reasonable people would.

Nor would I use it to judge EVERYTHING. But I would take it to mean what it means - not a minor irrelevance.

 

[Richard]

the point is if the ball is dropped, the outcome isnt a dismissal

Which says nothing except that the fielding was substandard - it says nothing about the batsman.

 

[Swervy]

Which says nothing except that the fielding was substandard - it says nothing about the batsman.

this is horrifically old ground being trod upon here

When are we going to get into some new discussions?????

 

[Shounak]

So you'd say that to judge a batsman on whether he gave a chance (and the chance was taken) is ridiculous?

You're changing your tune. You were previously saying in the other thread that a drop catch can be used to judge "everything" about how a batsman played.

I think even you would concede that a drop catch cannot be used to judge "everything" about "how a batsman played". Especially in the case of the batsman scoring another 232 runs. There are many more aspects that are used to judge his performance.

Saying that a dropped catch can be used to judge "everything" is ridiculous though.

 

[Swervy]

You're changing your tune. You were previously saying in the other thread that a drop catch can be used to judge "everything" about how a batsman played.

.

welcome to the world of CW CC

 

[Richard]

You're changing your tune. You were previously saying in the other thread that a drop catch can be used to judge "everything" about how a batsman played.

I think even you would concede that a drop catch cannot be used to judge "everything" about "how a batsman played". Especially in the case of the batsman scoring another 232 runs. There are many more aspects that are used to judge his performance.

Saying that a dropped catch can be used to judge "everything" is ridiculous though.

Fact is, if a batsman gives a chance that's usually end-of-innings.
And that should be borne in mind.
Anything after a chance would not normally have been able to happen.
But scoring 232 after being dropped on 11 is still a fair performance, obviously (assuming, of course, that there aren't 4 more dropped catches).