Unpopular Cricket Opinions

[Scotland]

Average is and always has been runs per dismissal.

If one guy makes 500 runs in 10 innings and another only bats in 6 of them and makes 200 with a couple of red dots the latter guy doesn't suddenly become the better performed player.

 

[Blue1980]

Any particular reason?

I always found Ponting reactionary and conservative, and without Warne and McGrath to lean on pretty lean tactically.

I think Waugh just had one of the greatest sides of all time and set ultra aggressive fields and they did the work.

I can't see why he was better than Ponting, Punter actually had a better record than Waugh up until Warne and McGrath retired.

 

[Scotland]

And "runs per innings" is adding some context to the stats.

It's creating a new stat.

 

[Blue1980]

It's creating a new stat.

And a pointless one

 

[Damon_3388]

It's creating a new stat.

Well, adding context to their raw numbers and the average, then. Going more advanced.

 

[Scotland]

I think Waugh just had one of the greatest sides of all time and set ultra aggressive fields and they did the work.

I can't see why he was better than Ponting, Punter actually had a better record than Waugh up until Warne and McGrath retired.

I'd contend Waugh helped build one of the greatest sides of all time.

Waugh inherited a pretty good team, but under his reign Langer, Elliott, Blewett and M Waugh plus Healy & Fleming went out, and Lee, Gilchrist and Mk II of Langer, Hayden and Martyn came in.

Langer and Hayden opening, Ponting up to 3, Martyn at 4, Gilchrist at 7 then Warne, Lee, Gillespie and McGrath was the bones of the dominant test side for a good 6 or 7 years. By the time Waugh retired it was really just one or two middle order spots up for grabs - and plenty of competition for them.

Ponting inherited a juggernaut of a team that just kept on rolling, plus Michael Clarke. Other than the 2005 Ashes it wasn't until the guys from the Waugh era started to finish up that Ponting was in charge of a team that was tested.

 

[western royboy]

I'd contend Waugh helped build one of the greatest sides of all time.

Waugh inherited a pretty good team, but under his reign Langer, Elliott, Blewett and M Waugh plus Healy & Fleming went out, and Lee, Gilchrist and Mk II of Langer, Hayden and Martyn came in.

Langer and Hayden opening, Ponting up to 3, Martyn at 4, Gilchrist at 7 then Warne, Lee, Gillespie and McGrath was the bones of the dominant test side for a good 6 or 7 years. By the time Waugh retired it was really just one or two middle order spots up for grabs - and plenty of competition for them.

Ponting inherited a juggernaut of a team that just kept on rolling, plus Michael Clarke. Other than the 2005 Ashes it wasn't until the guys from the Waugh era started to finish up that Ponting was in charge of a team that was tested.

Waugh didn't need to do a lot, Australia played Australia A in the finals of the WSC just before he took over, all of the players mentioned featured, our 3rd XI would still have been handy at that point in time. I don't think he built anything, but marshal them well he did. Ponting was far from my favourite Captain but he had much less resources than Steve Waugh, and at the end he was left with not much at all. Imagine if Australia played AustralianA now

 

[Hellgood]

Afraid? We would almost certainly win 5-0. CA wouldn't make any money out of it and it wouldn't catch the interest of the general public.

Absolute garbage.

 

[Aussie_boy]

Ferguson, along with longer-term guys like Bevan and M. Hussey, are why I'd like runs per innings to become a "common" stat like batting average. I know not getting out is obviously a good thing, but it does serve to overrate some guys if you just take their average at face value. It kind of takes the shine off a bit when you learn that Ferguson has averaged just 26.52 runs per innings (compared to a 41.43 average) in ODIs, Bevan "just" 35.27 (53.58 average), and M. Hussey "just" 34.66 (48.15 average).

I understand what your saying and agree with you to an extent but if runs per innings was a stat, how would coming in and facing anywhere between 0-20 balls give any true indication of how a number 5/6/7 is doing.

 

[Damon_3388]

I understand what your saying and agree with you to an extent but if runs per innings was a stat, how would coming in and facing anywhere between 0-20 balls give any true indication of how a number 5/6/7 is doing.

It wouldn't, and really shouldn't. Small sample size theatre and all that.

 

[Damon_3388]

Afraid? We would almost certainly win 5-0. CA wouldn't make any money out of it and it wouldn't catch the interest of the general public.

Do you forget how competitive it was the last time they were over here? Sure, we've gotten better since then, but so have they.

I'd back us to win at home, but it "certainly" wouldn't be 5-0.

 

[sherb]

Ponting inherited a juggernaut of a team that just kept on rolling, plus Michael Clarke. Other than the 2005 Ashes it wasn't until the guys from the Waugh era started to finish up that Ponting was in charge of a team that was tested.

The players make the captain.

Once Ponting's side started struggling due to retirements - then Waugh, Taylor or whoever would have equally struggled if they were in charge.

You can't polish a turd.

 

[t_94]

Ferguson, along with longer-term guys like Bevan and M. Hussey, are why I'd like runs per innings to become a "common" stat like batting average. I know not getting out is obviously a good thing, but it does serve to overrate some guys if you just take their average at face value. It kind of takes the shine off a bit when you learn that Ferguson has averaged just 26.52 runs per innings (compared to a 41.43 average) in ODIs, Bevan "just" 35.27 (53.58 average), and M. Hussey "just" 34.66 (48.15 average).

I've noticed you're quite stats centric. Ferguson can definitely play. Had some not outs that inflaed his average sure but played some nice innings for Australia in odis. Worse players have got a baggy green

 

[DaRick]

Ponting also had to contend with incompetent coaches and selectors moreso than Waugh did, which wouldn't have helped.

Neither were great Test captains (Ponting too reactive, Waugh too inflexible), but behind the scenes it is fairly clear Ponting was less than content with those guys and rightly so.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

This may or may not be an unpopular opinion.

Whilst I never rose to the heights of a 1st class cricketer and earned my livelihood from the game of cricket, I have played what would be considered a very competitive level of cricket where there were opportunities to advance to bigger and better things if you were good enough.

I have always considered sledging to be part of the game. A quick bowler having a few words to a lucky batsman, a bit of good natured banter between players at the heat of the moment, all very acceptable in my book, so long as it doesn't get too heated nor personal.

However, there are two players who are crossing the line of common decency IMHO, and it is a pity because both are players I really enjoy watching play cricket. There probably are others, but the two I am talking about are David Warner and Virat Kohli. As I said, a bit of banter between players in the heat of the moment is acceptable in my eyes, but when players are continually mouthing off and holding up the game, that's where I draw the line.

The practice of Kohli to be waiting at the wicket for the incoming batsman and holding up the game while he sprouts his bullshit needs to be stamped out of the game. Later on, we saw umpire Dharmasena moved to talk with Stephen Smith about the behaviour of David Warner who continued to mouth off, even after the warning to Smith.

Australian and Indian cricket teams don't like each other, haven't for some time. The time has come for strict guidelines to be written into the playing conditions of any Australia v India match, including harsh penalties for repeat offenders.

I heard one suggestion today that the player/s be removed from the field. Not a bad idea. Perhaps a bowler or fielder goes off for an hour, or the batsman goes off and comes back at the fall of the next wicket. Just suggestions for thought, but I do know one thing, this BULLSHIT cannot be allowed to continue.

 

[Phone]

Related to the above good post: throwing the ball at the stumps because the batsman played a forward defence that rolled to the bowler and he's technically out of the crease is the biggest pile of shit. The people, of various teams and even bowling styles, who practice it are goddamn idiots

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Related to the above good post: throwing the ball at the stumps because the batsman played a forward defence that rolled to the bowler and he's technically out of the crease is the biggest pile of shit. The people, of various teams and even bowling styles, who practice it are goddamn idiots

Agreed. Different if they are attempting a run, but if they are only a stride out of their crease, by the time to bowler picks up the ball and throws the stumps down, the batsman is already back inside this crease. It's not just bowlers who do this, it's fielders as well. They see a batsman one step out of his ground and have a ping at the stumps. All the batsman does is plonk his bat back over the line. Pointless exercise .. just as pointless as hurling the ball back down the pitch to the keeper all the time inside of just tossing it to the bowler who is only 3 yards away.

