Kallis vs. Dravid

[honestbharani]

I'm not trying to pretend I'm not biased- no one is, although I'm not inherently biased against Tendulkar if that's what you think. But I'm rather proud of the fact that all of my opinions are open to change if someone can put forward a convincing argument to the contrary. Yet you call that "fickle minded", and see stubborn adherence to a previously determined viewpoint as a virtue. Why?

because the former almost never happens.

 

[Sir Alex]

I'm not trying to pretend I'm not biased- no one is, although I'm not inherently biased against Tendulkar if that's what you think. But I'm rather proud of the fact that all of my opinions are open to change if someone can put forward a convincing argument to the contrary. Yet you call that "fickle minded", and see stubborn adherence to a previously determined viewpoint as a virtue. Why?

I knew I should've split that post into two, only the first line was intended for you.

What I was saying was that you seem to have a problem with people supporting Tendulkar here. And your apparent implication that due to such posters (alone) threads are becoming dire. You couldn't be further from the truth. Fact is there are some passionate cricket fans with their set of prejudices and bias. When such guys come across there will be heated discussions and arguments. If you find that not to your taste, a. You can ignore or b. You can report it. Just cribbing about in an unrelated thread about your dislike for posters who support Tendulkar is not just it. You seem to ignore such statsfests happen in almost every Player vs Player threads and somehow decided to put the blame entirely on posters supporting Tendulkar. And since I being one of them just took offence.

 

[Prince EWS]

You don't like it? You report it.. Don't crib about it.

Actually I love Ikki's passion here. He might be biased as hell, but he wears his passion on sleeve and is "incorruptible" when it comes to that faith. I'd prefer such people over fickle minded opportunists or the fence sitters who would lean to any side as they choose to.

I suppose it depends on why you come to the forum.

If you come to the forum to see objective debates about cricket based on balanced opinions, then "incorruptible" fanboys aren't desirable. Give me the "fence-sitter" every time when actually trying to debate the merits of a player. I do agree that some degree of stubbornness is actually a virtue - it irritates me to see people change their entire opinion of a player flippantly based on a game or so when they have a lengthy career every bit as relevant - but I don't like to see that stubbornness based on basic team support. If you analyse someone's career, see a lot of them play or both and come to a conclusion based on that which isn't then influenced by the next theory that comes along or the next couple of games that's fine, but when it's based on an inherent bias for or against the team he's playing for I completely lose any interest in reading it.

I've found that quite a few members don't really come to CricketWeb for a balanced debate though, instead preferring cross-team banter. They essentially act as representatives of their teams, fighting in the GOCSW, defending any possibly unreasonable criticism of their team or its players. I've always found this pretty annoying (when not done light-heartedly anyway) and I actually warned a member about it the other day, but upon reflection it's not intrinsically wrong - just altogether different from my reason for coming here.

I should probably qualify my post by saying it was made in general terms and not about Ikki, too. I actually don't think he's quite as bad as people make out - he actually has a vast array of valid cricket theories that back up his opinions, and while I disagree with a lot of them they all do have merit. They do lead to the conclusion that certain Australians are better than most other people seem to think, but I think it's hard to say that their Australian-ness necessarily led to his theories and not the other way around. Watching Australian cricket be so successful for so long could obviously lead one to slightly different ideas about the importance of strike rates than most, to use one example. Cause and effect need to be defined.

Anyway.. this no longer has anything to do with Kallis v Dravid at all - should I move the posts somewhere else or has the original debate finally be done to death?

 

[Sir Alex]

I suppose it depends on why you come to the forum.

If you come to the forum to see objective debates about cricket based on balanced opinions, then "incorruptible" fanboys aren't desirable. Give me the "fence-sitter" every time when actually trying to debate the merits of a player. I do agree that some degree of stubbornness is actually a virtue - it irritates me to see people change their entire opinion of a player flippantly based on a game or so when they have a lengthy career every bit as relevant - but I don't like to see that stubbornness based on basic team support. If you analyse someone's career, see a lot of them play or both and come to a conclusion based on that which isn't then influenced by the next theory that comes along or the next couple of games that's fine, but when it's based on an inherent bias for or against the team he's playing for I completely lose any interest in reading it.

I've found that quite a few members don't really come to CricketWeb for a balanced debate though, instead preferring cross-team banter. They essentially act as representatives of their teams, fighting in the GOCSW, defending any possibly unreasonable criticism of their team or its players. I've always found this pretty annoying (when not done light-heartedly anyway) and I actually warned a member about it the other day, but upon reflection it's not intrinsically wrong - just altogether different from my reason for coming here.

