The Most Selfish Players you've Seen

[Jono]

Why? Why does selfish have to be one or the other? All selfish is is putting your own interests before the side. That can be your marketability (being a shotplayer and getting the prestige being more important than actually making runs for your team) or it can be your average (being more concerned about getting a not-out than scoring quickly - which in all honesty really doesn't present the chance to happen all that often).

I dont see a problem with them even if I disagree with some of the nominations.

Failure to adapt to the game situation and continuing to play how you want to rather than playing how the team needs can lead you to be judged selfish. That may be either conservative or aggressive depending on the player. An unwillingness to adapt and sacrifice from what a player wants to do is not specific to a certain type.

Okay. Just found it interesting, that's all.

 

[bagapath]

dont know what you guys think. but i though alec stewart towards the end of his career became quite self centered. he was probably more concerned with ending with a 40+ average than doing what was right for the team. In his last series when he was left with the tail and once or may be even twice with just the no.11 for company, he kept taking singles showing his unwillingness to take on the bulk of the strike himself. i even remember him urging his partner to have a go at the bowling with the faint hope of him getting out so that he could remain n.o. will have to go through the scorecards to actually give u more details. but do any of you remember any of this?

 

[marc71178]

Utter codswallop.

Only once in his last series did he last past the 6th wicket to fall, and then he was 9th out for 72 with little else at the other end, but he never batted with a number 11.

 

[Uppercut]

And how to bat with the tail is almost invariably a previously-discussed team strategy anyway.

 

[bagapath]

Utter codswallop.

Only once in his last series did he last past the 6th wicket to fall, and then he was 9th out for 72 with little else at the other end, but he never batted with a number 11.

he did. in his last ashes. it was probably his penultimate series

 

[SJS]

Ponting. Cost his Team a Test to avoid a fine.

Gavaskar. Used an ODI as batting practice.

Hi Goughy,

I think Gavaskar did what he did in that world cup match was because he wanted to be captain in place of Venkat. Of course, that doesnt show him as much of a team man.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Agree so strongly with Goughy in regards to Ponting in India.

 

[Richard]

I haven't checked their records up the order (probably an small size anyways), but they might be helping their own average at the expense of exposing weaker teammates to the fresh bowling attack. Each batsmen doesn't bat in isolation.

You know, the thing that helps one's average - scoring runs - also helps the team's position.

If Pietersen\Chanderpaul make more runs at four\five than they would at three, that is good for the team. If Pietersen\Chanderpaul do stupendously while another person does average-ly instead of both doing average-ly, that's good for the team.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Hi Goughy,

I think Gavaskar did what he did in that world cup match was because he wanted to be captain in place of Venkat. Of course, that doesnt show him as much of a team man.

At the time Gavaskar said he used the innings for batting practice for the next two matches as the England score was unobtainable. In 1975 a score of 334 off 60 overs was ****ing massive and they didn't have a prayer.

 

[Richard]

he did. in his last ashes. it was probably his penultimate series

There were a couple of occasions in his penultimate series - The Ashes 2002/03 - where Stewart batted with the tail (that was due of course to his being pushed too far down the order with inferior batsmen higher up) and was indeed left n\o. Unfortunately for conspiracy-theorists the latter of them (second-innings of the Fifth Test) was a situation where England were chasing quick runs and the tailenders having a slog was important. And twice in the Second Test he was out as the 7th or 9th wicket falling. The only occasion where you could possibly question what he was doing was the Third Test where he had just seen Alex Tudor taken to hospital but wasn't bothered about trying to protect Stephen Harmison. One could suggest that he shouldn't have needed to protect him, as no bowler has any excuse for deliberately bowling short deliveries on a lightning deck at any tailender. Lee in fact was booed by his own spectators for bowling a short one first-up at Harmison having just knocked Tudor out.

 

[Uppercut]

At the time Gavaskar said he used the innings for batting practice for the next two matches as the England score was unobtainable. In 1975 a score of 334 off 60 overs was ****ing massive and they didn't have a prayer.

The idea that a score of 334 off 60 overs was unobtainable would carry a lot more weight had England not just scored exactly that.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The idea that a score of 334 off 60 overs was unobtainable would carry a lot more weight had England not just scored exactly that.

I'm not sure if that's a joke, deliberately obtuse or just plain stupid, but for the record if a team batting first in those days made anything over 280 99 times out of a hundred the match was over to all intents and purposes.

 

[fredfertang]

It was nearly thirty years and 2000 ODI's later before a team batting second exceeded that England total so I can see Gavaskar's point - I don't recall him getting too much stick at the time but I may be wrong about that

 

[GIMH]

I always preferred to think that he was playing for the draw tbh

 

[Richard]

It was nearly thirty years and 2000 ODI's later before a team batting second exceeded that England total so I can see Gavaskar's point - I don't recall him getting too much stick at the time but I may be wrong about that

From what I've always understood he got plenty, but not on the basis that he should've thought England's total was realistically obtainable - purely because of the fact that he made the second-innings the most mind-numbingly predictable and obviously-totally-pointless exercise imagineable.

I've never thought of that 36* as a particularly selfish knock, merely one of someone who sulked quite easily. Something we know for certain is true of Gavaskar.

I also thought the writer was joking when I first read of it back in about 2000.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm not sure if that's a joke, deliberately obtuse or just plain stupid, but for the record if a team batting first in those days made anything over 280 99 times out of a hundred the match was over to all intents and purposes.

Hence giving up was deemed acceptable, because everyone knows that in sport the right thing to do for your team when your chances of victory aren't very good is to give up.

Seriously, I can't believe people so many people say that as though it somehow justifies not even trying.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Hence giving up was deemed acceptable, because everyone knows that in sport the right thing to do for your team when your chances of victory aren't very good is to give up.

Seriously, I can't believe people so many people say that as though it somehow justifies not even trying.

Where are all these people who deemed it acceptable or say it justifies it?
It's just a fact that at the time Gavaskar said he used the innings for practice with two more matches to play as he considered the England score to be out of reach. India were always going to beat East Africa, so it was a winner takes all 50/50 chance match against New Zealand (which India lost).
I made no comment on the rights and wrongs of his innings, I just wrote what happened at the time.

 

[NUFAN]

Where are all these people who deemed it acceptable or say it justifies it?
It's just a fact that at the time Gavaskar said he used the innings for practice with two more matches to play as he considered the England score to be out of reach. India were always going to beat East Africa, so it was a winner takes all 50/50 chance match against New Zealand (which India lost).
I made no comment on the rights and wrongs of his innings, I just wrote what happened at the time.

I know ODI Cricket has changed considerably since this time, but really what kind of useless practice is scoring 36* off a 150 balls (or however many it was).

 

[Uppercut]

Where are all these people who deemed it acceptable or say it justifies it?
It's just a fact that at the time Gavaskar said he used the innings for practice with two more matches to play as he considered the England score to be out of reach. India were always going to beat East Africa, so it was a winner takes all 50/50 chance match against New Zealand (which India lost).
I made no comment on the rights and wrongs of his innings, I just wrote what happened at the time.

No, but you completely needlessly attacked my comment on how it obviously wasn't impossible as "stupid", and if you weren't trying to imply that Gavaskar was somehow justified by the fact that everyone did that at the time, I'm not sure what point your condescending jab was trying to make.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I know ODI Cricket has changed considerably since this time, but really what kind of useless practice is scoring 36* off a 150 balls (or however many it was).

It was just a case of "time in the middle" in English conditions.