Test Cricket - Information

[Richard]

Are you guys actually arguing about being told to "not argue"?

In a word - yes.
As far as I'm concerned no-one has the right to tell people what to say in a thread, aside from the *Official* ones.
Obviously there are rules about what not to say in any threads but I find the insistence on "staying on topic" about the only fault in Corey's moderating, and frankly it annoys me a great deal, because no-one else is anywhere near so insistent on it.

 

[Top_Cat]

The threads going OT isn't the problem and you know it. It's because you and TEC's arguments stretch over several pages with usually quite long replies which means that someone like Stephano, who's shown pretty admirable patience, has to wade thorugh several pages or posts of irrelevancies to get to the actual subject of interest. That and you two do it to SO MANY THREADS and it's almost always about the SAME OLD STUFF. Both of you would rather die than let the other guy have the last word and it gets very boring to watch the same argument happen many times over polluting more than one thread.

Threads going OT doesn't necessarily equal a bad thread but when they go the same damn way every time with the same people.............. The arguments' topics may vary a little but the same core arguments are seen time and again.

As with most things, this situation is analogous to BBQ politics; you two are the gun nut and the left-wing hippie who, every time they're invited to the same party, always get into an argument about the same stuff. No-one likes those guys. Eventually people just don't bother even talking to them (notice it's almost always you two arguing over minutae?).

You want to start another thread to debate all this stuff? Go ahead. At least it'll be on-topic for once. Just leave this one alone and respect its intentions. Ditto for all the other threads you guys take in the same direction.

 

[archie mac]

Indeed - it's encouraging to see cricket at last coming up-to-speed.
Hopefully eventually the ridiculous ban on Cronje\Woolmer-like communication-systems might be rescinded.
Are coaches banned from touchline yelling in rugby and football?

I may be an old fuddy duddy, but I applauded when they banned that communication system. Tradition is what sets Cricket apart, there is a saying in Australia 'The Australian Cricket captain is the 2nd most prestigious job in the country'. (I think first)
I know the Cronje\Woolmer thing happened in a ODI, of which I could not really care what rules changes they make, but leave Test Cricket in the hands of the captain once they are out on the field.

 

[honestbharani]

Thanks for all your replies. I have just finished to watch the second Test Match between India and Pakistan. I really enjoyed it! Now, I will watch the 6th ODI between those two teams.

Another thing: in all team sports, the man who sets the strategy for the game is the head coach. For what I have understood, in cricket the captain has a bigger importance. Is that right?

-----

Just one little thing: my name is Stefano, not Stephano. It is strange: almost all non-Italians write my name with PH.

Generally, yes, the coach works out certain strategies and gameplans in conjunction with the captain, as the captain is the one who is out on the field and is best equipped to judge the form of the opposition players, the nature of the playing surface etc... But once on the field, the captain takes over. Changing bowlers, or even changing the ends from which the bowlers bowl, deciding when to take the new ball (in Test cricket) and making field changes etc. are done by the captain himself. That is one area where cricket is very unique, in that the captaincy becomes a very valuable thing and an important position, unlike in most other games, where all the captains do is to toss the coin and speak to the press.

 

[marc71178]

Its a tricky one isnt...would the Cronje Woolmer type of thing detract from the game? The art of captaincy is one of the more intruiging parts of the game, but it seems silly not being able to get communication straight from the coach when it can be relayed via the guy bringing on drinks or whatever.

I'd say it shouldn't happen.

In a dynamic game, a coach can see what's going on and make changes.

In Cricket, with so much inactivity the captain should be the one calling the shots, as he can see what's going on easily enough.

It's also much more important for Football coaches because they're the one's who's job is on the line.

 

[Richard]

The threads going OT isn't the problem and you know it. It's because you and TEC's arguments stretch over several pages with usually quite long replies which means that someone like Stephano, who's shown pretty admirable patience, has to wade thorugh several pages or posts of irrelevancies to get to the actual subject of interest. That and you two do it to SO MANY THREADS and it's almost always about the SAME OLD STUFF. Both of you would rather die than let the other guy have the last word and it gets very boring to watch the same argument happen many times over polluting more than one thread.

Threads going OT doesn't necessarily equal a bad thread but when they go the same damn way every time with the same people.............. The arguments' topics may vary a little but the same core arguments are seen time and again.

As with most things, this situation is analogous to BBQ politics; you two are the gun nut and the left-wing hippie who, every time they're invited to the same party, always get into an argument about the same stuff. No-one likes those guys. Eventually people just don't bother even talking to them (notice it's almost always you two arguing over minutae?).