I should probably qualify my post by saying it was made in general terms and not about Ikki, too. I actually don't think he's quite as bad as people make out - he actually has a vast array of valid cricket theories that back up his opinions, and while I disagree with a lot of them they all do have merit. They do lead to the conclusion that certain Australians are better than most other people seem to think, but I think it's hard to say that their Australian-ness necessarily led to his theories and not the other way around. Watching Australian cricket be so successful for so long could obviously lead one to slightly different ideas about the importance of strike rates than most, to use one example. Cause and effect need to be defined.

Anyway.. this no longer has anything to do with Kallis v Dravid at all - should I move the posts somewhere else or has the original debate finally be done to death?

I think the differentiation between "blind fanship" and "balanced support" is rather a tricky thing. I would believe there is no case for a poster to argue for a player unless he feels that player is better than the other. The reason behind that preference could be anything. It could be the nationality, it could be his performances or it could even be simply his looks. (No kidding I've seen people doing that although not here).

While there could be difference in the "utility" of forums for everyone, there exists rights for everyone to access and it voice his opinions. As long as such opinions are not explicitly offensive and harming the general atmosphere in the forum.

I believe cricket is a fantastic sport. And being that it is, there will undoubtedly passion. Such passion could be because of intense fanship for a particular player, or due to nationalism attached to it, neither in my opinion is a crime. Actually that passion is what makes cricket alive and kicking. And while I believe not everyone need to subscribe to my viewpoint, I don't think anybody has the right to condemn me for my preferences.

Coming back to the issue, I sometimes look forward to reading the debates between Avada Kedavra, Ikki, Cevno, Migara etc because to my best of knowledge and observation, they are very passionate about their teams, players and most importantly their cricket. Ikki might call me biased, and might try to "show" Ponting is better than Tendulkar, but he never questions my fanship or my right to say Tendulkar is better than Ponting, but merely offers why he doesn't think so.

But when I see some posters, who otherwise are never active in a debate, just drop in to make a smartass condescending kind of "judgement" on such debates, simply gets my goat. When they say something on the lines of "Oh these Tendulkar fans are just stupid debate mongers" shows they are just ignorant and intolerant of what is happening, and why that is happening. They just are not in a position to judge unless they've really been in the same shoes as such fans. And why such fans behave as if it is their right to defend their particular player so blindly, because for that it would transcend just cricket and actually becomes a cultural and national issue.

Whoops, Dravid vs Kallis has well and truly been derailed now. I wouldn't to see these posts moved to site discussion.

 

[Ikki]

I should probably qualify my post by saying it was made in general terms and not about Ikki, too. I actually don't think he's quite as bad as people make out - he actually has a vast array of valid cricket theories that back up his opinions, and while I disagree with a lot of them they all do have merit. They do lead to the conclusion that certain Australians are better than most other people seem to think, but I think it's hard to say that their Australian-ness necessarily led to his theories and not the other way around. Watching Australian cricket be so successful for so long could obviously lead one to slightly different ideas about the importance of strike rates than most, to use one example. Cause and effect need to be defined.

You are spot on there, certainly seem to have read me. Or read me the way I hope to be interpreted.

As much as I am an Aussie fanboy (and everyone is a fanboy of something to be honest) the theories I hold are not to make certain Aussies look better than non-Aussies. I hold them regardless. I too am more like Uppercut in that once there is irrefutable evidence put forth to me I enjoy that I am able to change my mind. Sure, I am not easily swayed by any evidence as I have done my own research and have built strong cases for whatever I wish to argue. That in turn means it might take a big effort to convince me otherwise, but I am always...always open to change.

It's really more a coincidence that Australia has had so many champion cricketers/teams over such a long Test history that I come to champion them here. Many of them are the best, because they are the best, and it has nothing to do with their nationality.

Maybe it would do my rep more benefit to get involved in more debates that don't involve Aussies and champion other champion cricketers for the same reasons I do with Australian ones but there are very few cricketers I like enough to spend my time doing that. It doesn't mean those arguments don't apply just because I haven't talked about them specifically (and in many cases I have TBH).

On the other hand, it does irk me when some people are trying so hard to sit the fence or be fair or whatever. I mean, I can see the purpose in that and appreciate it in many debates, but a lot of the time it does often come as if certain posters are trying to build a visage when I'd much rather they just say what they think. It's more interesting for me to hear a novel yet biased opinion than one that just seems to be regurgitated yet balanced. At the same time, some people come across as only interested in making their heroes come out winners no mater what - and I guess different people will have different views on certain arguments regarding just how biased or believable said arguments are.

 

[Sir Alex]

Many of them are the best, because they are the best,

 

[Ikki]

Somehow I knew that would come across weird. What I mean is that many of those players are the best because of the vast amount of success they've had. I find it much harder to champion players in teams that are in general unsuccessful and rely on said players too much.

