How has CW changed your cricket experience?

[Burgey]

Richard and First Chance Average. That is all.


Oh, and a wider knowledge of domestic FC players in other countries too.

 

[Craig]

The politics in the world game is a big one for me as well, now I know every thing works and who is scratching who's arse.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

As I said in the tour thread too I now recognise AFL guernseys in the crowds on sight too, which is entirely due to CW.

This is true.

I would never have played Aussie Rules (especially not at my age) were it not for CricketWeb.

As to anything cricket-y, not so much.

 

[biased indian]

Richard and First Chance Average. That is all.


Oh, and a wider knowledge of domestic FC players in other countries too.

AWTA completely

and following the game in cricinfo.. earlier i never missed the chance to watch the game on TV live..now i am happy if i can know the score live and chat in here

 

[Evermind]

As an example, before reading CW i thought i might be the only person in the UK who thought Stuart Broad was a bit crap.

Never got the Broad love. He reminds me a little of Plunkett.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You do get to see how widely some curious views are held that I'd never considered before (not the obvious tripe about First Chance Averages or 0-20 being better than 5-30 in an ODI etc) like Garry Sobers not being a genuine all-rounder or Imran Khan being the greatest bowler ever - it's also interesting to see how little importance some people attach to wicketkeeping. Then of course last and definitely least are the statsguru/spreadsheet generation. None of this has actually changed my opinion on anything but it's interesting nonetheless.

 

[Uppercut]

Equally fascinating to see all the cloud-yellers IMO, who always appear to be angry at something for no apparent reason.

 

[fredfertang]

A combination of joining CW and reading Duncan Fletcher's book made me realise that Monty Panesar wasn't the second coming of Hedley Verity - dunno if that's a good thing or not but i suppose it's usually best to live in the real world

 

[Goughy]

It has definately helped me follow things and kept me thinking about cricket during my time in Bulgaria.

 

[Uppercut]

A combination of joining CW and reading Duncan Fletcher's book made me realise that Monty Panesar wasn't the second coming of Hedley Verity - dunno if that's a good thing or not but i suppose it's usually best to live in the real world

I'm intrigued- what did Fletcher say about him?

 

[susudear]

A few Monty-Panesar monologues

I'm intrigued- what did Fletcher say about him?

I was right in not picking Monty for the Ashes - says Fletcher
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/oct/31/cricket

Monty Panesar has room for improvement, says Duncan Fletcher
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article2826298.ece

Panesar Test place 'not secure' says Fletcher
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/panesar-test-place-not-secure-says-fletcher-410011.html

and Monty gets one across the net
Fletcher doesn't understand spin
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/7122474.stm

 

[archie mac]

Certainly made me take more interest in other countries as well as modern cricket, I had become a bit sheltered just reading old cricket books and watching the five Tests in Aust. each year.

Although Foxtel has also helped as I can watch cricket from around the world, I now know a lot more about the players from other countries. Also writing for CW especially when we covered all the international matches and I had to write reports for games involving Bang. V Zim or a 20-20 match (the only time I have watched one!), forced me to learn more about players from the other countries.

I do get annoyed with people quoting me stats and telling me it proves their argument that such and such was better then such and such because his S/R was .2 better against batsman who batted left handed, once they had passed the score of 14

What also annoys me is the 'if you did not watch them play, you can not compare them' argument

 

[Jono]

What also annoys me is the 'if you did not watch them play, you can not compare them' argument

That is certainly not limited to CW to be fair.

I don't necessarily agree with it (I'd argue to my death that Sobers was a better batsman than Hayden, despite never watching Sobers), but its hardly a jaw-dropping viewpoint. It has its merits.

 

[zaremba]

What also annoys me is the 'if you did not watch them play, you can not compare them' argument

I think that, as Jono says, this argument is not without its merits. Indeed I can be provoked into using it myself from time to time when comparisons as to the abilities of different players from different eras are made in particularly trenchant terms without any apparent acknowledgment that such comparisons need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[archie mac]

That is certainly not limited to CW to be fair.

I don't necessarily agree with it (I'd argue to my death that Sobers was a better batsman than Hayden, despite never watching Sobers), but its hardly a jaw-dropping viewpoint. It has its merits.

I think that, as Jono says, this argument is not without its merits. Indeed I can be provoked into using it myself from time to time when comparisons as to the abilities of different players from different eras are made in particularly trenchant terms without any apparent acknowledgment that such comparisons need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Well I don't want to take over another thread with this crap, so lets just say IMO

 

[zaremba]

Well I don't want to take over another thread with this crap, so lets just say IMO

Fair enough mate

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's even more stupid when people who didn't see a player get their pocket calculators and start dictating to people who did. A large proportion of people - including commentators, players and the man in the street - state that that Viv Richards is the best batsman they've ever seen, then up pops a 12 year old (in either mind or body) and says "Ooh he can't be he doesn't have the best batting average."

 

[Ikki]

I've learnt a hell of a lot. About the game, about my own misconceptions about players and generally how different cultures see different things in the game.

I also learned that I should never bring up Lillee when Ambrose is mentioned. And that Hayden is inferior to Hussain and that Ian Bishop played enough to show that he was better than the spin masters Warne and Murali.

 

[Jakester1288]

I learn a lot more about cricket, and are now more interested in cricket in other countries. However, I have lost some interest since I joined. Last summer, I wouldn't leave the lounge when the Cricket was on, now I can't sit there and watch it all, only in hour or so periods with breaks, weather sleeps, going outside to hit the eye-in or something, or swim.

I have changed my opinions a lot, and learned about new players.You have influenced my opinion to extreme levels, and often find myself almost copying opinions in real life.

CricketWeb has done crazy things to me, but I wouldn't consider leaving any time soon, unless something drastic happens.

 

[zaremba]

A lot of people here know a lot about cricket and it's impossible not to learn something from such people when spending any amount of time here. It's brought me a little bit more humility about what I know and what I don't know, and about my opinions generally, which is a good thing.

One of the best things I've found is the cricket books section which has pointed me the way to some happy reading.