• 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.

The Unpopular Opinions Thread

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
there's been a bit of a revolution recently where some of us have come to value performances against minnows/at home now, for several good reasons, but I don't think that's the mainstream belief yet. Granted we haven't had much stats-crunching cricket talk lately, but wherever it does pop up people still tend to focus on performances against 'Top' teams and away from home.
That's not the same. What you're saying is a result of those people no longer considering Bangladesh minnows at home.

I'm talking about people who are appalled when they hear that the million wickets Murali picked up against the Bangladesh of the 2000s are mostly pretty worthless. Or that the 20000 runs Sachin and Sanga bashed against them don't mean much. Their stats are inflated by getting to play them so much when others didnt. Plain and simple.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Kohli is a nice humble guy who gets bad rep for just being really emotionally invested in the game
He's also pretty gracious in his post match press conferences, interviews etc. I've seen more "sour loser" sounding interviews from many other captains (not that I particularly blame them for it) compared to him. It's just that Kohli can behave like an absolute **** on the field at times.
 

Mr Miyagi

Banned
That's not the same. What you're saying is a result of those people no longer considering Bangladesh minnows at home.

I'm talking about people who are appalled when they hear that the million wickets Murali picked up against the Bangladesh of the 2000s are mostly pretty worthless. Or that the 20000 runs Sachin and Sanga bashed against them don't mean much. Their stats are inflated by getting to play them so much when others didnt. Plain and simple.
Sanga just isn't loved as he should be and never will be.

His ODI stats are beneath him but his WC stats are simply outstanding.

Sanga's years of wicket keeping detract from his Steve Smith like test numbers.

Sanga was just late to the party that Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara built. Even Jacques (Kallis not Phil) is battling to get his foot in the door as he is deemed "boring" and "unwatchable".

I rate Sanga immensely high. I swear every time I watched him he looked good and in form, even in t20 - and he wasn't much chop at t20.

I could watch Sanga score double centuries against NZ and enjoy them for his skill - even with Boulty swinging it.
 
Last edited:

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sanga just isn't loved as he should be and never will be.

His ODI stats are beneath him but his WC stats are simply outstanding.

Sanga's years of wicket keeping detract from his Steve Smith like test numbers.

Sanga was just late to the party that Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara built. Even Jacques is battling to get his foot in the door as he is deemed "boring" and "unwatchable".
How has that got anything to do with what I said
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Oh and Maxwell should bat at 3 in the test side
yassss

there's been a bit of a revolution recently where some of us have come to value performances against minnows/at home now, for several good reasons, but I don't think that's the mainstream belief yet. Granted we haven't had much stats-crunching cricket talk lately, but wherever it does pop up people still tend to focus on performances against 'Top' teams and away from home.
It really just has to be taken in context though. Having a blanket opinion ie. "all stats against minnows count/don't count" in every comparison or circumstance is narrow-minded.

If players have similar records and similar opponents but one does much better against the minnows does that mean he should be rated less highly? Or should he get credit for being better at playing the minnows than the other guy was?

Where stats against minnows need to be considered, or possible even discounted wholesale, would be for example comparing 2 players that played different amounts of games against minnows. Say they both played 100 Tests, and guy A played 2 of those against minnows, and guy B played 20 against minnows for outstanding stats then it needs to be taken into account.
 

cnerd123

likes this
That's not the same. What you're saying is a result of those people no longer considering Bangladesh minnows at home.

I'm talking about people who are appalled when they hear that the million wickets Murali picked up against the Bangladesh of the 2000s are mostly pretty worthless. Or that the 20000 runs Sachin and Sanga bashed against them don't mean much. Their stats are inflated by getting to play them so much when others didnt. Plain and simple.
No no, I'm saying the same thing you are. There are good reason to consider stats against minnows like 2000s BD and Zimbabwe and ODIs against Ireland and Netherlands as being as important as stats against the big boys. There are good reasons to consider performances at home or in friendly conditions to be of equal importance.

1) There is an inherent inconsistency in saying "Performances against minnows dont count because they're easy" and then never holding it against a player who fails against the minnows. It's as though doing easy things is of no value - when the reality is, if you don't score runs or take wickets when it's easy your team will lose. If you hand an XI full of guys who could only score runs against the best team in the world but average 10 against 2000s BD, well then you're going to lose to the 2000s BD a lot. All performances matter, and you never see someone hold it against a player for sucking against a minnow. You just see people discrediting those who succeed.

