The Unpopular Opinions Thread

[R!TTER]

My unpopular opinion: Something that is running right now in another thread. That there are cricketers of limited talent but did well beyond their ability. I don't believe in that. Everyone performs to his talent only. Nerves can may be not help them perform upto their talent. But no one can do it more than the talent he has.

The word you're looking for is - potential. Talent is just a word that helps our neighbors (make) believe Inzi>SRT because Imran said so.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The word you;re looking for is - potential. Talent is just a word that makes our neighbors (make) believe Inzi>SRT because Imran said so.

No, potential is a limit, in this case to a variable that talent dictates. To meet one's potential in cricket is to maximize one's natural talent, however to maximise talent, some effort may have to be put in.

 

[cnerd123]

I think the extent to which a person utlises their inherent talent, is, in of itself, a talent too.

This is probably a bit too general and philosophical and wishy-washy for this subforum, but it is weird how we all find people who lack in this aspect far more frustrating than those who lack in physical, visual, apparent talent.

Like, someone with great natural gifts for sport but who doesn't use them is so much more frustrating to us than someone who doesn't have the same natural gifts, but is super hardworking and disciplined. A great strokemaker with bad shot selection pisses us off, a guy with great shot selection but just 3 strokes is celebrated. If they are both natural talents, then why do we feel this way? Isn't that inconsistent?

It's the same reason behind why I get super frustrated with the BD team - it's clear the guys have so much natural cricket talent, but they don't seem to have that mindset that you need to fight it out in tough situations.

I think it's because we all believe in Free Will - that we are in charge of controlling our actions, and therefore anyone who doesn't make the smartest decisions -be it in training, or during the game- is essentially choosing to waste their talent. They don't want to succeed badly enough to make the right choices. They're okay with unfulfilled potential. We all seem to believe that you don't pick how much natural talent you have, but you pick what you end up doing with it.

At the same time, however, we recognise that some people are just born hungrier than others. With more drive and ambition, willing to go to further lengths to succeed. And we also appreciate that some people are born with stronger minds - better suited to handling pressure, not as easily broken by adversity, calm in the face of crisis. We recognise these as also being natural gifts that can supplement, if not overcome, natural born talent.

Then why does it frustrate us when a naturally talented body isn't born to a naturally talented mind, and not the other way around?

I think it's because we believe those intangible mental qualities and personality traits can be taught and improved, with no limit to the extent of how far we can go, but the physical ones are capped by our genetics. We feel that we can train our minds to work harder and make the right decisions, that we can make the right lifestyle choices and stick to them, that this is all within our reach...but being a gifted athlete? That is decided at birth.

I think the capacities of our mind are capped by genetics too tbh. It's only logical that they would be. Some people are just born with a mind that enables them to do things with their physical talent than another equally physically talented player cannot. Look at Dravid for instance. Apparently he was a thoroughly mediocre school cricketer. We see him as an inspiration because he took limited physical talent and overcame them through sheer hard work and hunger. But what if that mindset he hat was a gift too. The average person will never have Dravid's mind, just like the average person will never outrun Usain Bolt.

I think the ability of one to make the most of their talent, is a talent within itself. And what that means is that maybe my Bangladeshi boys are just not that talented after all.

 

[R!TTER]

No, potential is a limit, in this case to a variable that talent dictates. To meet one's potential in cricket is to maximize one's natural talent, however to maximise talent, some effort may have to be put in.

Potential is indeterminate, so is talent. How do you say then that talent<potential, theoretically speaking?

Sounds like a P vs NP problem, to me.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

This is probably a bit too general and philosophical and wishy-washy for this subforum, but it is weird how we all find people who lack in this aspect far more frustrating than those who lack in physical, visual, apparent talent.

Like, someone with great natural gifts for sport but who doesn't use them is so much more frustrating to us than someone who doesn't have the same natural gifts, but is super hardworking and disciplined. A great strokemaker with bad shot selection pisses us off, a guy with great shot selection but just 3 strokes is celebrated. If they are both natural talents, then why do we feel this way? Isn't that inconsistent?

It's the same reason behind why I get super frustrated with the BD team - it's clear the guys have so much natural cricket talent, but they don't seem to have that mindset that you need to fight it out in tough situations.

I think it's because we all believe in Free Will - that we are in charge of controlling our actions, and therefore anyone who doesn't make the smartest decisions -be it in training, or during the game- is essentially choosing to waste their talent. They don't want to succeed badly enough to make the right choices. They're okay with unfulfilled potential. We all seem to believe that you don't pick how much natural talent you have, but you pick what you end up doing with it.

