How good a pair are Harmison and Flintoff ?

[Richard]

If almost all batsmen get quite a bit more good luck that bad throughout a career then luck does even itself out. You're talking batsmen getting far more luck than their peers, but the players you've referred to as being lucky you've taken a period out of their careers to use as an example of when they apparently were 'the luckiest players on the planet'. If you're going to use statistics Richard one or two years out of a players 10-15 year career is not a big enough sample size to make any significant assumptions (neither is one or two games). In fact, given that 10-15 years is not a long period of time, and the fact that if you look hard enough you can probably find out what happened in every single innings, you'd really have to do that before you came up with any assumptions backed by so-called fact.

Therefore, saying players like McGrath and Pollock are lucky, or have been since 2001, does not take into account whether this does indeed even out over their 10 year careers (using luck in your opinion of course), and the same can be said for Gilchrist with an innings you've mentioned here or there. You also probably haven't ascertained whether the things you are using to measure 'luck' in this instance are actually valid measures.

I've got my doubts that you've sat down and watched every match they've played since you were 9, taking notes as you went as to how many times they've been dropped etc, so...........there's a bit of work to do.

THere's a lot of work ahead before the luck theory comes to fruition.

No, I haven't taken notes as such, but I have recorded - English, at least - players' first-chance scores, and exact details of all innings played in the last 6 years.
Of course it's not so easy to do stuff with bowlers - there's no way you can make a "deserved average" - but you can remember fairly accurately whether someone has bowled some good balls, and build-up a rough pattern of bowlers you haven't seen every wicket.
And for most Gilchrist innings (to name a prominent example) than not I could tell you whether or not he'd been dropped.
The reasons why a first-chance average is neccessary is that, while all batsmen get approximately the same proportion of luck throughout a career, it's only approximate and who knows which batsman will benefit most from which slice of luck? Equally, those few who get more luck than others shouldn't be exempted the way they are by the scorebook-average.

 

[Richard]

So...........how do you then estimate what the batsman would have made if he was given not out on the poor decision in the first place?

I hope you're not playing loose and fancy free with stats Richard!

Are edges over slips counted as out?

No, the batsman has done well enough to avoid dismissal.
You don't estimate what the batsman would have made when he was incorrectly given out - you just give him credit for not getting out, and the runs he managed.
You can't do anything else.

 

[luckyeddie]

Unworkable - how so?

It's difficult enough getting a third umpire to be able to decide on something as relatively straightforward as whether a bat is grounded over a line or not.

What IS a chance? Certainly not necessarily when the fielder just got a hand to the ball - you could conceivably have an absolute dolly which the fielder did not touch because he didn't pick up the flight, wasn't concentrating, was unsighted or just plain slow to react.

Consequently, it becomes a subjective exercise, relying on the perception of one or more people - judges, a committee, if you like, deciding what was a chance and what wasn't. Then there's the instances where the batter gets an incorrect decision - either for or against - from an umpire. Do you cut the innings short for lbw's which should have been given, then credit the batter with a 'not out' if he got an inside edge?

Sorry - I guess you're the only person who sees any practical necessity for such a thing as a 'first-chance average', but I wish you success in your quest - at least it'll mean employment for a few hundred.

 

[luckyeddie]

Except I do understand about should-be and shouldn't-be dismissals - far better than most, it seems, judging by this constant "half-chance" rubbish that is bandied-about so much.

If it's a 'half-chance', he should be credited with half his current score but not out.

 

[marc71178]

Unworkable - how so?

For a start - there's no such thing as "should be out" - to do it accurately, 1 person would have to watch every ball ever bowled.

 

[SJS]

This is hilarious

How about when a batsman is wrongly given out? Besides treating that innings as not out, how many runs to be added to his score ?

How about doubling his score so that if he is out for 0 he ends up getting....er....well...better ideas anyone ?

What if bowlers are denied a wicket by a wrong decision ? Count all the wrong decisions as wickets actually taken. Great. So you could, theoretically beat Laker's match haul of 19 wickets in a single innings ?

After all cricket is nothing but a comlicated and 'boring' method to generate simple, exciting and debate-generating statistics isn’t it ??

Ridiculous !

 

[Deja moo]

What if bowlers are denied a wicket by a wrong decision ? Count all the wrong decisions as wickets actually taken. Great. So you could, theoretically beat Laker's match haul of 19 wickets in a single innings ?

!

Not only could he beat Lakers record , he could end up with more than 20 wickets in a test

 

[SJS]

Not only could he beat Lakers record , he could end up with more than 20 wickets in a test

You said it !

I think statistics are so popular because even total ignorance in the finer aspects of the game can go about masquerading as great analytical commentry armed with statistics served neat (sometimes) but mostly mixed in an assortment of head-spinning ****tails

 

[Richard]

It's difficult enough getting a third umpire to be able to decide on something as relatively straightforward as whether a bat is grounded over a line or not.

What IS a chance? Certainly not necessarily when the fielder just got a hand to the ball - you could conceivably have an absolute dolly which the fielder did not touch because he didn't pick up the flight, wasn't concentrating, was unsighted or just plain slow to react.

