Giving wickets away

[Rachael]

Ok... this series has seen hardly any dismissals in which the batsman played no part in his own downfall. Would anyone care to grade (a) the deliveries that have taken wickets; and {b} the culpability of the batsman.

Grade deliveries on a scale from 1-5:

1. Unplayable, a jaffa
2. Superb, no disgrace for the batsman
3. Good, a class batsman who is "in" should cope
4. Poor, even a batsman new to the crease should cope
5. Rank, no threat even to a tail-ender

Grade shots on a scale from A-E:

a. Good in conception and execution
b. Average, the shot of a player new to the crease
c. Poor, either shot selection or execution suspect
d. Extremely poor, either in shot selection / execution
e. Atrocious, truly inexcusable in shot selection / awful execution

My impression, having caught only summaries of much of the England Innings, is that the WI bowling rarely rose above
(3) and that only Read of the England top 8 was actually got out bt a (1) or (2) delivery playing an (a) or (b) shot: the rest were tested by shots in the (3)-(5) range and played shots in the {c}-(e) range.

Thoughts?

[James M]

Rachael, love your delivery grading system. With the shot grading system, I think there needs to be an extra one in the positive. For instance, I think that there can be a shot which is unplayable for the bowler, for instance the late cut or clever footwork to enable a batsman to hit a spinner over the top (straight six would be the pinnacle shot to aim for here). I think that any shot which finds the gap should be under a) but for truly superb shots such as Butcher's to win the Trinidad Test, there needs to be a new category. Perhaps just 'excellent in conception and execution' would suffice.

I also think you can rate the bowler and batsman being faced in terms of reputation and ability and also the match siuation as well to truly measure a shot or delivery's effectiveness. We can work on this tomorrow though.

[Rachael]

James - good feedback.. and look forward to developing this... but the focus is dismissals: I'm not sure the grading system needs to include anything that outstanding by the batsman if the shot results in them getting out!

One thing I've ignored though is run-outs: they would need equivalent grades (from excellent running to farcical mis-communication and from taking risks warranted by the situation to the truly suicidal dash when caution was warranted).

I'll try and keep this thread going for the rest of the series: maybe we could rate dismissals as they occur from now on in.

[James M]

The match situation is important because if, say, a new batsman were to come in at 115-6, a situation worthy of caution, and they were to attempt to play a flamboyant cover drive to a d) ball on off stump that seams away which would be best left alone at this stage, if it 'comes off' (probably meaning that it is edged through slip or to third man for four) the shot will rate as middling to poor but if caught at slip it will be e) atrocious under shot selection. However, were the player in question to be 200 not out and the score 400-2, the shot would probably still be rated the same as things stand although the outcome may be different.

[Rachael]

Fisrt thoughts from bits of Talksport commentary, Cricinfo bulletin and cricinfo text commentary....

Tresco: quick but straight (3) inside edge (d)

Butcher: wide, lifting ball (4 or 5) flashed at (d or e).

Vaughan: average short ball (3 or 4) met with poor shot selection and poor execution (d or e)

Hussain bowled through the gate just before lunch: above average ball (2-3) responsible shot selection, but no way a well set top order bat should ever be bowled that way, especially before lunch (c or d)

Flintoff, tame delivery (3-4), "soft shot", poor in selection and execution, made worse by the match situation (d or e)

Read, good delivery (2-3) and reasonably responsible and reasonable executed shot that should not have been given out (b-c)

Giles OK ball (3) flashes at it, "inelegant swat" (d-e)

Hoggard, effective Collins inswinger (2-3), shot selection OK but execution not great (c)

Jones: maybe 3-d

Harmison: maybe 2-3 and d-e

Please suggest appropriate revisions!!!

[Rachael]

Agree with all you say James: shot selection is entirely dependent on match situation: not just score but whether batsman is new to the crease / well set, who is the other end, how long partner has been batting, who is bowling, when their spell starts / is likely to end, condition of ball, time to next lunch / tea interval... and much more.

I'd suggest it even has to do with a player's "natural game": a slog that was good shot selection for Freddie in Sri Lanka when he was completely at sea against Murali) might have counted as a poor shot for Batty (who was actually quite comfortable against Murali and had realistic alternatives).

I think the only way to really refine this very far is to actually trial run it and see what arises: so long as we don't end up two grades apart in our judgements I'll be reasonably happy!

[James M]

They all sound fair appraisals Rachael. One thing we've learned is that top-order batsmen in this series have shown a great deal of shot selection in the e) category and I don't see it changing. One thing we can't measure easily is pressure, the crowd, momentum and the good old slice of luck. See ya tomorrow (nearly falling asleep at keyboard).

[Rachael]

OK - carry this on over the weekend. Thanks for the input James.

[DaveGillespie]

I would suggest that the best deliveries in this series have been the ones which haven't got wickets. Fidel Edwards has been pinging 90mph+ outswingers pitched on a perfect line and length on a regular basis, which will trouble any batsman in the world. This has come as a particular revelation to me after watching his dire performance in South Africa.

Of course, there have been exceptions - witness Vaughan suckered by Pedro Collins' 2 card trick in the 2nd test first innings, one going accross him, the next one swining back in. But then you have some truly awful shot selection - bow your head, Dwayne Smith.

The Windies bowling attack has really impressed me, and just needs more bowling to get the experience in there. Edwards can only improve as he bowls more and improves his line and length, and like I say 90mph+ skiddy outswingers are going to give any batsman trouble on any pitch. Best doesn't know when to give up and is the sort of bowler who can put the fear of god into a batsman, and whose control has also been impressive for a 22 year old bowling at his pace. Collymore good line and length, doing a bit off the seam and through the air should be looked to as the senior statesman. Collins is your wily character, reminded me of a younger Bicknell, albeit left arm over. All in all, good that they got rid of the dead wood in Drakes/Dillon/Sandford.

[Oliver]

Rachael, this is excellent stuff, but as DaveGillespie suggests, there must be some extra thing (for want of a better word and I refuse to write "je ne sais pas" on a Cricket board) given to each mark regarding the quality of the bowling immediately before.

Bowlers work out batsmen. Sometimes the calculation takes more than an over. But for the purposes of your system which is certainly workable (I look forward to trying at home) there must be a sort of annotation regarding say three previous balls.
So Hussain who has fallen for the 3c perhaps should have "< v > 3c" for his dismissal.
Being "movement away" "attempted yorker" "movement in" and then out by the 3c method.

This is fun. Hours of pleasure here.

Have you ever looked at one of Bill Frindall's scoring charts?

They might offer you some further ideas.