You want to start another thread to debate all this stuff? Go ahead. At least it'll be on-topic for once. Just leave this one alone and respect its intentions. Ditto for all the other threads you guys take in the same direction.

And yet, as both of us have pointed-out countless times, mostly when threads become the exclusive preserve of myself and tec multi-quote "wars" other people have finished with them. Yes, this one is differerent, in that the user has specifically stated he wants to keep using it for it's title-topic, which is fair enough.
And with regards your top paragraph - you clearly haven't noticed the specific toning-down that's happened recently; both of us have grown tired of spending 3 hours responding to each others' posts.
And I don't appreciate being compared to either a gun-nut or a hippy, even if it is only in jest.

 

[Richard]

I'd say it shouldn't happen.

In a dynamic game, a coach can see what's going on and make changes.

In Cricket, with so much inactivity the captain should be the one calling the shots, as he can see what's going on easily enough.

It's also much more important for Football coaches because they're the one's who's job is on the line.

And of course the cricket coach's job isn't on the line, either?
Not to the same extent a football coach is, no, but still very much so.

 

[Richard]

I may be an old fuddy duddy, but I applauded when they banned that communication system. Tradition is what sets Cricket apart, there is a saying in Australia 'The Australian Cricket captain is the 2nd most prestigious job in the country'. (I think first)
I know the Cronje\Woolmer thing happened in a ODI, of which I could not really care what rules changes they make, but leave Test Cricket in the hands of the captain once they are out on the field.

And I personally find that ridiculous - the chairman of the Cricket Board is a more important job than the on-field captaincy; the Chief Exec is more important; the CoS is more important; the coach is more important.
I've never liked this idea of captaincy being anything other than on-field responsibility. There are good traditions and there are ones worth being rid of, and that's one of them.
If earpieces are banned from one form the chances are they'll either be banned or allowed in both, there's no reason to treat them separately in that respect.

 

[Top_Cat]

And with regards your top paragraph - you clearly haven't noticed the specific toning-down that's happened recently; both of us have grown tired of spending 3 hours responding to each others' posts.

Actually what I've noticed is that with everything said and done beyond death, both of you regurgitate the same arguments in different threads but in a summarised form or say something along the lines of "[insert opinion here] but we've done this before so I won't go into detail". Same dog, different (slightly smaller) fleas.

And I don't appreciate being compared to either a gun-nut or a hippy, even if it is only in jest.

I wasn't comparing either of you specifically to either a gun nut or a hippie, just an example of people at extreme ends of the political spectrum who bump heads, analogous to you and TEC (i.e. the DIFFERENCE, not the specific entities). I think you know what I meant too and to say that I was comparing you to either is bordering on intellectual dishonesty merely to make a point.

 

[archie mac]

And I personally find that ridiculous - the chairman of the Cricket Board is a more important job than the on-field captaincy; the Chief Exec is more important; the CoS is more important; the coach is more important.
I've never liked this idea of captaincy being anything other than on-field responsibility. There are good traditions and there are ones worth being rid of, and that's one of them.
If earpieces are banned from one form the chances are they'll either be banned or allowed in both, there's no reason to treat them separately in that respect.

They managed to survive without a coach in Test Cricket for close on a hundred years, but have always had a captain. I think Ian Chappell said a 'coach is something that takes you to the game in England'. (not an exact quote)
I don't agree that any of those posts are more important you can always find a new Chief Exec. you find me a worthy Test captain, take Brearley for one, and he can change a sides fortunes.
How many people pay to watch the CEO of CA? The fact that a Captain of a national Cricket side has so much responsability is what sets Cricket apart.
If Cronje was not up to the job, they should have found some one who was.
Why would you not treat them seperatly? one is a hybrid and the other a beautiful game.

 

[Richard]

Actually what I've noticed is that with everything said and done beyond death, both of you regurgitate the same arguments in different threads but in a summarised form or say something along the lines of "[insert opinion here] but we've done this before so I won't go into detail". Same dog, different (slightly smaller) fleas.

And you might notice, if you could be bothered to read the things , that that has been said of times.

I wasn't comparing either of you specifically to either a gun nut or a hippie, just an example of people at extreme ends of the political spectrum who bump heads, analogous to you and TEC (i.e. the DIFFERENCE, not the specific entities). I think you know what I meant too and to say that I was comparing you to either is bordering on intellectual dishonesty merely to make a point.

No, not to make a point, to object to having the slightest comparison to two extremes which I dislike intensely.

