• 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

B

Bolo

State Captain
quincywagstaff said:
That the 1980s Australian rebel SA tourists not only got relatively light punishments but were incorporated back into the game without issue (including the current Chairman Of Selectors) is a regrettable aspect of Australian cricket.
Click to expand...
Juxtaposition to this: West Indies players were too harshly treated for playing. Dick move doing it, but life ban plus having your life ruined even outside cricket is a bit much. People living in poverty as some of those guys were at least close to have done worse for a fraction of the consequences.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
Henry Nicholls is a good batsman
Colin de Grandhomme is a very talented batsman and NZs best allrounder since peak Jake Oram
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
A good performance in a world cup final is no more valuable than performance in a so called JAMODI so long as strength of opposition and playing conditions are of similar difficulty

I will go to war defending this.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
ankitj said:
A good performance in a world cup final is no more valuable than performance in a so called JAMODI so long as strength of opposition and playing conditions are of similar difficulty

I will go to war defending this.
Click to expand...
Well then you've worded it wrong. If you'd said "no more better" instead of "no more valuable" I'd agree. But there's simply no arguing which is more valuable.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
I mean their value in assessing who is a better player between any two we are comparing on a given day.
 
Adders

Adders

Cricketer Of The Year
GoodAreasShane said:
Mark Cameron. Seriously quick, could swing it both ways late, and had a real nasty bouncer. He had it all, except for a back that could last more than two or three games at a time.
Click to expand...
So Australia must have relaxed this criteria then this decade?
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
trundler said:
Nah I'll take Ponting's 140 over any Tendulkar hundred. Same for Richard's in 79'.
Click to expand...
Vehemently disagree. Such views are based on emotion.

Let me modify/clarify my position a bit. Not everything can be harder in a world cup match. That's not mathematically possible. You cannot have poorer overall batting averages, poorer bowling averages, poorer strike rates and poorer economy rates all at once just because it is a big stage. Someone will play big knocks, someone will take wickets, someone will hit boundaries, someone will bowl economically.

If indeed batting is harder on big stage then consequently bowling is easier and hence bowling performance in a JAMODI must be valued more than in big games. If chasing a total is harder on big stage then consequently defending a score is easier and hence good performance while defending a total in a JAMODI must be valued more than in big games.

There is pressure, yes. But pressure is on both teams and it cancels out. Or if pressure does make one discipline harder it must by corollary make something else easier.
 
Last edited:
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
ankitj said:
Vehemently disagree. Such views are based on emotion.

Let me modify/clarify my position a bit. Not everything can be harder in a world cup match. That's not mathematically possible. You cannot have poorer overall batting averages, poorer bowling averages, poorer strike rates and poorer economy rates all at once just because it is a big stage. Someone will play big knocks, someone will take wickets, someone will hit boundaries, someone will bowl economically.

If indeed batting is harder on big stage than consequently bowling is easier and hence bowling performance in a JAMODI must be valued more than in big games. If chasing a total is harder on big stage than consequently defending a score is easier and hence good performance while defending a total in a JAMODI must be valued more than in big games.

There is pressure, yes. But pressure is on both teams and it cancels out. Or if pressure does make one discipline harder it must by corollary make the something else easier.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but this is spoken like someone who hasn't competed in sport in a pressure situation

Everything is different when you play a game with stakes on the line. The difference being is everyone has a lot more nerves, and the fear of failure is far greater. To be able to control one's emotions and execute your skills properly in a pressure situation is an incredibly hard thing to do. Players who put in big performances in these circumstances are usually the ones who have overcome those mental hurdles.

In a regular cricket game you're just seeing the skill vs skill clash. Which players can adapt and perform in those specific conditions, which players find their rhythm right away, who has the luck going in their favour. These factors determine who puts in the big performances. In World Cup (and other important games) these tend to get overridden by who can keep calm and deliver. Think of Grant Elliot for NZ vs SA.

And sure there are pressure moments in a regular game, and even regular JAMODIs can get pretty heated. But in World Cups and other big tournaments, every game and every moment matters. You constantly have that added dimension to it. It's why the heroes in these games can often be guys who don't normally churn out performances in a mechanical fashion in JAMODIs.

Not only that - but no one is going through the motions in a World Cup game. In JAMODIs you see players play within themselves to preserve their bodies for important cricket. You see players who have mentally checked out and are just there to collect a paycheque. In World Cup games, everyone is zoned in, everyone is hungry, and everyone is leaving it all on the field. It's a different level of intensity. You're also playing against the best possible XI - in JAMODIs, teams play fringe players and try out different combinations and strategies.

You can't compare the two. This isn't a statistical exercise. Emotion matters in sport. That's why we watch it.
 
Last edited:
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Defending a 230 score against South Africa in a world cup semi final (they never reach final, lolz) is easier than doing it in a JAMODI against them.
 
Last edited:
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
***** said:
I'm sorry but this is spoken like someone who hasn't competed in sport in a pressure situation

Everything is different when you play a game with stakes on the line. The difference being is everyone has a lot more nerves, and the fear of failure is far greater. To be able to control one's emotions and execute your skills properly in a pressure situation is an incredibly hard thing to do. Players who put in big performances in these circumstances are usually the ones who have overcome those mental hurdles.

In a regular cricket game you're just seeing the skill vs skill clash. Which players can adapt and perform in those specific conditions, which players find their rhythm right away, who has the luck going in their favour. These factors determine who puts in the big performances. In World Cup (and other important games) these tend to get overridden by who can keep calm and deliver. Think of Grant Elliot for NZ vs SA.

And sure there are pressure moments in a regular game, and even regular JAMODIs can get pretty heated. But in World Cups and other big tournaments, every game and every moment matters. You constantly have that added dimension to it. It's why the heroes in these games can often be guys who don't normally churn out performances in a mechanical fashion in JAMODIs.

Not only that - but no one is going through the motions in a World Cup game. In JAMODIs you see players play within themselves to preserve their bodies for important cricket. You see players who have mentally checked out and are just there to collect a paycheque. In World Cup games, everyone is zoned in, everyone is hungry, and everyone is leaving it all on the field. It's a different level of intensity. You're also playing against the best possible XI - in JAMODIs, teams play fringe players and try out different combinations and strategies.

You can't compare the two. This isn't a statistical exercise. Emotion matters in sport. That's why we watch it.
Click to expand...
***** with a rare good post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top