At the same time, however, we recognise that some people are just born hungrier than others. With more drive and ambition, willing to go to further lengths to succeed. And we also appreciate that some people are born with stronger minds - better suited to handling pressure, not as easily broken by adversity, calm in the face of crisis. We recognise these as also being natural gifts that can supplement, if not overcome, natural born talent.

Then why does it frustrate us when a naturally talented body isn't born to a naturally talented mind, and not the other way around?

I think it's because we believe those intangible mental qualities and personality traits can be taught and improved, with no limit to the extent of how far we can go, but the physical ones are capped by our genetics. We feel that we can train our minds to work harder and make the right decisions, that we can make the right lifestyle choices and stick to them, that this is all within our reach but being a gifted athlete? That is decided at birth.

I think the capacities of our mind are capped by genetics too tbh. It's only logical that they would be. Some people are just born with a mind that enables them to do things with their physical talent than another equally physically talented player cannot. Look at Dravid for instance. Apparently he was a thoroughly mediocre school cricketer. We see him as an inspiration because he tool limited physical talent and overcame them through sheer hard work and hunger. But what if that mindset he hat was a gift too. The average person will never have Dravid's mind, just like the average person will never outrun Usain Bolt.

I think the ability of one to make the most of their talent, is a talent within itself. And what that means is that maybe my Bangladeshi boys are just not that talented after all.

It isn't philosophical, it is basic English definitions of two different concepts.

You're conflating two different concepts in the English language of which both have a huge part to play in a players success or failure in meeting their potential.

Philosophical would be determining the perfect blend of talent and innate motivation to succeed, be it the combination to compete and work hard with natural talent, or even defining which is more critical.

 

[cnerd123]

define words to mean whatever you want them to mean, ctrl+f that post and swap in whatever vocabularly feels right


when you're ready to engage with the message the post is trying to get across then let us know

 

[cnerd123]

define words to mean whatever you want them to mean, ctrl+f that post and swap in whatever vocabularly feels right


when you're ready to engage with the message the post is trying to get across then let us know

actually don't. it's probably better that way

 

[Mr Miyagi]

define words to mean whatever you want them to mean, ctrl+f that post and swap in whatever vocabularly feels right


when you're ready to engage with the message the post is trying to get across then let us know

If you want to tell me that luck, determination, motivation and drive matter despite talent. I agree. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

But you're conflating one's natural special ability with one's psychological quality to compete, win, hunger, motivation, succeed, or work hard (fill in the synonymous qualities here).

The English language has already separated them, and now you feel the need to conflate the meaning of words, instead of simply saying both matter to a player's success.

Well I agree in principle - both matter in that they are both determinate in some way of success. But it doesn't mean that the words mean the same thing, does it? Because they don't.

And it doesn't mean that they are both equality determinate, because they're most probably not. Talent sets a limit to potential of 100% work hard, determination, competitiveness and everything else cannot break through. A limit, or aka as a ceiling if you will.

 

[R!TTER]

If you want to tell me that determination, motivation and drive matter despite talent. I agree. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

But you're conflating one's natural special ability with one's psychological quality to compete, hunger, motivation, succeed, or work hard (fill in the synonymous qualities here).

The English language has already separated them, and now you feel the need to conflate the meaning of words, instead of simply saying both matter to a player's success.

Well I agree in principle - both matter. But it doesn't mean that the words mean the same thing, does it? Because they don't.

You're forgetting the most important thing - maximizing talent, that doesn't happen in a vacuum! Could Don avg 9x in the era of Windies quicks, at their best? If not then what's the potential or talent that makes one say he's the batting GOAT? Would he avg more in today's era, with DRS & on raging turners? Could T20 make his (defensive) technique, a bit more hollow?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You're forgetting the most important thing - maximizing talent, that doesn't happen in a vacuum! Could Don avg 9x in the era of Windies quicks, at their best? If not then what's the potential or talent that makes one say he's the batting GOAT? Would he avg more in today's era, with DRS & on raging turners?

I'm not forgetting it.

I have already referred to it.

I agree with it.

No, potential is a limit, in this case to a variable that talent [and luck] dictates. To meet one's potential in cricket is to maximize one's natural talent, however to maximise talent, some effort may have to be put in.

 

[R!TTER]

I'm not forgetting it.

I have already referred to it.

I agree with it.