 

[Richard]

They managed to survive without a coach in Test Cricket for close on a hundred years, but have always had a captain. I think Ian Chappell said a 'coach is something that takes you to the game in England'. (not an exact quote)
I don't agree that any of those posts are more important you can always find a new Chief Exec. you find me a worthy Test captain, take Brearley for one, and he can change a sides fortunes.
How many people pay to watch the CEO of CA? The fact that a Captain of a national Cricket side has so much responsability is what sets Cricket apart.

And Chairmen and CEs have far, far more responsibility than a simple captain. Which is why they're a more important job. Without them no-one would be ABLE to pay to watch ANY cricket.
And as for you can always find a new Chief Exec - yes, and you can always find a new captain. They're both roles that are equally difficult to perform and equally critical to the game in your country. Lord MacLaurin, for instance, was every bit as good for English cricket as Duncan Fletcher - indeed, without MacLaurin it's quite possible if not certain that Duncan wouldn't have been able to achieve much of what he has achieved.
A good Board and coaching set-up is every bit as essential as the performance of the players if not more so and while romanticists may want to believe otherwise there's simply no way around it these days.

If Cronje was not up to the job, they should have found some one who was.

If Cronje was not up to the job no-one was. Fact is, though, he could do an even better job with a few dressing-room observations.

Why would you not treat them seperatly? one is a hybrid and the other a beautiful game.

If you ask some people. If you ask me they're two different games that are equally credible and watchable.

 

[archie mac]

And Chairmen and CEs have far, far more responsibility than a simple captain. Which is why they're a more important job. Without them no-one would be ABLE to pay to watch ANY cricket.
And as for you can always find a new Chief Exec - yes, and you can always find a new captain. They're both roles that are equally difficult to perform and equally critical to the game in your country. Lord MacLaurin, for instance, was every bit as good for English cricket as Duncan Fletcher - indeed, without MacLaurin it's quite possible if not certain that Duncan wouldn't have been able to achieve much of what he has achieved.
A good Board and coaching set-up is every bit as essential as the performance of the players if not more so and while romanticists may want to believe otherwise there's simply no way around it these days.

If Cronje was not up to the job no-one was. Fact is, though, he could do an even better job with a few dressing-room observations.

If you ask some people. If you ask me they're two different games that are equally credible and watchable.

I agree their are many, many unsung heroes putting in many unpaid hours to make Cricket what it is, I am sure we all know many people like that. But only a precious few are able to play at the highest level and only a very small number are good captains. some while great players are not cut out to be captains. (insert Botham here)
In the 80s Aust. had a poor side and no money for the board, in the 90s Aust had a great side and plenty of money, Halbish was the CEO for both periods.
upto 1909 the players organised and selected their own trips to England, no worries. A bit harder now, but I am sure they could easily hire people to do the job. I still don't agree that Cricket players at the highest level need a coach. (why not just tune in to the GLY he could coach them from the press box)
I can watch ODI Cricket, but to me they are different games, so I can't see why you need the same rules for both re-technology.

 

[marc71178]

And I don't appreciate being compared to either a gun-nut or a hippy, even if it is only in jest.

Yet it's perfectly OK for you to refer to someone else as "just a shame about his attitude" when the member has done nothing to warrant such a comment.

 

[Richard]

Really? I'd like to know why so many others feel exactly the same way - despite the quality of his posts, his ability with derision exceeds all bar one or two I've ever seen.
There is a problem with his attitude as far as I'm concerned, and many feel the same way.

 

[Richard]

I agree their are many, many unsung heroes putting in many unpaid hours to make Cricket what it is, I am sure we all know many people like that. But only a precious few are able to play at the highest level and only a very small number are good captains. some while great players are not cut out to be captains. (insert Botham here)
In the 80s Aust. had a poor side and no money for the board, in the 90s Aust had a great side and plenty of money, Halbish was the CEO for both periods.
upto 1909 the players organised and selected their own trips to England, no worries. A bit harder now, but I am sure they could easily hire people to do the job. I still don't agree that Cricket players at the highest level need a coach. (why not just tune in to the GLY he could coach them from the press box)

Because coaching is not, by any stretch, just about technical correction, it's about all sorts of things. There is a reason why coaching has become an irretrievably essential part of all sports.
Only precious few are able to play well and captain well at the highest level? Only precious few make decent CEs and Board Chairmen.
Like it or not they're equally essential, and equally specialist, jobs.

I can watch ODI Cricket, but to me they are different games, so I can't see why you need the same rules for both re-technology.

