Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Having a batsman dropped is bad luck... for the bowler.raju said:Also being dropped is bad play not bad luck.
Having a batsman dropped is bad luck... for the bowler.raju said:Also being dropped is bad play not bad luck.
He's done well enough to avoid getting out. When getting a let-off, he has not got out through no skill of his own.halsey said:But the batsman is surely still very lucky, because a few inches the other way and he is gone. It is not a smaller piece of luck
No, it is the superior player who doesn't need good breaks to score runs.raju said:No such thing as luck Gents. Everyone has their good and bad breaks...it is the superior player who capitalizes on his good ones.
Football managers and bad gamblers are always talking of bad luck...they NEVER mention their good luck. To use an example people tend to lose in Casinos because the house has the % advantage...luck doesn't come into it...%s are all that matter and if you are the right side of them then you will profit in the long-term.
Better players score more runs because they are better players...its that simple.
So what? Being dropped is bad play on the part of the fielder, good luck on the part of the batsman.raju said:I agree Nass got some shockers but this was followed by a ton vs Sri Lanka when he should have been given out 4 times, mostly to bat/pads if I remember right. Swings & Roundabouts.
Also being dropped is bad play not bad luck. How many times does Butcher drop catches? Why on earth does he field where he does? When he was put in the covers for the Oval test this year he was impressive. When he is in the cordon he is nothing short of a disgrace...made even worse by having that stupid grin on his mug after he has spilled another . If I was a bowler I would insist on him not fielding there.
Only if it was off a wicket-taking ball.Mr Mxyzptlk said:Having a batsman dropped is bad luck... for the bowler.
This is exactly what I am saying, it evens out, but Richard keeps contradicting himself, first he says it evens out, then he says some batsmen are luckier than others.raju said:No such thing as luck Gents. Everyone has their good and bad breaks...it is the superior player who capitalizes on his good ones.
Football managers and bad gamblers are always talking of bad luck...they NEVER mention their good luck. To use an example people tend to lose in Casinos because the house has the % advantage...luck doesn't come into it...%s are all that matter and if you are the right side of them then you will profit in the long-term.
Better players score more runs because they are better players...its that simple.
But if Short Leg holds it, it's out, so therefore there was a chance of a wicket there.Richard said:
A chance is something that should be out; it is not something that touches a fielder. Ie if someone slams the ball into a short-leg, that's not a chance either.
No, short-leg is never going to hold something that is hammered from 2 yards away. Maybe it'll bounce up or get stuck somewhere, but he is not going to catch it without good fortune.marc71178 said:But if Short Leg holds it, it's out, so therefore there was a chance of a wicket there.
Jayasuriya drags-on a hell of a lot more than most people. But he gets more inside-edges than most people.halsey said:It varies for different batsmen. A batman with a good technique will ardly ever hit the stumps with an inside edge, because the bat is near the pad. A batsman with a bad technique will hit the stumps far more often. But that doesn't make him a bad batsman. He might have a brilliant eye, or something. Or he might have brilliant timing. Or he might be powerful. All meaning he will probably get his runs quickly, then get out.
Ponting gets out choping on more than most , are you disputing his abilities :wow: .halsey said:It varies for different batsmen. A batman with a good technique will ardly ever hit the stumps with an inside edge, because the bat is near the pad. A batsman with a bad technique will hit the stumps far more often. But that doesn't make him a bad batsman. He might have a brilliant eye, or something. Or he might have brilliant timing. Or he might be powerful. All meaning he will probably get his runs quickly, then get out.
Chalky is a very good exponent of inside-edges from right-handers, whether to the 'keeper or the stumps, because he's a natural inswing-to-the-right-hander bowler and a trifle quicker than he looks. He also uses the crease very well.iamdavid said:Ponting gets out choping on more than most , are you disputing his abilities :wow: .
Particularly in last year's Ashes series he chopped on 3 or 4 times off Craig White , occasionaly the ball gets on to him a tad quicker than he expects & he'll get caught on the crease , the result being an edge onto the timber.
Ponting doesn't have a great technique, but he has such a good eye, and he is pretty powerful, too, so it doesn't matter. Ponting has easily been the best batsman of 2003.iamdavid said:Ponting gets out choping on more than most , are you disputing his abilities :wow: .
Particularly in last year's Ashes series he chopped on 3 or 4 times off Craig White , occasionaly the ball gets on to him a tad quicker than he expects & he'll get caught on the crease , the result being an edge onto the timber.
Exactly right. Very underestimated all-rounder.Richard said:Chalky is a very good exponent of inside-edges from right-handers, whether to the 'keeper or the stumps, because he's a natural inswing-to-the-right-hander bowler and a trifle quicker than he looks. He also uses the crease very well.
Good fortune or not, it is still a wicket, therefore a ball hit at the short leg is a chance.Richard said:No, short-leg is never going to hold something that is hammered from 2 yards away. Maybe it'll bounce up or get stuck somewhere, but he is not going to catch it without good fortune.