You know what really grinds my cricketing gears?

[vic_orthdox]

Stats saw what.

Not when, how, or what else.

 

[Flem274*]

Stats are the facts. Opinions are the interpretation of them. Like many studies, two different people can make wildly different interpretations.

Especially if they're undergrads making the whole thing up as they go along, which is a bit like what some cricket fans and commentators do itbt.

 

[Burgey]

Stats are the facts. Opinions are the interpretation of them. Like many studies, two different people can make wildly different interpretations.

Especially if they're undergrads making the whole thing up as they go along, which is a bit like what some cricket fans and commentators do itbt.

Says the bloke who skewed a statistical outcome by sending in a joke list...

 

[Spikey]

this ****ing thread

 

[GIMH]

One thing that grinds my gears big time is the use of the term "stats" in pejorative sense. Stats are facts ffs. Yes there is context to stats, feel free to point out the context but to argue against stats based on hearsay aka expert opinion is like trying to disprove evolution using quotes from religious books.

It's nothing like trying to disprove evolution, don't be ridiculous

 

[vic_orthdox]

Stats tell you what.

Don't tell you when, how, who, why. And what.

 

[Cevno]

Because it's an issue of friggin' politeness and what bothers us personally. Different situations require different standards of what's acceptable.

So in Spark and Burgey's opinion:

> Booing/sledging a player seen as a villain in the theatrical side of cricket - OK
> Booing/not appreciating them when they've actually achieved something - not OK

This is just straightforward social convention. It's not a contradiciton. For example

> Me swearing on CW - OK, so long as you use the filter
> Me swearing on Cricsim - actively encouraged
> Me swearing when visiting my grandmother - definitely not OK

This isn't hard to grasp.

"just pissed by self-righteous tone which seems to assume an absolute standard of what is acceptable"

Nah, that tosh doesn't hold any water. People are stating what bothers them in a thread entirely for that purpose.

Which came out of moaning in several other threads time and again, tbf and also labelling a certain set of fans "self righteous wankers" treating it as a crime, bereft of the facts.

Anyways not playing dirty is or at least was more of a social concention in these parts than not applauding someone. Not abusing, sledging was too but sadly is changing with times now.

I think what Ankit meant was that generally from fans to fans and culture to culture these things vary, and there is no hard fast rule about what is acceptable and what is not. Yes, everyone has a right to be peeved about what they don't like, but acting all high and mighty about it and labelling others terms is different as A)There might be faults and even the same where you are coming from too, which then you defend. Glass houses, Stones etc.. etc.. and B) Others may not hold the same beliefs as you do in the first place.

 

[Burgey]

Which came out of moaning in several other threads time and again, tbf and also labelling a certain set of fans "self righteous wankers" treating it as a crime, bereft of the facts.

Anyways not playing dirty is or at least was more of a social concention in these parts than not applauding someone. Not abusing, sledging was too but sadly is changing with times now.

But they/ you are a bunch of self-righteous wankers, and you are bereft of facts.

FMD there's been however many posters who've been at those games and heard the crowds who've come on here to agree with the observation which was made. So unless they're all telling pork pies mate, it seems there's some evidence for the proposition, doesn't it?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Stats tell you what.

Don't tell you when, how, who, why. And what.

FTR, don't really believe that.

Do think that they're an excuse for people who have no feel for the game to hide behind, though.

 

[Cevno]

But they/ you are a bunch of self-righteous wankers, and you are bereft of facts.

FMD there's been however many posters who've been at those games and heard the crowds who've come on here to agree with the observation which was made. So unless they're all telling pork pies mate, it seems there's some evidence for the proposition, doesn't it?

Where did i say there was no booing in one game at the presentation ceremony, after some sort of applause for a hundred? But how does it make them self - Righteous ? Has anyone among them said that they want Harbhajan not booed in Australia after he scores some runs/takes some wickets on tour?

The same can applied to those who then Booed and even abused Gavaskar & Murali too ? Or will you continue to deny that ?

 

[GIMH]

FTR, don't really believe that.

Do think that they're an excuse for people who have no feel for the game to hide behind, though.

I'm crap at cricket and I have never, ever professed to be an expert on the game. I follow it the same way I follow everything I'm heavily interested in, with passion for particular individuals and sides involved in the game. I'll always cede to the likes of yourself and others when it comes to discussing what goes on on a cricket field. But I don't think it takes a genius to know that the stats are just numbers that indicate the output that went towards the final result. You have to be pretty pig-headed to think that everything that actually caused those numbers to be produced is inconsequential. I don't think you even need to know anything at all about cricket to know that the opposite is true, in fact.

EDIT - this is me strongly agreeing with you FTR, not sure if my tone actually makes that clear

 

[Burgey]

Where did i say there was no booing in one game at the presentation ceremony, after some sort of applause for a hundred? But how does it make them self - Righteous ? Has anyone among them said that they want Harbhajan not booed in Australia after he scores some runs/takes some wickets on tour?

