Botham vs Flintoff

[Richard]

The innings would have been terminated had the chance been taken. But that's not what happened in reality. In reality the batsman got another chance and what he did with that chance is to be taken into account for an accurate gauge of the batsman's quality.

Hmm...
I'd simply prefer it had the extra opportunity not been given.

 

[Richard]

Is there a First Chance bowling average too?

Well, there is one - "first-chance" isn't a very good description - "all-chance" more accurate (runs conceded divided by chances given off bowling).
But I don't use it, because so often bowling averages are a misleading guide because you get 4-fors where every wicket has come courtesy of a poor stroke.

 

[Richard]

They are irrelevent in that they mean nothing in terms of the outcome of the batsman's innings.

They don't mean nothing - without them there would be no total number of runs.

The outcome of the innings is one thing - a number of runs.

No, it's many things which add-up to that.

 

[Richard]

We're not talking generally. We're talking about what actually happens. Generalisations can't be made if you're talking about a particular innings. In some situations, airing the ball to a fielder can mean you're out on 24. But because the fielder drops it, it means you're not out on 24. If you go on to make 250 you deserve credit for each of those 226 runs.

They cannot simply be written off because you aired a chance at 24.

They can - whether to do so is wise is the question.
And I feel it is.
Because I don't feel any credit goes to the batsman for the chance not being taken on 24 - it normally would be so.

But I've got a question for you Richard. What if the ball is edged and misses the stumps by a whisker? It's shown the batsmans inability to handle that particular delivery, and generally should have resulted in a dismissal (but didn't). Does this detract from his innings (lets say he went on to make 250)?

Every innings will contain deliveries that batsmen don't handle particularly well.
If you expect batsmen to play faultless innings of more than about 20 deliveries you're expecting too much.
There's a difference between making an error that results in something that means you should be out and making one that can never cost your wicket (ie an inside-edge past the stumps NEVER results in dismissal).

 

[Richard]

If the only relevant figure after each ball is the number of runs scored, then there would be a total number of runs scored. Especially when the figure is cumulative.

Except that the figure of runs scored is not the only relevant matter, otherwise the only people who'd need to watch cricket would be the scorers.

The final score (ie. the final outcome) has nothing to do with missed chances.

It does - if there were missed chances, they allowed the final score to be more than it should have been.

 

[marc71178]

So you expect me to just act like I admit that non-existent flaws exist?
Sorry - no.

But you expect us to admit a non-existant number that is flawed exists?

 

[marc71178]

They don't mean nothing - without them there would be no total number of runs.

No, it's many things which add-up to that.

They're all components, they are not outcomes.

 

[luckyeddie]

There's still no contest ..... yet!

Ian Botham is still the last world-class all-rounder England have produced. Freddie has made great strides over the last 18 months, and is now beginning to be worthy of being mentioned in the same breath, but he's not a match-winner .... yet, and he's not single-handedly slaughtered Australia .... yet.

There's time.

 

[aussie]

There's still no contest ..... yet!

Ian Botham is still the last world-class all-rounder England have produced. Freddie has made great strides over the last 18 months, and is now beginning to be worthy of being mentioned in the same breath, but he's not a match-winner .... yet, and he's not single-handedly slaughtered Australia .... yet.

There's time.

couldn't have said it much better myself

 

[shankar]

Hmm...
I'd simply prefer it had the extra opportunity not been given.

Ha ha I can see that. But like it or not that oppurtunity has been given. Now, for your average to accurately reflect the quality of the batsman, it must take all the runs scored - deserved as well as the apparently lucky ones, into account.

Now, maybe you could instead of your 'first-chance' average, divide all the runs scored by the batsman by the no. of times he's gotten out + the no. of let-offs he's had. But this average is also problematic because a batsman who get a let-off on say, 75 wouldnt bat like one starting from scratch. For example, he wouldnt be as wary of getting out as he is at the start of an innings and might take a lot more risks.

Maybe a better idea would be to take the actual average of the batsman and his first-chance average together and evaluate the batsman based on that.

 

[Swervy]

Ha ha I can see that. But like it or not that oppurtunity has been given. Now, for your average to accurately reflect the quality of the batsman, it must take all the runs scored - deserved as well as the apparently lucky ones, into account.

Now, maybe you could instead of your 'first-chance' average, divide all the runs scored by the batsman by the no. of times he's gotten out + the no. of let-offs he's had. But this average is also problematic because a batsman who get a let-off on say, 75 wouldnt bat like one starting from scratch. For example, he wouldnt be as wary of getting out as he is at the start of an innings and might take a lot more risks.

Maybe a better idea would be to take the actual average of the batsman and his first-chance average together and evaluate the batsman based on that.

or even better..forget averages, because they dont reflect the impact that your Bothams etc had on the game, get a full length version of the 118 at Old Trafford vs Australia in 81, or his 5 wickets at Edgbaston, or his 149* at Headingley, or his 8for vs WI in 84, or his hundred and 13 wickets vs India, or his 138 vs Australia in 87...or his first ball 6 off McDermott in 85

When you see things like that, pretty much all talk of averages fly out the window, they are irrelevent.