2) Playing a minnow isn't always easier. There have been many times when minnows have played above their reputation, and extra weight is never added to performances against them then. There have been many times when big names have played terribly, and those are never discounted. There is never this subtlety to analysing stats, just a wide sweeping generalization that every run scored or wicket taken against X nations is valuable and Y nation isn't, which is just not fair. If your intent is to remove the 'easy' opponents from a players record, then you have to go through every single game in order to be accurate. The example of Walsh and Ambrose in early 2000s being well past their primes that we had earlier was a good one - runs against those two at that point in their career still carry weight just because of name value, and not because of some superior quality of their bowling. India in England where they lost 4-0 were far less of a challenge than West Indies, SL or BD during that time. Indian, English and Australian players have all had some big performances against big name players at home just because those guys couldn't adapt to the conditions quickly enough, and it was arguably tougher for them to play lesser known players or minnows away from home - think Australia's first Test against BD in 2006. That feeds to the third point:

3) Players who dominate in home conditions are immensely valuable, because all sides play basically 50% of their games at home. A guy like Sehwag who can dominate at home and in similar conditions is so valuable, even if he can't kick on away from home, because he's still scoring in the majority of conditions he plays in. Obviously a player who dominates in a wider range of conditions is better, but if the choice is between someone who is a Home Track Bully vs someone who is Just Average but average everywhere, or someone who is mediocre at home but exceptional away, then the choice isn't all that clear cut. But what is clear is that all teams need Home Track Bullies. It's essential.

4) Downhill skiing is a valuable skill. If players in your team cannot downhill ski, then you're basically going to be throwing away all your good starts. You need batsmen who can take a 200/3 situation and kick on to take it past 500, and you need bowlers who can wipe out the tail cheap. These guys serve a role and this shouldn't be discredited either.

5) Finally, it's kinda dumb to compare stats as a serious means of analysis anyways - no two players ever face the exact same set of situations ever. There are always going to be differences, and as such any statistical comparisons only go so far. By adding in all these these extra conditions ("Oh all runs against BD before this arbitrary date are worth less, and all runs against Australia mean more during this arbitrary date range but less during this other range, and if you score runs in England in early summer it's harder than in late summer") you just dilute these stats and they become increasingly meaningless as a form of analysis, let alone comparison.

So yea. All stats matter IMO. That's my unpopular opinion.
 
Last edited:

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
My problem is with the hypocrisy. Irfan Pathan's wickets against Bangladesh are always dis-counted and he's called a minnow-basher, but when it's pointed out Murali picked up a quarter of his wickets against minnows, suddenly the argument becomes "Oh but what's he supposed to do not pick up wickets?" or "this level of domination of minnows is because he's just so great",

It's complete rubbish and it always irks me. Rubbish players regularly dominate minnows as well, and that's exactly why those stats mean ****-all.
 

Mr Miyagi

Banned
No no, I'm saying the same thing you are. There are good reason to consider stats against minnows like 2000s BD and Zimbabwe and ODIs against Ireland and Netherlands as being as important as stats against the big boys. There are good reasons to consider performances at home or in friendly conditions to be of equal importance.

1) There is an inherent inconsistency in saying "Performances against minnows dont count because they're easy" and then never holding it against a player who fails against the minnows. It's as though doing easy things is of no value - when the reality is, if you don't score runs or take wickets when it's easy your team will lose.
Will they? Begs the question whether the rest of the team perform.

If you hand an XI full of guys who could only score runs against the best team in the world but average 10 against 2000s BD, well then you're going to lose to the 2000s BD a lot.
Unlikely scenario.

All performances matter, and you never see someone hold it against a player for sucking against a minnow. You just see people discrediting those who succeed.

2) Playing a minnow isn't always easier. There have been many times when minnows have played above their reputation, and extra weight is never added to performances against them then. There have been many times when big names have played terribly, and those are never discounted. There is never this subtlety to analysing stats, just a wide sweeping generalization that every run scored or wicket taken against X nations is valuable and Y nation isn't, which is just not fair. If your intent is to remove the 'easy' opponents from a players record, then you have to go through every single game in order to be accurate. The example of Walsh and Ambrose in early 2000s being well past their primes that we had earlier was a good one - runs against those two at that point in their career still carry weight just because of name value, and not because of some superior quality of their bowling. India in England where they lost 4-0 were far less of a challenge than West Indies, SL or BD during that time. Indian, English and Australian players have all had some big performances against big name players at home just because those guys couldn't adapt to the conditions quickly enough, and it was arguably tougher for them to play lesser known players or minnows away from home - think Australia's first Test against BD in 2006. That feeds to the third point:

3) Players who dominate in home conditions are immensely valuable, because all sides play basically 50% of their games at home. A guy like Sehwag who can dominate at home and in similar conditions is so valuable, even if he can't kick on away from home, because he's still scoring in the majority of conditions he plays in. Obviously a player who dominates in a wider range of conditions is better, but if the choice is between someone who is a Home Track Bully vs someone who is Just Average but average everywhere, or someone who is mediocre at home but exceptional away, then the choice isn't all that clear cut. But what is clear is that all teams need Home Track Bullies. It's essential.
Even better are players who dominate at home and away, though.

