Chopping wide balls onto the stumps

[Arjun]

Probably the second-worst way to get out (after straight-drive deflection run-outs), but I'm throwing this open for debate here. Is the dismissal by chopping wide balls onto the stumps a batting error or just plain, bad luck? Having watched the Indian team so often, I've seen that happen for Tendulkar and Dravid no less, more than a few times.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's certainly a batting error. Inside-edging the ball is just as much an error as outside-edging it - you've either played down the wrong line or been beaten by movement. The risk of an inside edge is much less than that of an outside edge - but the actual error is the same.

 

[Swervy]

It is a batting error, however it is still unlucky at the same time

Makes me laugh that a batsman who plays on like that is deemed unlucky and yet if the ball missed the wickets he would be called a lucky so and so

 

[vic_orthdox]

Depends. Sometimes, it means that you're playing with an angled bat, when a crossbat shot is what is required. Other times, the actual shot selection was right, the execution wasn't.

 

[Prince EWS]

Depends. Sometimes, it means that you're playing with an angled bat, when a crossbat shot is what is required. Other times, the actual shot selection was right, the execution wasn't.

Indeed, but isn't it a batting error in both of those situations?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Meh, batting error is too broad a term for my liking. Batsmen technically make errors when they still hit balls for four from the middle of the bat.

Tend to break it down into "decision-making" and the actual "execution" of the stroke; not mutually exclusive by any means, but they in my mind are the two main aspects of the batting process.

 

[Richard]

It's certainly a batting error. Inside-edging the ball is just as much an error as outside-edging it - you've either played down the wrong line or been beaten by movement.

The former of these is error, the latter isn't.

Being beaten by a ball that moves is no error, I'd say.

 

[Richard]

Makes me laugh that a batsman who plays on like that is deemed unlucky and yet if the ball missed the wickets he would be called a lucky so and so

Absolutely. If it hits the stumps it hits them, if it doesn't it doesn't. Neither is really lucky or unlucky.

 

[Nishant]

Its defintely a batsman's error...it is as bad as outside-edging a ball....

 

[Perm]

Definitely a batting error, but the batsman is unlucky if the ball actually collides with the stumps.

 

[SJS]

Definitely a batting error, but the batsman is unlucky if the ball actually collides with the stumps.

As unlucky as an edge going to the hands of one of the fielders at slip rather than through them.

It is an error which is fine because batsmen will finally make errors. The problem is if the batsman makes a particular error again and again very often. Then it is a 'defect' that needs correction. As much a defect as Inzy's 'bad luck' in getting run out so often and Ganguly's bad luck that his 'hooks' make more height than distance.

 

[Goughy]

There is nothing unlucky about it. It is (in the main) a technical issue born from bringing the bat down at an angle.

Something that isnt punished at all when there is little movement but is very costly if there is any deviation.

No different to any other technical weakness. The environment has to be right for it to be exploited