The Aussie cricket team has been amongst the best or the best for long periods throughout cricket history and have had many champion cricketers.It's much easier to argue their cause and look at the reasons why they were successful and conclude that said reasons are the most important factors to playing cricket.

 

[Sir Alex]

Somehow I knew that would come across weird. What I mean is that many of those players are the best because of the vast amount of success they've had. I find it much harder to champion players in teams that are in general unsuccessful and rely on said players too much.

The Aussie cricket team has been amongst the best or the best for long periods throughout cricket history and have had many champion cricketers.It's much easier to argue their cause and look at the reasons why they were successful and conclude that said reasons are the most important factors to playing cricket.

Haha leave it, I was just laughing at how typical that was of you to post such a thing. No offence.

 

[Ikki]

Haha leave it, I was just laughing at how typical that was of you to post such a thing. No offence.

No offence, I found it typical of you to point that out yet miss the big picture i.e. what I was really referring to.

 

[Sir Alex]

No offence, I found it typical of you to point that out yet miss the big picture i.e. what I was really referring to.

Occupational hazard. Being a fellow statsmonger you should be able to identify with it.

 

[Jono]

How come this thread hasn't turned into a trainwreck like the Vaas/Lee one?

Because Kallis and Dravid are so inherently awesome.

Just like their batting, the debates are technical and whilst some may find them boring, others find them very interesting.

 

[Jono]

Ikki and Sir Alex, you make good points. But you forget the "fence sitters" generally don't insult people (they may make a snide remark, but never downright flaming each other).

That's why people openly prefer such debate to some of the "passionate" debates you speak of, which basically consist of constant going at each other until someone is told to stop.

 

[Ikki]

True, unfortunately it does descend into that many times. However, sometimes it does not and IMO those are some of the best debates I've had - I've had plenty with HB where we've disagreed heaps yet still come out of it not only respecting each other a lot but liking each other to boot.

However, I am guilty of the above. Although, it's really not in my make-up to try and start something. I tend to react to bad tones and if I think someone is putting a contemptible argument forward. I mean like Hussain > Hayden like arguments. I tend to react badly as I generally have a hard time respecting someone putting such unreasonable arguments forward. Of course, at times that can be a matter of perspective, but in general I'd say I only keep my contempt for those ridiculous arguments and that is my flaw. I never have been the type to sit by and say "ok, I am just not going to reply to you".

 

[GIMH]

I've found that quite a few members don't really come to CricketWeb for a balanced debate though, instead preferring cross-team banter. They essentially act as representatives of their teams, fighting in the GOCSW, defending any possibly unreasonable criticism of their team or its players. I've always found this pretty annoying (when not done light-heartedly anyway) and I actually warned a member about it the other day, but upon reflection it's not intrinsically wrong - just altogether different from my reason for coming here.

Good job you put that in brackets, you and I were about to fall out

 

[Uppercut]

because the former almost never happens.

Stop talking to me please. I have no interest in what you have to say.

True, unfortunately it does descend into that many times. However, sometimes it does not and IMO those are some of the best debates I've had - I've had plenty with HB where we've disagreed heaps yet still come out of it not only respecting each other a lot but liking each other to boot.

However, I am guilty of the above. Although, it's really not in my make-up to try and start something. I tend to react to bad tones and if I think someone is putting a contemptible argument forward. I mean like Hussain > Hayden like arguments. I tend to react badly as I generally have a hard time respecting someone putting such unreasonable arguments forward. Of course, at times that can be a matter of perspective, but in general I'd say I only keep my contempt for those ridiculous arguments and that is my flaw. I never have been the type to sit by and say "ok, I am just not going to reply to you".

Staged debates often start with a completely indefensible statement (e.g. this house would legalise cannibalism) and one speaker is assigned the job of having to defend it. The point isn't that they'll end up magically convincing us all that cannibalism is a good idea, but that over the course of a debate they bring up interesting questions, theories and ideas for people to think about.

That's how I feel about a lot of Rich's ideas. That Hussain>Hayden is agreed by 99.9% of people (Hussain included, probably) to be hilariously daft, but in defending the viewpoint he's brought up a lot of interesting questions- about changes in conditions, changes in the quality of bowlers- and as a result we've had some fantastic posts like PEWS on comparing batsmen across eras. The best arguments are usually those that occur on a whim rather than those that are staged and predetermined. It's why I'm not in favour of removing or deleting off-topic posts when a thread is derailed (ha, I'm getting topical now). Crazy but well-thought-out ideas are interesting ideas, and they result in good debate. The only thing I find frustrating about debating them with Rich is his inflexibility. Some people see virtue in sticking to an ideal when the entire world is telling you you're an idiot and explaining why in excruciating detail. I don't.



