The Unpopular Opinions Thread

[Pratters]

Kohli is a nice humble guy who gets bad rep for just being really emotionally invested in the game

Dhoni fans on social media has a lot to do with this myth. They keep spouting Kohli hate memes. A whatsapp group I was in kept having loads of CSK fans saying that Kohli should be removed as RCB captain. Sigh.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Ball tampering is a myth

 

[Pratters]

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.

Bradman's stats are inflated too as he played v SAF. Most players faced minnows which has inflated their stats to an extent. I agree the minnow stats should go off when rating players. We don't take into account FC stats in modern times that much, so why minnow stats.

 

[Pratters]

Rohit is not a horrible Test cricketer.

lolwut?

 

[garylyon]

Current ball tampering regulations are a massive load of ****e. Ball tampering should be instituted and made legal to a certain degree and be eventually appreciated as an art in itself, with bowling coaches showing every young bowler how to most effectively tamper the ball without breaching the new regulations. If batsmen can have bats so thick that their edges clear the ropes, it's only fair. Also get rid of the bouncer rule.

 

[smash84]

Yes, the doosra. His doosra was clear chucking. His offies were fine.

His doosra wasn't always a chuck though. He had plenty of non-chucking doosras as well.

You're not offering opinions on Saqlain, you're peddling falsehoods

 

[Pratters]

Andy Bichel was a much better test bowler than Brett Lee and should have played every test that he didn't play in and Lee did.

Yeah, excellent point.

 

[Borges]

I agree the minnow stats should go off when rating players. We don't take into account FC stats in modern times that much, so why minnow stats.

Right. Also knock off non-minnow lower order wickets while rating bowlers, and runs scored against non-minnow fifth/sixth bowlers while rating batsmen.

 

[Pratters]

I think stats against minnows should be judged on a case by case basis, although I see why they might be given less weightage. Ponting's only century against Bangladesh was immensely more valuable than most Tendulkar and Sanga Bangladesh thrashings. The error of hindsight. Sanga and Kallis aren't in the same league as Ponting and Lara. The former two were nowhere near the best of the latter 2 at their best. Ponting>Lara too.
Also, wtf chucking shouldn't be legal. Spirit of the game and all that. Remove no balls too why we're at it.

Till where does one extend this theory though? Home track bullies get less respect than players who are successful in varying conditions. So should stats of a Jayawardene have a weightage basis? Or every one, for that matter? Say a 100 point index. Subcontinent matches have less weightage than 50 percent, say 30 percent, bouncy like SA and Aus in one bracket, England in another for swing etc..

 

[Pratters]

Some other great bowlers of that era had bad SRs too. Everyone just played slow as ****.

Lance Gibbs: 88
Bishen Bedi: 80

Completely different era. So many draws. Which is why overs bowler by Sobers being compared with Kallis is unfair. Compare with Flintoff, Klusener etc..

 

[Borges]

Forgot about dropped catches. In addition to all of the above, for the purposes of rating:
Treat a batsman as out the first time a dolly catch offered by him is not taken. And chalk up one wicket to the bowler.
Except that if it is a dropped caught and bowled, the batsman still gets penalised, but no credit is given to the bowler.

With all this in place, we would end up with the CricketWeb undisputably greatest and bestest mother of all cricket ratings.

 

[Pratters]

Loop, Richard.

 

[trundler]

Till where does one extend this theory though? Home track bullies get less respect than players who are successful in varying conditions. So should stats of a Jayawardene have a weightage basis? Or every one, for that matter? Say a 100 point index. Subcontinent matches have less weightage than 50 percent, say 30 percent, bouncy like SA and Aus in one bracket, England in another for swing etc..

Hey common sense should be used too. It's obvious Tendulkar is better than the Sehwags and Jayas because of his versatility. I wasn't referring to home and away to begin with. A century against minnows is obviously worth less than one against a top team in similar circumstances. Home runs are valuable like ***** said. Also your idea of weighing runs is interesting but Ponting failed in India but was unbelievably good in SA. Think both those cancel each other out rather than runs in SA being more valuable.

 

[trundler]

Forgot about dropped catches. In addition to all of the above, for the purposes of rating:
Treat a batsman as out the first time a dolly catch offered by him is not taken. And chalk up one wicket to the bowler.
Except that if it is a dropped caught and bowled, the batsman still gets penalised, but no credit is given to the bowler.

With all this in place, we would end up with the CricketWeb undisputably greatest and bestest mother of all cricket ratings.

Sounds good, impossible to do. Sounds like communism.

 

[trundler]

Sehwag benefits most from dropped catches.
Tracking the misses | The Cricket Monthly | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[trundler]

Completely different era. So many draws. Which is why overs bowler by Sobers being compared with Kallis is unfair. Compare with Flintoff, Klusener etc..

I wonder when over rates started decreasing rapidly?

 

[Borges]

Hey common sense should be used too.

No.

How on earth do you expect to come up with the best cricket rating in the world if common sense is to be involved?

 

[Bolo]

No.

How on earth do you expect to come up with the best cricket rating in the world if common sense is to be involved?

It's pretty simple. If you agree with my ratings you are speaking sense, and if you disagree it's because you are common, pleb.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

No.

How on earth do you expect to come up with the best cricket rating in the world if common sense is to be involved?

I think you just may be the funniest poster on this site.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

It's pretty simple. If you agree with my ratings you are speaking sense, and if you disagree it's because you are common, pleb.

Well clearly that guy from my team is the best, and my ranking system just demonstrates this to be true, if you're right, you'll agree or you're wrong (and stupid).