 

[luckyeddie]

or even better..forget averages, because they dont reflect the impact that your Bothams etc had on the game, get a full length version of the 118 at Old Trafford vs Australia in 81, or his 5 wickets at Edgbaston, or his 149* at Headingley, or his 8for vs WI in 84, or his hundred and 13 wickets vs India, or his 138 vs Australia in 87...or his first ball 6 off McDermott in 85

When you see things like that, pretty much all talk of averages fly out the window, they are irrelevent.

Best.....post.....ever.

 

[Richard]

But you expect us to admit a non-existant number that is flawed exists?

It exists, and it's not flawed.
As I've detailed to you about 50 times.

 

[Richard]

They're all components, they are not outcomes.

No, each delivery is an outcome.
They form themselves into components if you take them together.

 

[Richard]

or even better..forget averages, because they dont reflect the impact that your Bothams etc had on the game, get a full length version of the 118 at Old Trafford vs Australia in 81, or his 5 wickets at Edgbaston, or his 149* at Headingley, or his 8for vs WI in 84, or his hundred and 13 wickets vs India, or his 138 vs Australia in 87...or his first ball 6 off McDermott in 85

When you see things like that, pretty much all talk of averages fly out the window, they are irrelevent.

Except, as has been said (by C_C of all people), emotional wondering such as these at these can colour something to make it look like something it's not.
Fact is, averages are never, ever going to be forgotten and if you look for the right stuff you can nearly always find a number that sums-up the situation well.

 

[Richard]

Ha ha I can see that. But like it or not that oppurtunity has been given. Now, for your average to accurately reflect the quality of the batsman, it must take all the runs scored - deserved as well as the apparently lucky ones, into account.

Now, maybe you could instead of your 'first-chance' average, divide all the runs scored by the batsman by the no. of times he's gotten out + the no. of let-offs he's had. But this average is also problematic because a batsman who get a let-off on say, 75 wouldnt bat like one starting from scratch. For example, he wouldnt be as wary of getting out as he is at the start of an innings and might take a lot more risks.

Maybe a better idea would be to take the actual average of the batsman and his first-chance average together and evaluate the batsman based on that.

And you think I don't do that?
Hell, not once have I said forget the scorebook scores.
But, simply, if it comes down to a straight choice between the two of them I'd take the first-chance average, and if you've got the two in conjunction the first-chance average has more importance.

 

[shankar]

And you think I don't do that?
Hell, not once have I said forget the scorebook scores.
But, simply, if it comes down to a straight choice between the two of them I'd take the first-chance average, and if you've got the two in conjunction the first-chance average has more importance.

Well I would definitely take the scorebook average with the knowledge that it is probably flattering the batsman to a known extent instead of the first-chance average with which I would'nt have full knowledge of the batsman's achievments because it just drops valuable chunks of data (the value of which is also not possible to guess at) which it cannnot handle and that is just criminal.

I think you'll find a lot of people taking this first-chance average more seriously if you tell them that it is always to be taken in conjuntion with the scorebook average and that by itself it is misleading.

 

[Swervy]

Except, as has been said (by C_C of all people), emotional wondering such as these at these can colour something to make it look like something it's not.
Fact is, averages are never, ever going to be forgotten and if you look for the right stuff you can nearly always find a number that sums-up the situation well.

never underestimate the power of emotion in this game...it is THE thing which makes this game what it is, its the thing that averages cant pin down.

Its the difference between Richards and kallis, its the difference between Botham and Dev, its the difference between loads of players. The result of the game is number one, the effect the game and its players has on those who played the game or watched the game isnt too far behind. I will never be moved by someones average..however I will be moved by a back against the wall performance that the averages hide....its those things that make the literatature, the culture and the history of this game so great...not Player A averaged 40 before 1990 and 45 after etc.

 

[Richard]

Except that back-against-wall performances are pretty often exuded in averages - eg the Atherton 185*.
As for the difference between Kallis and Richards - they're several. Kallis has the superior attitude; Richards faced far superior bowling to that that Kallis has in the last 4 years; they were probably about equal in natural ability; their styles of play, however, are totally different.
But being from completely different eras we'll never, ever know which was the better player.
Because there are no statistics that provide reliable guides, and certainly in England Kallis, being a South African, will never achieve anything like Richards' popularity.

 

[Richard]

Well I would definitely take the scorebook average with the knowledge that it is probably flattering the batsman to a known extent instead of the first-chance average with which I would'nt have full knowledge of the batsman's achievments because it just drops valuable chunks of data (the value of which is also not possible to guess at) which it cannnot handle and that is just criminal.

I think you'll find a lot of people taking this first-chance average more seriously if you tell them that it is always to be taken in conjuntion with the scorebook average and that by itself it is misleading.

Maybe - almost anything in cricket statistics is misleading in it's own way.
I'll try it, though.