4) Downhill skiing is a valuable skill. If players in your team cannot downhill ski, then you're basically going to be throwing away all your good starts. You need batsmen who can take a 200/3 situation and kick on to take it past 500, and you need bowlers who can wipe out the tail cheap. These guys serve a role and this shouldn't be discredited either.
True to a point = but two scores of over 300 should beat minnows almost every single game.

5) Finally, it's kinda dumb to compare stats as a serious means of analysis anyways - no two players ever face the exact same set of situations ever. There are always going to be differences, and as such any statistical comparisons only go so far. By adding in all these these extra conditions ("Oh all runs against BD before this arbitrary date are worth less, and all runs against Australia mean more during this arbitrary date range but less during this other range, and if you score runs in England in early summer it's harder than in late summer") you just dilute these stats and they become increasingly meaningless as a form of analysis, let alone comparison.

So yea. All stats matter IMO. That's my unpopular opinion.
I get your point, but retirements of great bowlers - Hadlee, McGrath and Warne, Waqar and Wasim, Walsh and Ambrose, (or great batting line ups like SL has gone through recently) do make for significant changes in the merits of success against these opposition even on a 'holistic all stats matter basis' - it is about weight.

Imran Khan blatantly refused to play NZ in tests in 1990 post Hadlee (Bracewell, Snedden with Wright unavailable) as he deemed NZ just was not good enough. Post 1990 England tour, NZC was significantly and appreciably weaker.

I mean it was one thing for NZ bowlers to beat Sanga and Jaya, Dilshan and Mathews away, it is another to beat Chandimal and Mathews at home.
 
Last edited:

Borges

International Regular
This thread is heading towards being a lot worse than any of the threads that slippy started.

Unpopular? Yes
True? Yes.
Truly unpopular? Yes, yes.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Various opinions that seems to clash with the Australian cricket poster contingent here:

Alex Carey is not an exciting batting talent.
Jon Holland has been of an equivalent or better standard as a bowler to O'Keefe for a few years now.
Head is a marginally better bowler than Maxwell in everything other than T20 cricket.
Khawaja isn't particularly unlucky to not being playing ODIs.
 

Mr Miyagi

Banned
Various opinions that seems to clash with the Australian cricket poster contingent here:

Alex Carey is not an exciting batting talent.
Jon Holland has been of an equivalent or better standard as a bowler to O'Keefe for a few years now.
Head is a marginally better bowler than Maxwell in everything other than T20 cricket.
Khawaja isn't particularly unlucky to not being playing ODIs.
I'm not Australian and I am intrigued by Carey...

Khawaja sucks vs spin, every regular cricket poster should know be aware of this.

I think the cricket world almost needs Carey to be good, CA becomming a minnow is not good for the growth of the global limited overs game.
 
Last edited:

cnerd123

likes this
My problem is with the hypocrisy. Irfan Pathan's wickets against Bangladesh are always dis-counted and he's called a minnow-basher, but when it's pointed out Murali picked up a quarter of his wickets against minnows, suddenly the argument becomes "Oh but what's he supposed to do not pick up wickets?" or "this level of domination of minnows is because he's just so great",

It's complete rubbish and it always irks me. Rubbish players regularly dominate minnows as well, and that's exactly why those stats mean ****-all.
I don't like the hypocrisy either

I agree that good players perform in tough situations and that rubbish players just cash in on easy ones, I just think that excluding all stats vs minnows is a very clumsy, inaccurate way to prove this.

I also don't think we should vilify minnow/friendly condition bashing to the extent that we do - because it's still a valuable skill

All stats matter IMO. Pathan's and Murali's wickets against BD both count - obviously what separates them both is that Murali took wickets in tougher conditions more consistently for longer than Pathan did.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Alex Carey is not an exciting batting talent.
How dare you
Jon Holland has been of an equivalent or better standard as a bowler to O'Keefe for a few years now.
definitely. Probably better.
Head is a marginally better bowler than Maxwell in everything other than T20 cricket.
Absurd
Khawaja isn't particularly unlucky to not being playing ODIs.
Fair call. Should still be in the team though.
 

Adders

Cricketer Of The Year
Spinners should be exempt from the 15 degrees law.......chucking spinners are alongside slow over rates in the "why do ****s get so worked up over this" bracket.
 

Top