So why are you clinging on to semantics? You can't quantify talent or potential, who's to say then that one has exceeded his potential, or talent as you'd say?
In cricketing terms these are useful words, but that's about it. In a make believe world, they're just to make you feel better.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

So why are clinging on to semantics? You can't quantify talent or potential, who's to say then that one has exceeded his potential, or talent as you'd say? In cricketing terms these are useful words, but that's about it. In a make believe world, they're just to make you feel better.

Because *****'s whole debate about talent is based on semantics.

And he is wrong.

And by the way, you're also wrong, luck can mean someone exceeds their talent limit to success.

People with luck can exceed their potential, and often do. They may be a minority, but it happens.

But some people ride their luck to success - look at Brendon McCullum and the sloggers :P

Yeah of course they had talent, of course they worked variably hard, but some are more lucky than others

There are three prongs, talent, luck, and the quality to suceed be it motivation, drive, hunger, hard work, competitiveness etc.

 

[R!TTER]

Because *****'s whole debate about talent is based on semantics.

And he is wrong.

And by the way, you're also wrong, luck can mean someone exceeds their talent.

But some people ride their luck to success - look at Brendon McCullum and the sloggers :P

Yeah of course they had talent, of course they worked variably hard, but some are more lucky than others

There are three prongs, talent, luck, and the quality to suceed be it motivation, drive, hunger, hard work, etc.

No, I'm saying with luck people can exceed their potential. That's what (good) luck is all about. You're saying it's talent.

And since we can't quantify either, for me potential=talent

 

[Mr Miyagi]

No, I'm saying with luck people can exceed their potential. That's what (good) luck is all about. You're saying it's talent.

No - I am saying all 3 play a part. Luck can take you past 100% of potential. Bad luck can stuff someone no matter how hard they work nor their talent levels.

But luck is out of one's control at any given time (but people may decide to ride or not ride their luck, good or bad, (so that part is within the control of the individual). Talent is an accident of birth but already set then. And the remainder is a personal characteristic that psychology seeks to explain from any given circumstance.

The English language may be overly lexicon-ed. But these concepts are already simply defined.

 

[CricAddict]

But some people ride their luck to success - look at Brendon McCullum and the sloggers :P

Luck can help once or twice, but not an entire career. You can't say that Mccullum had limited talent but achieved more because of luck.
And I agree with ***** here, that maximizing talent through hardwork is also a talent;which is what I tried to mean in my first post.

 

[cnerd123]

Luck can help once or twice, but not an entire career. You can't say that Mccullum had limited talent but achieved more because of luck.
And I agree with ***** here, that maximizing talent through hardwork is also a talent;which is what I tried to mean in my first post.

Luck is a factor, but there was someone who attempted to run a simulator of a players career and found that on different runs of 100 games there could be a difference of as much as 10 runs in averages

Also luck is a huge factor in determining if a player gets to have a long enough career for us as fans to evaluate their skills imo.

 

[cnerd123]

Bump?

 

[Starfighter]

Strike rate is overrated in measuring a bowlers performance, at least in tests.

 

[Bolo]

Strike rate is overrated in measuring a bowlers performance, at least in tests.

No. It allows your bats to go at their natural pace. They can grind the opposition bowlers down if they want, which could result in more runs against tired bowlers. It keeps your bowlers fresh, which means cheaper wickets. If you are looking at SR of better bowlers, it means a lower % of overs need to be bowled by weaker bowlers with higher averages, which means getting the other team out cheaper.

SRs for bats are overated though. An opener with a lower SR is better, assuming the same average. A middle order bat with a higher SR is better, but not to the extent of credit it is given, because it doesn't have the same range of advantages that bowling SR does.

 

[Starfighter]

No. It allows your bats to go at their natural pace. They can grind the opposition bowlers down if they want, which could result in more runs against tired bowlers. It keeps your bowlers fresh, which means cheaper wickets. If you are looking at SR of better bowlers, it means a lower % of overs need to be bowled by weaker bowlers with higher averages, which means getting the other team out cheaper.

Hmm, I understand what you're saying (although your bringing averages into it is spurious). My problem with strike rate is that a bowler only has so much control over it. The rest is down to who he's bowling too. Take Davidson and Rabada. Similar averages, but Davidson was bowling in an era of predominantly defensive batsmanship so ends up with a strike rate of 62 at a very low econ, while Rabada is bowling in an era of attacking batsmanship with poor defence so ends up with a s/r of 39 and a fairly high econ. So while I agree than taking wickets quickly is all well and good (and probably helps your WpM, if you play in fewer draws) I feel it's only a partial reflection on the bowler at best and the rest is all down to the batsmen. But I see people refer to strike rates on here without considering the batting as a factor.