Of course they're different games, but why do you need different rules governing technology and communication allowed?

 

[archie mac]

Because coaching is not, by any stretch, just about technical correction, it's about all sorts of things. There is a reason why coaching has become an irretrievably essential part of all sports.
Only precious few are able to play well and captain well at the highest level? Only precious few make decent CEs and Board Chairmen.
Like it or not they're equally essential, and equally specialist, jobs.

Of course they're different games, but why do you need different rules governing technology and communication allowed?

The No.1 Tennis player in the world (male) does not have a coach. I am not saying they are not needed, just not as important in the game of Cricket as the captain is. I just don't agree with the Board Chairmens and such.(being as important)
What I am saying is that if we must have communication devices, I could tolerate them in OD Cricket but not in Test Cricket. And on a different topic, do you think they should use technology (hawkeye) for LBWs? Will have to check your reply in the morning, bed time

 

[Top_Cat]

Really? I'd like to know why so many others feel exactly the same way - despite the quality of his posts, his ability with derision exceeds all bar one or two I've ever seen.
There is a problem with his attitude as far as I'm concerned, and many feel the same way.

Again you miss the point - Marc's not denying his rather abrasive nature but for you to complain about it is hypocritical. You're nowhere near as abrasive as he can be but your ability to make people feel like crap for holding certain views is exceeded by no-one on this forum. Even done politely, this is why some people like Faaiop and Marc pretty much refuse to seriously engage you in debate anymore and would rather just ridicule you. And in Faaiop we're talking about a poster who is insightful, thoughtful and polite to everyone else. What would prompt someone to change their behaviour like that? I would strongly suggest he doesn't exactly feel like his side of any debate with you is being listened to. Im not about to throw a straw poll on this one but I would suggest that the reason you're sometimes the object of derision is this.

Being polite with your views just isn't enough - being considerate of others' views is where you fall down, I'm sorry to say. Christ, I'm not perfect on that score by any stretch but this doesn't preclude from pointing out where the problem is.

 

[Richard]

The No.1 Tennis player in the world (male) does not have a coach. I am not saying they are not needed, just not as important in the game of Cricket as the captain is. I just don't agree with the Board Chairmens and such.(being as important)

Tennis, being an individual sport, is not the same. Even so, that Federer doesn't have a coach when almost everyone else does and benefits from them doesn't really say much because Federer is a quite exceptional guy in several ways.
Well... if you don't see that they're important that's up to you. I personally do.

What I am saying is that if we must have communication devices, I could tolerate them in OD Cricket but not in Test Cricket.

And I'm saying I could tolerate them in both, because I don't see that there's a difference.

And on a different topic, do you think they should use technology (hawkeye) for LBWs? Will have to check your reply in the morning, bed time

Not HawkEyes, no, and nor do I feel lbws are the first thing that needs to be attended to with technology (no-balls are first on my priority list, then the better identification of nicks\gloves).
But yes, I do feel more technology is needed.

 

[Richard]

Again you miss the point - Marc's not denying his rather abrasive nature but for you to complain about it is hypocritical. You're nowhere near as abrasive as he can be but your ability to make people feel like crap for holding certain views is exceeded by no-one on this forum. Even done politely, this is why some people like Faaiop and Marc pretty much refuse to seriously engage you in debate anymore and would rather just ridicule you. And in Faaiop we're talking about a poster who is insightful, thoughtful and polite to everyone else. What would prompt someone to change their behaviour like that? I would strongly suggest he doesn't exactly feel like his side of any debate with you is being listened to. Im not about to throw a straw poll on this one but I would suggest that the reason you're sometimes the object of derision is this.

Being polite with your views just isn't enough - being considerate of others' views is where you fall down, I'm sorry to say. Christ, I'm not perfect on that score by any stretch but this doesn't preclude from pointing out where the problem is.

And if you're not perfect you have no right saying I'm hypocritical.
Fact is, no-one is perfect and if you had to be perfect to criticise someone for something then no-one would ever get any criticism.
If I come across as not giving a damn about others' views there's precisely nothing I can do about it. Fact is, I do, and without others' views I wouldn't have had any of mine made-up. If I didn't give a damn about others' views I wouldn't even bother posting on forums or talking to anyone about cricket, I'd just write my own column and read it myself and tell myself that I was right and no-one else could possibly know anything.
But given that I can never watch every match, nor watch every match as closely as someone else, I have to listen to others who sometimes know stuff I don't. And when they do, I'm invariably perfectly willing to bow to their superior knowledge.