 

[Plugger35]

Agreed. Different if they are attempting a run, but if they are only a stride out of their crease, by the time to bowler picks up the ball and throws the stumps down, the batsman is already back inside this crease. It's not just bowlers who do this, it's fielders as well. They see a batsman one step out of his ground and have a ping at the stumps. All the batsman does is plonk his bat back over the line. Pointless exercise .. just as pointless as hurling the ball back down the pitch to the keeper all the time inside of just tossing it to the bowler who is only 3 yards away.

The firing the ball back at the stumps to the keeper is seen as a way of intimidating the batsmen, Michael Vaughan said it was one of England's tactics in the 2005 Ashes series to appear more aggressive.

Not sure if it made that much difference, it was more their great bowling that won them that series but it may have had a psychological effect, prior to that English teams were pretty lacklustre and timid, in that series they matched Australia for aggression and caught them off guard.

 

[Damon_3388]

I've noticed you're quite stats centric. Ferguson can definitely play. Had some not outs that inflaed his average sure but played some nice innings for Australia in odis. Worse players have got a baggy green

I'm not saying he can't play, I just don't think he's a genuine quality international standard batsman. He just seems like one of those borderline guys, like Shaun Marsh, who is more correct technique and style than actual substance.

 

[The Passenger]

I've noticed you're quite stats centric. Ferguson can definitely play. Had some not outs that inflaed his average sure but played some nice innings for Australia in odis. Worse players have got a baggy green

Said it many times on here but Ferg has a great technique. One of the best in the Australian FC system and very well suited to international cricket. His biggest question mark (and it's a huge one) over the years has been his desire and mental application to score runs. A few weeks back he ticked over 30yo so he's starting to get on a bit, but in cricketing terms he still has 5+ years to give and he has now averaged 52 over his last 16 FC games so he is starting to show that desire needed. Is he good enough for international cricket? If he got a chance he'd have to raise his game again (as everyone does), but after teasing cricket followers for a decade he's never been better placed to give it a proper crack. It wouldn't shock me if he was anywhere between a 25 and 45 batsmen in test cricket if he was given a shot.

 

[crownie]

I heard one suggestion today that the player/s be removed from the field. Not a bad idea. Perhaps a bowler or fielder goes off for an hour, or the batsman goes off and comes back at the fall of the next wicket. Just suggestions for thought, but I do know one thing, this BULLSHIT cannot be allowed to continue.

Like cricket in lower grades with no umpires it needs to be the captains responsibility on how his team behaves, removing players from the field is a bit to school yard for my liking. Hit the players where it hurts in the hip pocket enough and I'm sure they will stop but there does need to be some emotion allowed to be shown in a game that goes for 5 days.

when i played i hated it when a team mate of mine would sledged a batsman as he walked off after going out, its a selfish act that shows the player is not focusing in the right areas of the game and they usually drop a catch or make a stupid mistake after they do it.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Hit the players where it hurts in the hip pocket enough and I'm sure they will stop

Mate, what sort of fine can you possibly impose upon a person who earns $12 million a year through cricket alone, outside of other business interests? Any fine imposed upon Kohli would be laughed at.

What really hurts a player is not being allowed to play. I'm willing to bet that having to walk off and sit there thinking about it until a wicket falls would have far greater impact on Kohli's behaviour than a fine.

A bit too school yard you say? Well, if players insist upon behaving like undisciplined spoilt brats, then that's how they should be treated.

 

[western royboy]

Mate, what sort of fine can you possibly impose upon a person who earns $12 million a year through cricket alone, outside of other business interests? Any fine imposed upon Kohli would be laughed at.

What really hurts a player is not being allowed to play. That would hurt a player such as Kohli far more than any fine.

Suspension is the only way to rid it. Straight Test Match bans, no arguments, no tribunals - bang your out for a match or two.

It's all well and good to be parochial, but when things don't go out way,this is one of the tactics that we go to. Cricket should be played hard, but fair and within the spirit of the game. Kohli is no worse than 3-4 of our guys.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Kohli is no worse than 3-4 of our guys.

No doubt. I was merely using him as an example because the amount of money he derives from the game. A fine would have the same impact on him as cream puff would have on a brick wall.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Another great performance tonight. The guy is incredibly talented.

has a 9/10 missus too.