cricketing narratives that aren't true

[Jono]

Yeah.. This just exists for narrative purposes.Did we have a similar narrative for Yuvraj?

"for narrative purposes" is a meaningless statement

 

[cnerd123]

I kinda agree with Mr Mister. A lot of the 90s England players weren't really lacking in skill or 'talent', they just had terribly inconsistent selections, bad dressing room culture, and a couple of guys who just couldn't sort out their game properly. Quite a lot of wasted talent and loss of potential in that lot.

 

[mr_mister]

yeah, there were bad players(or at least players who never did anything to prove themselves as good) like the ones who were mentioned earlier like Salisbury and Maynard, but they only played a handful of tests.


Out of the blokes who played 40+ tests you can conjure up a solid XI, can't call many of them 'dreadful'

 

[Gnske]

- Handscomb is good at spin (not really but its becoming such a meme in Aus now)
- Alex Ross is good against spin because the sweep shot is literally his only shot
- Boult > Starc
- Channel 9 is bad
- Don't know if it exists now, but there was a narrative during the NZ in Aus tour that Craig was worth persisting with, hopefully that died.

 

[viriya]

yeah, there were bad players(or at least players who never did anything to prove themselves as good) like the ones who were mentioned earlier like Salisbury and Maynard, but they only played a handful of tests.


Out of the blokes who played 40+ tests you can conjure up a solid XI, can't call many of them 'dreadful'

I think 90s England was just especially weak vs spin. I agree that they are a bit underrated though.

 

[smash84]

yeah, there were bad players(or at least players who never did anything to prove themselves as good) like the ones who were mentioned earlier like Salisbury and Maynard, but they only played a handful of tests.


Out of the blokes who played 40+ tests you can conjure up a solid XI, can't call many of them 'dreadful'

Ok. Let's put it another way. Which current teams do you think the English team of the 90s would beat? Or which of theb00s team do you think they would beat?

 

[cnerd123]

Ok. Let's put it another way. Which current teams do you think the English team of the 90s would beat? Or which of theb00s team do you think they would beat?

Yea I think you're arguing something different here.

Talented players can play badly. Mediocre players can perform well. The England side had a ton of guys who were genuinely decent, but as a whole they all performed like crap and were a terrible team.

To put the crappiness of the team down to the quality of the players themselves, rather than external factors that lead to them playing like crap, is what mr mr is arguing against

 

[mr_mister]

well i focused mainly on their high quality opposition but yeah i also agree the selection policy was dire and there was **** all locker room comradery because of it like you said

 

[smash84]

here's one - England had bad players in the '90s

this is what you said initially.

England did have lots of bad players in the 90s. You want a whole list?

 

[mr_mister]

one was already posted champ

 

[smash84]

ok, we can agree to disagree but this narrative hardly falls into the categorically untrue narratives

 

[morgieb]

I guess what mr_mister is trying to say is that they didn't have as many bad cricketers as people made out but said it a bit too absolute. That might be giving him too much credit though.

 

[mr_mister]

No I often think I'm not given enough credit here


I speak in 'absolutes' (gee didn't know that word was used outside of star wars) because everyone else does on this forum. And that's how adults should talk

 

[vcs]

Ganguly being vastly superior to Dhoni as a Test captain.. he was certainly superior in some facets but going purely by results, you can make a decent argument for both of them.

 

[Shri]

Ganguly being vastly superior to Dhoni as a Test captain.. he was certainly superior in some facets but going purely by results, you can make a decent argument for both of them.

Ganguly went after victory and Dhoni waited for it.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Stuart Broad wouldn't get in the Indian side.

 

[vcs]

Ganguly went after victory and Dhoni waited for it.

I'd certainly trust Ganguly to get more out of a stronger side but Dhoni's tactics did work upto 2011, with a very mediocre attack to call upon throughout his reign.

 

[vcs]

Stuart Broad wouldn't get in the Indian side.

LOL I remember arguing about Ishant and Broad being roughly comparable as bowlers around 2011. Safe to say that wasn't one of my better calls.

 

[Shri]

I'd certainly trust Ganguly to get more out of a stronger side but Dhoni's tactics did work upto 2011, with a very mediocre attack to call upon throughout his reign.

What are you talking about? Zak was a reverse swinging beast and Ishant Sharma looked genuinely world class for his first two years between 2008-2010. We also had Kumble bowling with Zak and Ish for a short time. Between 2008 to the 2011 WC, all our test players were at their best at the same time, maybe except for Dravid who was going through a lean patch. So, Dhoni was actually defensive with one of India's strongest sides.

 

[vcs]

Kumble retired in 2008 and was pretty much a spent force in his last 3-4 series. Zaheer was the lone gun, he was really excellent, but Ishant was underwhelming after a very promising 2008, Bhajji was on a downward slide, and the likes of Ojha, Unadkat and Mukund had to fill in on occasion. Sreesanth would mix in the occasional world-class spell with utter garbage.

Our batting was consistently excellent though.