The same can applied to those who then Booed and even abused Gavaskar & Murali too ? Or will you continue to deny that ?

So now I know why it's called Cevnoing.

To me, it is self-righteous because they're the first to complain their own wannabe players like Gavaskar and Harbhajan get booed. Fwiw Gavaskar copped the booing for walking off the field when he didn't like a decision, and I like to think he copped it because he's a pathetic, racist little ****, though I doubt that was the reason tbh.

Undeniably, Harbhajan copped a booing because he played the race card and got away with it.

Put simply, you miss the point Cevno. Anyone else with Tuppence worth of brains has got it by now, even if they disagree with it. I suspect you actually get it but choose to ignore it, but here we go again, just for you:

I posted, in a thread about what grinds your cricketing gears, that people not acknowledging the achievements of opposing players is piss poor. That doesn't mean other things aren't piss poor too. One does not exclude the other. Anyone who isn't brain dead seems to be able to comprehend this. It's what annoys me.

Do I care where the players or fans are from who don't acknowledge the achievements of opposing players? No, I just think it's a dog act. It's just I have noticed it from the self-same peanuts who like to carry on with their victims' complex about how the rest of the world treats them so poorly. It is a phenomenon which has been acknowledged as occurring in those places by people who have been in those crowds.

Cevno, **** those people who don't acknowledge the efforts of opposing players, AFAIC. I think it stinks. I've seen teams do it here, be they home or visiting teams, I've seen crowds at different places around the world do it too. But I must say I have rarely seen it done here by crowds. Even utter ****s like Kohli get a standing ovation when they make a ton. FMD they even applauded Gough when he took a hat trick against us. Do you see the point I am making, Cevno? It annoys me. I don't give a **** if it doesn't annoy you. It annoys me.

Understand also, when I mentioned earlier in the thread that I'd seen two instances of this phenomenon whilst watching a game live this past summer, that it was day two in Sydney, and the pricks who had the lack of good grace to acknowledge the achievements of their opponents were none other than about eight of your beloveds. They had three opportunities to do it on that day, and tbf they availed themselves of one of them. Save Dravd, Laxman and UIMM Ishant Sharma, who did so every time.

Now, there it is mate. It's what grinds my cricketing gears. It's not about whether you have to agree with it doing so. It's not about whether you have to post something whcih you think is a form of retaliation because in your tiny little mind you think that's a good response.

TBH, if you think what Gavaskar and Harbhajan copped here was OTT and you didn't like it, post away. Go for it. That's what the thread is for.

 

[Cevno]

So now I know why it's called Cevnoing.

To me, it is self-righteous because they're the first to complain their own wannabe players like Gavaskar and Harbhajan get booed. Fwiw Gavaskar copped the booing for walking off the field when he didn't like a decision, and I like to think he copped it because he's a pathetic, racist little ****, though I doubt that was the reason tbh.

Undeniably, Harbhajan copped a booing because he played the race card and got away with it.

Similarly, Ponting is a **** and booing him is no big deal. I didn't like it after he has scored a century, but hey there were several reasons for that too like with Harbhajan and Gavaskar. Booing and Abusing Murali probably doesn't even compare.

Put simply, you miss the point Cevno. Anyone else with Tuppence worth of brains has got it by now, even if they disagree with it. I suspect you actually get it but choose to ignore it, but here we go again, just for you:

I posted, in a thread about what grinds your cricketing gears, that people not acknowledging the achievements of opposing players is piss poor. That doesn't mean other things aren't piss poor too. One does not exclude the other. Anyone who isn't brain dead seems to be able to comprehend this. It's what annoys me.

You didn't post it ftr, Marcuss did because it is something you have been going about in 457845754 threads now even comparing unrelated things to it, and bringing it out of nowhere.

And even if you just posted it in this thread, labelling a set of fans "self righteous wanker" can be debated. Just as much me or you posting say Kallis is overrated can.

Do I care where the players or fans are from who don't acknowledge the achievements of opposing players? No, I just think it's a dog act. It's just I have noticed it from the self-same peanuts who like to carry on with their victims' complex about how the rest of the world treats them so poorly. It is a phenomenon which has been acknowledged as occurring in those places by people who have been in those crowds.

You clearly do, that's the point and you have explained it in the second part of this paragraph yourself, which is nonsense in iitself.

Cevno, **** those people who don't acknowledge the efforts of opposing players, AFAIC. I think it stinks. I've seen teams do it here, be they home or visiting teams, I've seen crowds at different places around the world do it too. But I must say I have rarely seen it done here by crowds. Even utter ****s like Kohli get a standing ovation when they make a ton. FMD they even applauded Gough when he took a hat trick against us. Do you see the point I am making, Cevno? It annoys me. I don't give a **** if it doesn't annoy you. It annoys me.