Consequently, it becomes a subjective exercise, relying on the perception of one or more people - judges, a committee, if you like, deciding what was a chance and what wasn't.

If you think about it - is it possible to catch the ball with the fingertips of one hand? I'd say "no", myself, I've never seen it happen.
Only once you get a palm on it can you really catch it.
The instances where a ball goes up and a fielder doesn't pick it up are rare, but when they do happen it's not often difficult to work-out whether they should have got there or not.
Of course there will be instances where there is doubt - where that happens, you know the rules - benefit of the doubt to the batsman.
But it's very rare for there to be much disagreement over what should and shouldn't be out.

Then there's the instances where the batter gets an incorrect decision - either for or against - from an umpire. Do you cut the innings short for lbw's which should have been given, then credit the batter with a 'not out' if he got an inside edge?

Of course you do, I've said that enough times!

Sorry - I guess you're the only person who sees any practical necessity for such a thing as a 'first-chance average', but I wish you success in your quest - at least it'll mean employment for a few hundred.

Hmm... if only.

 

[Richard]

If it's a 'half-chance', he should be credited with half his current score but not out.

Er, no, most half chances really could not have been caught at all.
A few are just the commentators being lenient and not saying "he should have caught that" when he should.

 

[luckyeddie]

Er, no, most half chances really could not have been caught at all.
A few are just the commentators being lenient and not saying "he should have caught that" when he should.

Tell that to Lara and Strauss - quite fantastic catches yesterday.

 

[Richard]

What if bowlers are denied a wicket by a wrong decision ? Count all the wrong decisions as wickets actually taken. Great. So you could, theoretically beat Laker's match haul of 19 wickets in a single innings ?

Bowling doesn't come into it at all.
First-chance averages are absolutely nothing to do with bowlers.

 

[Richard]

Tell that to Lara and Strauss - quite fantastic catches yesterday.

Oh, yes - but nonetheless Strauss would be expected to catch that.
Lara's was simply a once-in-a-blue-moon-er. You don't see fielders that close taking catches where the ball just goes in with no real reaction when the ball's hit that hard very often.
Last time I saw it was Pollock off Adams to Klusener's bowling - same match as Read astonished everyone for the first time with the power of his hitting.

 

[luckyeddie]

Oh, yes - but nonetheless Strauss would be expected to catch that.
Lara's was simply a once-in-a-blue-moon-er. You don't see fielders that close taking catches where the ball just goes in with no real reaction when the ball's hit that hard very often.
Last time I saw it was Pollock off Adams to Klusener's bowling - same match as Read astonished everyone for the first time with the power of his hitting.

Strauss reacted so quickly, it was almost as though he anticipated where the ball was going. A moment longer reaction time and it would have been one of your 'fingertip' chances (i.e. not a chance).

Lara's was unbelievable, but no more so than Shoaib Akhtar's caught and bowled the other day - quite remarkable.

Either way, you haven't explained how any of those instances should be applied to your 'first chance' rating.

 

[marc71178]

Bowling doesn't come into it at all.
First-chance averages are absolutely nothing to do with bowlers.

Because their stats are all based on luck.

 

[marc71178]

Oh, yes - but nonetheless Strauss would be expected to catch that.

Diving full length to his wrong side?

I wouldn't have expected it to be taken.

Had he been a fraction late on it, people wouldn't have criticised him, would've agreed it was too wide for him to get.

 

[luckyeddie]

Because their stats are all based on luck.

It explains why Gough, Caddick, Cork and White can be treated as England's greatest seam attack - one bowler is as good as any other because bowlers do not affect batsmens averages - they 'don't come into it at all'.

Ah, the randomness of it all.

 

[Richard]

Strauss reacted so quickly, it was almost as though he anticipated where the ball was going. A moment longer reaction time and it would have been one of your 'fingertip' chances (i.e. not a chance).

Lara's was unbelievable, but no more so than Shoaib Akhtar's caught and bowled the other day - quite remarkable.

Either way, you haven't explained how any of those instances should be applied to your 'first chance' rating.

Well, anything that's caught clearly must have been catchable, so it has to go down as out.
But if Lara hadn't had his hand in the place it was, I wouldn't have blamed him for "dropping a catch", nor would I have lambasted Flintoff for getting out.
And sorry, my perception of that Strauss catch was an instant "catch it!" and my heart would have sunk had he dropped it.
It didn't sink when Powell got the finger on the Trescothick one, because he could never have caught it.
Shoaib's caught-and-bowled, meanwhile, I wouldn't have blamed him if he'd dropped that, either. Had his hands been even a few centimetres in any direction, I don't reckon he'd have caught it.

 

[Richard]

Because their stats are all based on luck.

Not all of them, but a spell of 5 wickets where not one has come through a wicket-taking delivery is, IMO, a stat caused by luck.

 

[Richard]

Diving full length to his wrong side?

I wouldn't have expected it to be taken.

Had he been a fraction late on it, people wouldn't have criticised him, would've agreed it was too wide for him to get.

Had he been late on it, Sarwan would have got a let-off.
Under normal circumstances, he'll pick the ball up when he should and get to it where he can catch it.