On Tendulkar, look, I just find the constant love-ins boring. I don't especially like love-ins of any non-Mishy cricketers, Tendulkar just happens to be by far the most fawned-over cricketer in the world. He's the cricketing equivalent of Edward from Twilight. It takes all the joy out of watching Tendulkar bat when commentators insist that his thick edge for four was wonderfully placed or his nudge off the hips to fine leg for one was a thing of unnatural beauty. I'm not attacking anyone, so you can all just ignore me when I have the occasional rant on the subject .

 

[Jono]

The same reason people get tired of Judd in the AFL or Kobe in the NBA from my experience.

As far as I'm concerned, who cares what the commentators say. Just appreciate such a player whilst they're still playing.

 

[honestbharani]

Stop talking to me please. I have no interest in what you have to say.

Fair enough.. I was just pointing out a fact.

 

[honestbharani]

The same reason people get tired of Judd in the AFL or Kobe in the NBA from my experience.

As far as I'm concerned, who cares what the commentators say. Just appreciate such a player whilst they're still playing.

tbh, the fanboyism does get irritating for me too... But then there are quite a few irritating things about CW that we all get used too, and this is one of them for me.. I have my views on Sachin and always had them... Even he doesn't think his T20 success is any big news, coz he always was a great batsman and it was only a matter of adjusting to the format. But a LOT of his fans are going to say that he is a great BECAUSE he also succeeded in T20.. IMO, any all time great once given enough time to adjust to the format will stamp his authority on whatever brand of cricket he is asked to play. So him succeeding this IPL is not exactly a big thing to me coz I kinda expected it. But I know and expect that there will posts, articles and blogs outlining exactly why Sachin is the best since Bradman because of his success in IPL is some kind of a clincher... My advise is, they exist everywhere.. Get used to ignoring them.

 

[Cruxdude]

tbh, the fanboyism does get irritating for me too... But then there are quite a few irritating things about CW that we all get used too, and this is one of them for me.. I have my views on Sachin and always had them... Even he doesn't think his T20 success is any big news, coz he always was a great batsman and it was only a matter of adjusting to the format. But a LOT of his fans are going to say that he is a great BECAUSE he also succeeded in T20.. IMO, any all time great once given enough time to adjust to the format will stamp his authority on whatever brand of cricket he is asked to play. So him succeeding this IPL is not exactly a big thing to me coz I kinda expected it. But I know and expect that there will posts, articles and blogs outlining exactly why Sachin is the best since Bradman because of his success in IPL is some kind of a clincher... My advise is, they exist everywhere.. Get used to ignoring them.

People will argue that he is great because of this late upsurge in his career which I totally agree with. Tendulkar now has a better legacy than what he would have had if he had retired in 2006.

 

[Zinzan]

Stop talking to me please. I have no interest in what you have to say.



Staged debates often start with a completely indefensible statement (e.g. this house would legalise cannibalism) and one speaker is assigned the job of having to defend it. The point isn't that they'll end up magically convincing us all that cannibalism is a good idea, but that over the course of a debate they bring up interesting questions, theories and ideas for people to think about.

That's how I feel about a lot of Rich's ideas. That Hussain>Hayden is agreed by 99.9% of people (Hussain included, probably) to be hilariously daft, but in defending the viewpoint he's brought up a lot of interesting questions- about changes in conditions, changes in the quality of bowlers- and as a result we've had some fantastic posts like PEWS on comparing batsmen across eras. The best arguments are usually those that occur on a whim rather than those that are staged and predetermined. It's why I'm not in favour of removing or deleting off-topic posts when a thread is derailed (ha, I'm getting topical now). Crazy but well-thought-out ideas are interesting ideas, and they result in good debate. The only thing I find frustrating about debating them with Rich is his inflexibility. Some people see virtue in sticking to an ideal when the entire world is telling you you're an idiot and explaining why in excruciating detail. I don't.



On Tendulkar, look, I just find the constant love-ins boring. I don't especially like love-ins of any non-Mishy cricketers, Tendulkar just happens to be by far the most fawned-over cricketer in the world. He's the cricketing equivalent of Edward from Twilight. It takes all the joy out of watching Tendulkar bat when commentators insist that his thick edge for four was wonderfully placed or his nudge off the hips to fine leg for one was a thing of unnatural beauty. I'm not attacking anyone, so you can all just ignore me when I have the occasional rant on the subject .

Overall, a well warranted rant tbh. Totally agree with the notion that what's 'taken-away' from an argument often >>> the argument itself; a point often missed.

I've certainly had my mind changed on a number occasions about a number of cricketing issues on this site & personally couldn't think of anything worse than refusing to even consider a contrary view. I suppose I always figured that 'self-righteousness' was something that happened to us in our 80s when senility starts kicking in & we can't be arsed learning new things