• 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.

Least Entertaining Players

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr Casson said:
Because of all the people who are entertaining, he is the least entertaining of all of them. That fits the criterion, surely?
Why is he least entertaining?
What does everyone else do better than him in your esteem?
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
Richard said:
Entertain you by doing what, exactly?
By making me go "Yay, John Crawley's in. I love his temperament, dashing style, improvisation and/or finesse" when he came out to bat. It's my opinion, and you can't change it.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
So you find him boring because of his lack of dashing style, improvisation and finesse?
That simply adds to the idea that you judged him on one series, not his career, because he has played innings that possess those quantities in abundance.
 
Josh, you can't not be bothered, you're just not able to. Gilchrist is probably one of the only men (Sehwag too), who no-one, no matter how deluded they are, could find boring.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Peanutbutterbar said:
Richard, you aren't going to change your opinion on Hayden, who definetly isn't boring, so why should Casson change his on Crawleys, who is?
I wasn't saying he should change it - I was questioning something that seemed obvious - that he was basing something on a single series that ran counter to just about the rest of an entire career.
Something that is not a good idea in any field.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Peanutbutterbar said:
Josh, you can't not be bothered, you're just not able to. Gilchrist is probably one of the only men (Sehwag too), who no-one, no matter how deluded they are, could find boring.
I don't find either boring as such - but I do love to see a single-figure score next to the names of both in Tests.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Beleg said:
don't forget Afridi. ;)
Not quite boring, there's something interesting in watching him bowl. He's always had a bit of a you-never-know-what's-gonna-happen-next.
Even his batting hasn't been quite as terrible recently as it was for the 2 years between mid-2002 and early-2004, but it's still wholly predictable that he'll swing and miss a couple then sky one.
If I picked someone I wouldn't want to see bat he'd still be high on my list.
 
Richard said:
Not quite boring, there's something interesting in watching him bowl. He's always had a bit of a you-never-know-what's-gonna-happen-next.
Even his batting hasn't been quite as terrible recently as it was for the 2 years between mid-2002 and early-2004, but it's still wholly predictable that he'll swing and miss a couple then sky one.
If I picked someone I wouldn't want to see bat he'd still be high on my list.
I think he meant that Afridi should be classed with Gilly and Sehwag
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
Richard said:
I wasn't saying he should change it - I was questioning something that seemed obvious - that he was basing something on a single series that ran counter to just about the rest of an entire career.
Something that is not a good idea in any field.
So I'm guessing you've been watching Hayden for the better part of ten years?
 

badgerhair

U19 Vice-Captain
There are batsmen like Boycott, Kirsten, Kallis, Atherton and so on who mostly play(ed) slowly and carefully and don't usually get the pulse racing, but who are or were extremely capable of dismantling an attack with glorious shots if the occasion warranted it, in their view. That their view of when it was warranted might be a rather pessimistic one is probably inarguable, but they were out in the middle and we weren't. But I've seen all of them do it. The other point in their favour is that they do their job with consummate skill.

So I would look elsewhere for excruciating dullness, at players who not only don't do very much of interest, but seem incapable of doing anything else, even when the game situation demands something else.

Top of my list of players to avoid seeing at all costs was Tim Curtis. I do not believe he ever played an attacking shot in his entire career. Unlike a Boycott, who would efficiently and mercilessly dispatch bad balls to the boundary with clinical strokes, Curtis would simply pat them back to the bowler. (This is not to be confused with the approach of George Gunn, who also regularly patted bad balls back to the bowler, but made up for it by hitting the good balls for four or six. He just found it more interesting that way.)

But as usual, a discussion of dull players has focused on batsmen. I don't usually find batsmen boring. It's bowlers who have me catching up on the z's.

Mediocre English seam bowlers, mostly, although a few overseas ones have also unimpressed.

People like Peter Martin, Neil Foster, Mark Ilott, Paul Taylor and Mike Hendrick.

My current unfavourite, though, is Pollock: Durban was something of an exception in the way he's played these last few years in that he actually attacked the stumps and tried to get batsmen out when his usual practice is to bowl way wide of off stump and get maidens rather than wickets. And I don't really see what's so admirable about that, especially as it isn't actually helping South Africa win many matches nowadays.

Cheers,

Mike
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr Casson said:
So I'm guessing you've been watching Hayden for the better part of ten years?
Nope, first time I ever watched him in Test-cricket was 2000\01.
Watched a couple of Northants games in 1999 and 2000.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
LongHopCassidy said:
Richard, is there something about clean hitting or strokeplay that repulses you?
If "clean hitting" involves swinging inelegantly through the line, then yes, I do dislike it - I'd not call it repulsive, but I do find it a turn-off and I'd much rather see it result in dismissal than run-scoring.
As for strokeplay, couldn't care less - someone can score the runs as fast or slow as they like - I'll enjoy it if it's good-looking, not if it's ugly.
Obviously visual enjoyment is does not always go hand-in-hand with team requirements.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
badgerhair said:
My current unfavourite, though, is Pollock: Durban was something of an exception in the way he's played these last few years in that he actually attacked the stumps and tried to get batsmen out when his usual practice is to bowl way wide of off stump and get maidens rather than wickets. And I don't really see what's so admirable about that, especially as it isn't actually helping South Africa win many matches nowadays.
Certainly when I've been watching Pollock tends to bowl straigher than anyone else.
Dot-balls are kinda better than going for runs.
I'd take 22-46-2 over 22-84-3 anyday.
Especially in the current climate of Test-cricket.
 

Top