Botham vs Flintoff

[Richard]

this is horrifically old ground being trod upon here

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

It'll never stop as long as new members keep making objection to my first-chance theories.

 

[Shounak]

Richard commenting on drop catches

As far as how well the batsman played, it's everything

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

Well, I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Next, I would also use the drop catch to judge a certain aspect of the batsmans innings. I could conclude that the batsman is/was sloppy, loses concentration, or something to that effect. I would not conclude from the dropped catch that the innings means nothing.

 

[Swervy]

It'll never stop as long as new members keep making objection to my first-chance theories.

well you love it though that people new to the place will doubt its validity dont you...you will never let it go despite the fact pretty much everyone on here as completely blasted the theory to pieces, in that its a completely subjective piece of data that you arrive at..and those two words in bold just shouldnt be together.

The first chance thing is only a point of interest, in that most people (in fact, all but you from what I can gather) will look at it and go '..mmm, that quite interesting'..and then look at the bigger picture, which is something you dont really do.

What I have asked for in the past,and yet you continually evade the issue, is, can we all see you stats for players in world cricket for the first chance average.

 

[Richard]

well you love it though that people new to the place will doubt its validity dont you...you will never let it go despite the fact pretty much everyone on here as completely blasted the theory to pieces, in that its a completely subjective piece of data that you arrive at..and those two words in bold just shouldnt be together.

No, I've blasted all attempted faults to pieces. Very, very rarely will chances be unable to be agreed on if people were to actually realise how important missed chances and other let-offs are, because generally it's extremely obvious. And I've said, I don't know how many times, that when there are exceedingly rare grey-areas, benefit-of-doubt to batsman, as with everything.

What I have asked for in the past,and yet you continually evade the issue, is, can we all see you stats for players in world cricket for the first chance average.

No, I don't evade the issue - I've always said, quite simply, I can't be bothered, it'd be too much hard work.

 

[Richard]

Richard commenting on drop catches

Well, I'm glad we got that cleared up.

I said I would not use it to judge everything - simple fact is if a batsman gives a chance he'll normally be out, so giving a chance is everything, whether it's missed or taken.
It's not everything as far as summing-up the two\three\etc. innings played, because you can be dropped 3 times in 10 and then play a fantastic 240. You've been exceptionally lucky to get the chance to play that 240, but it doesn't detract at all from it.

Next, I would also use the drop catch to judge a certain aspect of the batsmans innings. I could conclude that the batsman is/was sloppy, loses concentration, or something to that effect. I would not conclude from the dropped catch that the innings means nothing.

It depends - sometimes he was sloppy or lost concentration, sometimes he got a ball he couldn't play.
And usually that will result in dismissal.
Occasionally it won't.

 

[marc71178]

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.

So pray tell where all these supposed outcomes are recorded then?

Oh that's right they're not, because the only outcome of any innings is the total runs scored.

 

[marc71178]

It'll never stop as long as new members keep making objection to my first-chance theories.

Regardless of how every one brings up the same, very valid, points that you ignore.

 

[marc71178]

No, I've blasted all attempted faults to pieces.

Delusion on a grand scale.

All chances are subjective.

This average does nothing but penalise batsmen.

 

[marc71178]

No, I don't evade the issue - I've always said, quite simply, I can't be bothered, it'd be too much hard work.

Not to mention a complete waste of time and impossible to obtain.

 

[Richard]

So pray tell where all these supposed outcomes are recorded then?

Recorded in the minds of people watching - cricket is not just numbers. Each number, of course, is recorded in the scorebook.

Oh that's right they're not, because the only outcome of any innings is the total runs scored.

No, there are as many as balls faced.
And you can add these outcomes together to make all sorts of cumulative outcomes, one of which is the total number of runs scored in the innings.

 

[Richard]

Regardless of how every one brings up the same, very valid, points that you ignore.

No, many different ones bring-up many different points, all of which have their invalidities, all of which I point-out.

 

[Richard]

Delusion on a grand scale.

No, complete truth.

All chances are subjective.

No, the odd one here and there is.

This average does nothing but penalise batsmen.

Not nothing, it's just very unusual for a batsman to have a higher first-chance average than scorebook. It's not unheard of however - Flintoff in summer 2002 and Langer in The Ashes 2002\03 are examples.
And that simply shows that batsmen aren't anywhere near as good as most people assume, but nonetheless expecting a first-chance career average of 40 is utterly ludicrous. A very good first-chance career average would probably be in the low 30s.
Different thresholds, different expectations, for different circumstances.

 

[marc71178]

No, there are as many as balls faced.
And you can add these outcomes together to make all sorts of cumulative outcomes, one of which is the total number of runs scored in the innings.

No, there is only one outcome of every innings played, and that is the score which the batsman makes.

Everything else is a contributory factor to the one outcome.

 

[Richard]

No, each outcome contributes to many cumulative outcomes - some of which don't matter (eg someone left 3 deliveries in a row - so what?), some of which do (for instance, the number of runs a batsman scored before hitting the ball in the air at a fielder).

 

[Swervy]

No, each outcome contributes to many cumulative outcomes - some of which don't matter (eg someone left 3 deliveries in a row - so what?), some of which do (for instance, the number of runs a batsman scored before hitting the ball in the air at a fielder).

hahahah..but that doesnt matter if he is not dismissed..what matters is how he has contributed to the team, whether that be by the runs he has scored , or if the situation calls for it, how long he has batted

 

[Richard]

And either way getting out is almost never going to do the team any good, so if you hit the ball in the air to a fielder you've almost certainly committed a crime.

 

[Swervy]

And either way getting out is almost never going to do the team any good, so if you hit the ball in the air to a fielder you've almost certainly committed a crime.

not if he goes on to score 250

 

[shankar]

Richard, if you are only going to take into account the runs the batsman scored before he gave a chance, then this 'first-chance' average will be useless as an indicator of the batsman's quality.

 

[marc71178]

No, each outcome contributes to many cumulative outcomes - some of which don't matter (eg someone left 3 deliveries in a row - so what?), some of which do (for instance, the number of runs a batsman scored before hitting the ball in the air at a fielder).

No, those things are all irrelevent.

The ONLY outcome of an innings is the number of runs scored.

 

[marc71178]

And either way getting out is almost never going to do the team any good, so if you hit the ball in the air to a fielder you've almost certainly committed a crime.

For which PC Richard will arrest you.

It is not a crime.