However there seems to be an inconsistency in the conclusions you draw from the NIC per wicket metric.
You point out two factors affecting this. One, you say is the defensive fields employed by the bowling side which results in higher NIC per wicket.
The other, is a higher share of luck enjoyed by the batter, which can also increase the NIC per wicket.
I feel that the first reason could also partly explain the higher NIC per wicket for Cummins, rather than just the misfortune.
Do you see a way to quantify the effect of field settings in higher NIC per wicket?
Also, an aside:
While control is a measure of luck, it is still quite a crude one. There could be batters who play false shots with soft hands, leading to lesser risk of dismissals. This isn't captured as skill, but luck by the metric.
I'm not sure that field settings matter that much in that, I don't think the players are that stupid. In general, I am inclined to discard obvious things as being probable factors in deciding the outcome of Test matches. If something is so obvious that it occurs to you and me, it is unlikely to be missed by entire Test squads.
As in, I don't think the field settings were sub-optimal, even if they were defensive. So its not obvious that more attacking field settings would have produced more frequent, or more importantly, cheaper dismissals.
Very interesting analysis.
However there seems to be an inconsistency in the conclusions you draw from the NIC per wicket metric.
You point out two factors affecting this. One, you say is the defensive fields employed by the bowling side which results in higher NIC per wicket.
The other, is a higher share of luck enjoyed by the batter, which can also increase the NIC per wicket.
I feel that the first reason could also partly explain the higher NIC per wicket for Cummins, rather than just the misfortune.
Do you see a way to quantify the effect of field settings in higher NIC per wicket?
Also, an aside:
While control is a measure of luck, it is still quite a crude one. There could be batters who play false shots with soft hands, leading to lesser risk of dismissals. This isn't captured as skill, but luck by the metric.
Luck, in professional sport, is not the opposite of skill. (https://cricketingview.substack.com/p/what-is-luck)
I'm not sure that field settings matter that much in that, I don't think the players are that stupid. In general, I am inclined to discard obvious things as being probable factors in deciding the outcome of Test matches. If something is so obvious that it occurs to you and me, it is unlikely to be missed by entire Test squads.
As in, I don't think the field settings were sub-optimal, even if they were defensive. So its not obvious that more attacking field settings would have produced more frequent, or more importantly, cheaper dismissals.