Understand also, when I mentioned earlier in the thread that I'd seen two instances of this phenomenon whilst watching a game live this past summer, that it was day two in Sydney, and the pricks who had the lack of good grace to acknowledge the achievements of their opponents were none other than about eight of your beloveds. They had three opportunities to do it on that day, and tbf they availed themselves of one of them. Save Dravd, Laxman and UIMM Ishant Sharma, who did so every time.

Now, there it is mate. It's what grinds my cricketing gears. It's not about whether you have to agree with it doing so. It's not about whether you have to post something whcih you think is a form of retaliation because in your tiny little mind you think that's a good response.

Well, that is a reasonable opinion but still doesn't justify labelling a whole set of fans, "self righteous wankers" which was my point. You don't like it fair, but that doesn't mean it is a crime or wrong for everyone, or something they are being hypocritical on?

In fact you are the one doing that yourself, with respect to it above.

TBH, if you think what Gavaskar and Harbhajan copped here was OTT and you didn't like it, post away. Go for it. That's what the thread is for.

Yes, it was OTT. I have no problems about booing, but abusing for me is a no go in that sense on the field and more so is playing dirty. I might even use this thread for that, but you won't see me brining it up in the IPL thread time and again to wind up others, when Murali gets applauded when fielding on the boundary? You see the difference now ?

And ftr, i won't mind arguing about it either if you feel differently.

 

[Burgey]

Similarly, Ponting is a **** and booing him is no big deal. I didn't like it after he has scored a century, but hey there were several reasons for that too like with Harbhajan and Gavaskar. Booing and Abusing Murali probably doesn't even compare.




You didn't post it ftr, Marcuss did because it is something you have been going about in 457845754 threads now even comparing unrelated things to it, and bringing it out of nowhere.

And even if you just posted it in this thread, labelling a set of fans "self righteous wanker" can be debated. Just as much me or you posting say Kallis is overrated can.



You clearly do, that's the point and you have explained it in the second part of this paragraph yourself, which is nonsense in iitself.



Well, that is a reasonable opinion but still doesn't justify labelling a whole set of fans, "self righteous wankers" which was my point. You don't like it fair, but that doesn't mean it is a crime or wrong for everyone, or something they are being hypocritical on?

In fact you are the one doing that yourself, with respect to it above.



Yes, it was OTT. I have no problems about booing, but abusing for me is a no go in that sense on the field and more so is playing dirty. I might even use this thread for that, but you won't see me brining it up in the IPL thread time and again to wind up others, when Murali gets applauded when fielding on the boundary? You see the difference now ?

And ftr, i won't mind arguing about it either if you feel differently.

My post lost a good deal of its meaning when you spilt it up like that.

Like what you like, dislike what you dislike.

I don't recall raising the Murali issue, and the way he was treated here was bad. I did sense by the end of his career that much of it had dissipated, thankfully. But certainly the way he was hectored was bad, he's about the least offensive cricketer going. It reflected poorly on the crowds here.

 

[Prince EWS]

Cevno cevnoing? Well I never.

 

[Cevno]

Cevno cevnoing? Well I never.

Nah Burgey Pewsing.

Being openly hypocritical in one sense while using another aspect of the argument to get away with it and also the term Cevnoing.

Edit - Well that term though sounds a bit dodgy, works for denying consistency by using a fancy word or another argument altogether/shifting goal posts too.

 

[Burgey]

Nah Burgey Pewsing.

Being openly hypocritical in one sense while using another aspect of the argument to get away with it and also the term Cevnoing.

Edit - Well that term though sounds a bit dodgy, works for denying consistency by using a fancy word or another argument altogether/shifting goal posts too.

It cannot be hypocritical to say "X bothers me but Y doesn't on a cricket field" because it's simply a matter of what does or doesn't to an individual.

 

[Flem274*]

Burgey and PEWS are like opposites. If you fit them in a valid buzzword the world will end.

 

[Cevno]

It cannot be hypocritical to say "X bothers me but Y doesn't on a cricket field" because it's simply a matter of what does or doesn't to an individual.

Yeah, exactly that is fair but, you are using that argument to get away from the fact that you have been now bringing this up in so many threads with respect to unrelated matches, labelling only a certain set of fans who do it "self righteous wankers" and not others while not justifying how they are self righteous in the first place ?

And also not explaining how applauding someone who is disliked when he scores a ton and not booing afterwards is a absolute accepted social convention in sports? (Though i don't think it is you who said this, ftr and Ponting was applauded after he scored a ton but booed afterwards which i didn't like either tbh).

 

[Cevno]

Burgey and PEWS are like opposites. If you fit them in a valid buzzword the world will end.

You fit in Stephen and Me, so..........