The problem why this big moment narrative gets peddled more is also due to all the former players turned commentators pushing this narrative on TV and also some of the post match comments by losing team captains like Babar Azam calling out Hasan Ali dropped catch etc … will need a lot more sustained by many good sports journalists to change this
Agreed, the laws apply equally to each delivery, and each counts equally to the match.
But how about this as an explanation for the "clutch moment" description: While the laws apply equally at all times, outcomes in each delivery depend on the choices of the players, and the choices in turn depend on the risk calculations they make. This makes for difference in otherwise equal deliveries. The risk calculations players make in the eighth over are different from a 19th over in which 2 runs are needed for victory, which are further different from a 18th over in which 57 are needed for a win.
"When it mattered most," in this formulation, could be construed as: "when the batters were forced to take the most risk, and were therefore most susceptible to be out, and therefore easiest to dismiss, Jordan did not get them out." What would be wrong with this statement?
To be clear, I don't actually support what was written in the Wisden article - I think it a vast overstatement to infer anything about Jordan's skill from that over - and I don't think the author was thoughtful enough to formulate it as I did above, but just presenting it for argument's sake.
While I agree with your broader idea of not inflating an over to take over the ability/potential of a player, I disagree that "all balls matter equally". The risk (for overall team score) for someone trying score over SR of 150+ in middle overs is much more than those trying the same in 19th or 20th over because of the limited nature of game. Had it been a test match, the risk would be mostly equal, except if it is towards the end of the game.
Your argument makes complete sense..it is our need to hear a story that makes people write such tripe..
The problem why this big moment narrative gets peddled more is also due to all the former players turned commentators pushing this narrative on TV and also some of the post match comments by losing team captains like Babar Azam calling out Hasan Ali dropped catch etc … will need a lot more sustained by many good sports journalists to change this
Agreed, the laws apply equally to each delivery, and each counts equally to the match.
But how about this as an explanation for the "clutch moment" description: While the laws apply equally at all times, outcomes in each delivery depend on the choices of the players, and the choices in turn depend on the risk calculations they make. This makes for difference in otherwise equal deliveries. The risk calculations players make in the eighth over are different from a 19th over in which 2 runs are needed for victory, which are further different from a 18th over in which 57 are needed for a win.
"When it mattered most," in this formulation, could be construed as: "when the batters were forced to take the most risk, and were therefore most susceptible to be out, and therefore easiest to dismiss, Jordan did not get them out." What would be wrong with this statement?
To be clear, I don't actually support what was written in the Wisden article - I think it a vast overstatement to infer anything about Jordan's skill from that over - and I don't think the author was thoughtful enough to formulate it as I did above, but just presenting it for argument's sake.
While I agree with your broader idea of not inflating an over to take over the ability/potential of a player, I disagree that "all balls matter equally". The risk (for overall team score) for someone trying score over SR of 150+ in middle overs is much more than those trying the same in 19th or 20th over because of the limited nature of game. Had it been a test match, the risk would be mostly equal, except if it is towards the end of the game.