Unpopular cricket opinions

[govinda indian fan]

What are your unpopular cricket opinions mine are
Sachin never had great match winning innings like lara 153* or ponting twin tons vs sa
Babar azam is stats padder and is massively overated
Adrian markam is most underated batter of this generation
Ross taylor was as good as kane and under achieved massively

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sachin never had anything like Lara 153*; agreed, as at most 5 other batsmen has comparable innings. Ponting twin tons are great, but neither innings is comparable. Ponting's own 156 at Old Trafford is better, and so is Sachin's 136 vs Pakistan.
Almost everyone here agrees on that. Babar being overrated by a certain section of fans is nothing new.
Aidan Markram is quite underrated. Most or not, not sure.
Taylor massively underperformed, not going to argue there; but he also batted in a much weaker NZ side. Though overall, will still say Kane is better.

 

[govinda indian fan]

Sachin never had anything like Lara 153*; agreed, as at most 5 other batsmen has comparable innings. Ponting twin tons are great, but neither innings is comparable. Ponting's own 156 at Old Trafford is better, and so is Sachin's 136 vs Pakistan.
Almost everyone here agrees on that. Babar being overrated by a certain section of fans is nothing new.
Aidan Markram is quite underrated. Most or not, not sure.
Taylor massively underperformed, not going to argue there; but he also batted in a much weaker NZ side. Though overall, will still say Kane is better.

Yes sachin 136 comes closet to lara 153* arch rivals atg attack 4th innings it is sad that he couldnt complete the chase and also agree ponting 156 was high quality

 

[Howe_zat]

We already had an unpopular opinions thread, though since that one was almost exclusively used for the posting of popular opinions perhaps this one can be distinct

 

[SteveNZ]

Those who think Ross Taylor underperformed should have seen his early domestic career. He was a massive slogger, so much so that Martin Crowe refused to watch anything more of him, and didn't want to mentor/coach him. Ross wasn't the technical master that Kane was/is, he had a tremendous eye but had to work very hard on his game to become what he was. I don't buy that he a) underachieved b) was as 'good' as Kane, because he wasn't a jot on the pure batsman Kane was at his peak.

Even at in the Central Districts age groups I played against, Ross was a run-scorer but he didn't have the batting ability of those around him. Jesse was the top dog, he was as gifted a batsman as any I've seen. But that CD under-age side had guys like Geoff Barnett (played for Canada), Greg Hay, Greg Todd etc and Ross didn't stick out as 'this guy is going to make it big'. He was just a guy who bludgeoned you all day on a flat one, but didn't have the technique or application when it wasn't.

 

[danzydab]

Wasim Akram is overrated

 

[Chubb]

The Ashes should be abolished.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The Ashes should be abolished.

Your face should be abolished, and your posts

 

[TheJediBrah]

For real though the Ashes is the only thing keeping Cricket a proper international sport and not just India's version of the NFL

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Cricket isn't a proper international sport.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fair enough. I guess it would make it even more of a non-proper international sport

 

[Chubb]

The rationale for the abolition of the Ashes is relatively simple.

• The Ashes consume too much attention across the cricket world. If the series was abolished, other series would receive more attention, which may even help preserve the test format outside the Big Three.
• The emotional nature of the contest brings out the worst in both Australia and England, as seen most recently with the Bairstow incident, but stretching back to Bodyline and into the 19th century.
• Media never shut up about the Ashes. If the series was abolished, they’d have to find other things to write about and may even be able to go through an England test match without asking what it means for the Ashes.
• The level of attention Ashes series receive is unhealthy for the players. With no Ashes series constantly looming, some of them may even start enjoying cricket.

A Government I lead would introduce an Act for the Abolition of the Ashes and the Suppression of Zak Crawley.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The Ashes consume too much attention across the cricket world. If the series was abolished, other series would receive more attention, which may even help preserve the test format outside the Big Three

Reckon it would do the opposite actually

The emotional nature of the contest brings out the worst in both Australia and England, as seen most recently with the Bairstow incident, but stretching back to Bodyline and into the 19th century.

Very true, but it's the kind of publicity that keeps the game going

Media never shut up about the Ashes. If the series was abolished, they’d have to find other things to write about and may even be able to go through an England test match without asking what it means for the Ashes.

Again disagree with your conclusion. It would just dramatically reduce the overall attention cricket gets in the media, not redirect it to other cricket

The level of attention Ashes series receive is unhealthy for the players. With no Ashes series constantly looming, some of them may even start enjoying cricket.

I would say it's probably the opposite for a lot of players, even a majority. The Ashes is what motivates them and got them into cricket in the first place. You're certainly right for some of them though

 

[Coronis]

Viv Richards is not a top 10 test batsman.

Herbert Sutcliffe is just as good as Len Hutton.

Minnow bashing is important.

Keith Miller was a different player domestically. If he’d played more similarly to that role in tests, we might rate him higher but he may have hurt his team.

Kallis > Jadeja

 

[TheJediBrah]

Minnow bashing is important.

this is like "bowling well against the tail is important because the tail wags sometimes". Like sure it's true, but in the context people say it it's almost always wrong.

Tail end wickets and minnow bashing are "important", but not as important (by a distance) as proper batsmen wickets or performing against strong opposition.

A bowler with a high proportion of tail end wickets, or a player whose record is skewed toward minnow bashing, is not a good thing

 

[Adders]

Your face is not a good thing

 

[Coronis]

A bowler with a high proportion of tail end wickets, or a player whose record is skewed toward minnow bashing, is not a good thing

Yes its not the main consideration (obviously) but you need to be able to cash in on weak attacks and run through weak batters to win tests. It is a valuable skill but obviously not as important as runs against a strong attack or top order wickets. I just think its importance is sometimes understated.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes its not the main consideration (obviously) but you need to be able to cash in on weak attacks and run through weak batters to win tests. It is a valuable skill but obviously not as important as runs against a strong attack or top order wickets. I just think its importance is sometimes understated.

Yeah sure but it's almost always used badly, contextually in a discussion. It's rarely that a player's minnow bashing is talked about as a bonus, it's usually offset by relatively poorer performances against stronger opposition (generally when comparing players).

 

[Prince EWS]

Reckon it would do the opposite actually

@TheJediBrah

 

[SteveNZ]

For real though the Ashes is the only thing keeping Cricket a proper international sport and not just India's version of the NFL

This actually is as close to the truth as TJB gets.