weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, Ponting has done a fabulous job of guarding his stumps with his pads.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Kallis Vs Dravid
- Thread starter centurymaker
- Start date
BlazeDragon
Banned
Its Kallis.
Weather you find him entertaining to watch or not doesn't matter a least bit when rating who is better the way I see it.
Weather you find him entertaining to watch or not doesn't matter a least bit when rating who is better the way I see it.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
it's a sport. it's (partly) played for entertainment.
if you are a **** boring cricketer, your rating will be negatively affected.
BlazeDragon
Banned
I'm pretty sure most people in general would find Afridi more entertaining than Dravid. Would it be good with you if they rated him higher then?
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bit of a myth, tbh.
LBW%
Ponting ~ 17%
Sachin ~ 21%
Lara ~ 16%
Dravid ~ 14%
Certainly Ponting always looks more like an LBW candidate early.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
That's because Ponting's favoured mode of dismissal in the last 2 years has been to randomly hit the ball in the air to a fielder when he's looking nicely set tbh.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
well if you make mistakes like that then you are clearly not set imo
BlazeDragon
Banned
He can provide a good bit of entertainment when he gets going. Anyways, is pretty much the perfect example of why being entertaining has got to do with being better than someone.
Spark
Global Moderator
And here we have a prime demonstration of how not to use reductio ad absurdum.
Yes, Afridi is a bad cricketer despite being entertaining. But that's simply because the small amount of points he gains from being entertained are vastly outweighted by the fact he's ****.
On the other hand, when two players are extremely closely matched on merit, then there is no problem with bringing watchability in as a tie-breaker, but it will only apply in very tight comparisons.
To take the extreme former case and use it to discredit the latter is logical fallacy writ large.
Yes, Afridi is a bad cricketer despite being entertaining. But that's simply because the small amount of points he gains from being entertained are vastly outweighted by the fact he's ****.
On the other hand, when two players are extremely closely matched on merit, then there is no problem with bringing watchability in as a tie-breaker, but it will only apply in very tight comparisons.
To take the extreme former case and use it to discredit the latter is logical fallacy writ large.
BlazeDragon
Banned
So basically entertainment factor only applies when players are "great" then? That's pretty mediocre logic.
Spark
Global Moderator
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I don't agree. You're either measuring quality based on performance merits or you're measuring quality based on watchability. The bastard child of both has no real place in anything IMO especially when it's conditional on it being close to begin within.
BlazeDragon
Banned
I read your post and I don't see how that makes a difference.
Being better means doing more for your team. Kallis provides at an average of 57 runs per innings while Dravid at average of 53. Both has played in pretty much the same era and about the same amount of matches so there is no era or longevity issue here. Kallis overall provides more for the team which makes him better. Don't see how who entertains more while doing it makes any difference what so ever here.
Last edited:
Spark
Global Moderator
It's not so much that it's conditional IMO, it's just that as a factor, it's so minor that it will only apply to only the tightest situations where you can't really split them.
This is all predicated on the assumption that watchability is actually a factor ofc. My original point was that you can't disprove that on the basis that Afridi is watchable and ****. It's an absurd, extreme example to be using.
If you can't see how your reply had absolutely nothing to do with the content of my post then I really can't help you.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hmmmm, dunno. When the objective measures are so bad at deciding between players, how a player looks to the watcher does come into it. Not in terms of who's more entertaining but in terms of deciding who's better. Of course it does depend more on the watcher being an expert in the game (for some definition of expert) but slavish adherence to the data is just as inaccurate as taking a watcher's opinion as gospel.
BlazeDragon
Banned
We are debating Kallis and Dravid here if you hadn't noticed. You said that entertainment factor would be applicable to them because they are "very close" as oppose to a Dravid and Afridi debate. I was simply pointing out to you that its a pretty bad logic.
Last edited: