Botham vs Flintoff

[Richard]

You know perfectly well what I'm talking about.
A cricketing crime.

 

[Richard]

No, those things are all irrelevent.

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

No, they're not irrelevant.
Without them THERE WOULD BE NO total number of runs scored.

 

[Richard]

not if he goes on to score 250

But generally if you hit the ball in the air to a fielder on 24 you've scored 24, not 250.

 

[Richard]

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.

No, it won't be useless - maybe it mightn't be the best indicator there is, but it's certainly more useful than the scorebook average.

 

[shankar]

No, it won't be useless - maybe it mightn't be the best indicator there is, but it's certainly more useful than the scorebook average.

Nope. The scorebook average only shows the runs made and neglects the chances given. Whereas your method neglects the runs made after the chance which are a big part in determining the quality of a batsman. Most people know that a big innings might contain 1 or 2 chances, but they can have no idea about how much the batsman would have scored after his reprieves.

So I would rather take the scorebook average along with my estimate of how many chances he would have given than your 'first-chance' average with which I would have no way of even guessing how many runs the batsman actually scored.

 

[Richard]

And I would rather not effectively credit a batsman for a let-off than worry about missing someone playing well for a 200.
Because the fact is, being dropped on 20 and scoring another 180 is actually very rare.

 

[shankar]

And I would rather not effectively credit a batsman for a let-off than worry about missing someone playing well for a 200.
Because the fact is, being dropped on 20 and scoring another 180 is actually very rare.

The point is you are neglecting important chunks of data in gauging the quality of a batsman. It is not possible to guess what a batsman would have scored after being dropped. Whereas with a scorebook average, it is possible to make a good guesstimate of how many chances the batsman gave along the way.

 

[Richard]

It's more than possible to make a good guesstimate, it's almost invariably possible to know certainly.
Simple fact is, most innings are terminated when the first chance is given - I just don't see why any differences should benefit the batsman.
We don't know when someone who's caught on 1 would go on and score 200 if it was dropped, but for sure it would happen, plenty.

 

[shankar]

Simple fact is, most innings are terminated when the first chance is given - I just don't see why any differences should benefit the batsman.
We don't know when someone who's caught on 1 would go on and score 200 if it was dropped, but for sure it would happen, plenty.

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.

 

[social]

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.

Dont do it to yourself, Shankar!

 

[shankar]

Dont do it to yourself, Shankar!

Ha Ha I'll risk it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Is there a First Chance bowling average too?

 

[marc71178]

No, they're not irrelevant.
Without them THERE WOULD BE NO total number of runs scored.

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

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

 

[marc71178]

Is there a First Chance bowling average too?

Yes, but all bowlers have infinite averages.

 

[Anil]

Yes, but all bowlers have infinite averages.

+ve infinity or -ve infinity?

 

[Shounak]

But generally if you hit the ball in the air to a fielder on 24 you've scored 24, not 250.

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.

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)?

 

[Shounak]

No, they're not irrelevant.
Without them THERE WOULD BE NO total number of runs scored.

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.

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

 

[PY]

Blimey, Richard, I'll give you kudos for never ever giving up but it's boring after almost 2 YEARS.

It's got nothing to do with the topic and you're just repeating the same stuff over and over again while not listening to what people are saying and it's not like it's a new thing, it's almost like the only thing that gets talked about when you post.....

Is it not possible just to take it that most people don't agree with you and so stop ramming it into people's faces at every opportunity? Guess it's a free world but it is a little off-putting.

 

[Richard]

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

 

[Richard]

Dont do it to yourself, Shankar!

Already done.
shankar's actually provided far, far more intelligent debate on the matter than most.