Resting Top Players - Fair to fans ?

[Sanz]

Rahul Dravid has beed rested for 2 ODIs in the ongoing India-England 7 match series. I understand India has won the series, but is it really fair to the cricket fans ? If I am spending 100 bucks, I would be really upset if I am deprived of watching our best cricketers in action for no reason.

Also why should the fans pay the same price for the tickets, if they have to watch India A or India B team in action. Lastly, Would they have dropped Dravid, if these matched were to be held @ venues like Chennai, Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata ?

 

[viktor]

Rahul Dravid has beed rested for 2 ODIs in the ongoing India-England 7 match series. I understand India has won the series, but is it really fair to the cricket fans ? If I am spending 100 bucks, I would be really upset if I am deprived of watching our best cricketers in action for no reason.

Also why should the fans pay the same price for the tickets, if they have to watch India A or India B team in action. Lastly, Would they have dropped Dravid, if these matched were to be held @ venues like Chennai, Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata ?

It isn't ideal but with the amount of cricket that is being played, it is inevitable that players will be rested for less important matches. So long as the public is made aware that certain players are not playing, before the tickets are sold, it is more or less fair. They can then choose whether or not they want to shell out the money to watch the match.

 

[adharcric]

Rahul Dravid has beed rested for 2 ODIs in the ongoing India-England 7 match series. I understand India has won the series, but is it really fair to the cricket fans ? If I am spending 100 bucks, I would be really upset if I am deprived of watching our best cricketers in action for no reason.

Also why should the fans pay the same price for the tickets, if they have to watch India A or India B team in action. Lastly, Would they have dropped Dravid, if these matched were to be held @ venues like Chennai, Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata ?

a) there is a very good reason behind it
b) if they don't think it's worth it, they can stay at home
c) removing one player doesn't turn a world-beating team into "India A" .. especially since this is not one of those Indian teams which rely on a single Tendulkar or Dravid to bail them out every time .. Yuvraj, Pathan, Harbhajan and Dhoni have been nearly as vital if not just as vital as Dravid to our success lately
d) not sure about that, but if they don't drop him because of that, that's stupid. nevertheless, that doesn't mean they shouldn't rest him when it's a good move.

*** with moves like this, we'll ensure that when such moves are made in the future, the fans don't have to watch an India A team because our bench strength will be so much stronger

 

[archie mac]

I really think they should rest the star players, and more importantly Fast Bowlers from ODI and save them for Test matches

 

[_Ed_]

It disappoints me I must admit, for example I've been to 3 ODIs against Australia and Glenn McGrath was rested for all three. Pretty gutted about that.

It's fair enough though, players have big workloads.

 

[Smudge]

It disappoints me I must admit, for example I've been to 3 ODIs against Australia and Glenn McGrath was rested for all three. Pretty gutted about that.

Although they probably knew you were heading along to watch so they could afford to put out any side and they'd still win.

 

[_Ed_]

Although they probably knew you were heading along to watch so they could afford to put out any side and they'd still win.

A good point.

 

[Jono]

This was also argued heavily here in Australia with Ponting being rested for a few VB Series games. Gilly too.

 

[open365]

It's not that big a deal, you know the risk you take when you buy tickets, you know that he may or may not be playing, you also know that a ticket to see India does not come with a Sachin Tendulkar hundred or a Dravid 70 guarenteed.

 

[wpdavid]

I've argued for a while now that what's really unfair to fans is regularly having to watch players who are undercooked due to the rushed nature of tours nowadays because of the requirements of the world rankings system.

As for the resting of players, it's tough for the paying fans, but we're going to see more of it. Perhaps if they just boycotted the dead games we might see the end of these meaningless drawn out series.

 

[Ikki]

Well it's a kind of shooting yourself in the foot scenario. It's due to the popularity and demand for so much cricket (yes you the public) that players are needed to be rested.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Although they probably knew you were heading along to watch so they could afford to put out any side and they'd still win.

Would Mick get in on that action?

 

[Goughy]

I dont see the issue.

International games are between countries. I find going to watch just because of the names of the players a little shallow. That is what charity and exhibition games are for.

For example, games are played by India, England and Pakistan, not Dravid + 10 others, Flintoff and 10 others and Afridi and 10 others.

The game of cricket and the national sides are far bigger and more important than who the players are.

 

[Sanz]

b) if they don't think it's worth it, they can stay at home

First of all, small cities like Jamshedpur get one match in 2-3 years and even then most of the tickets are sold before the team is announced, so how are the fans going to know who is playing and who is not ?

 

[Dasa]

The game of cricket and the national sides are far bigger and more important than who the players are.

That's interesting. I watch cricket more to follow certain players and just to see a good match rather than see a country vs country battle.

 

[Sanz]

That's interesting. I watch cricket more to follow certain players and just to see a good match rather than see a country vs country battle.

Exactly !! If country vs. country was the sole reason, people would have flocked to watch women's world cup and this forum would have been filled with names like Diana eduljee, Sandhya Agarwal, Rosaline birch etc.

 

[Sanz]

It's not that big a deal, you know the risk you take when you buy tickets, you know that he may or may not be playing, you also know that a ticket to see India does not come with a Sachin Tendulkar hundred or a Dravid 70 guarenteed.

I remember a Duleep Trophy match I watched 10-15 years ago and Kapil Dev was playing and I was just happy to see him field/bowl. Didn't care how many wickets he took or how many runs he scored.

 

[Goughy]

Exactly !! If country vs. country was the sole reason, people would have flocked to watch women's world cup and this forum would have been filled with names like Diana eduljee, Sandhya Agarwal, Rosaline birch etc.

Silly argument really. We are talking about the top level of the sport. Not womens, not U19s, not blind cricket but Mens National Team.

The game did not stop when Bradman retired, nor with Sobers and will not when Lara goes.

Are you seriously saying that you consider which guys are taking the field before becoming interested in a game?

 

[Goughy]

That's interesting. I watch cricket more to follow certain players and just to see a good match rather than see a country vs country battle.

The "good match" is the important part of your statement. Its about cricket rather than individuals.

Also part of making a match good and impotant is having something to play for and the national aspect is a big part of that.

Charity and exhibition games are choc-full of stars and they are as interesting as watching paint dry as they mean nothing.

Competition is what sport is about not watching big names and guys on posters.

 

[Sanz]

Silly argument really. We are talking about the top level of the sport. Not womens, not U19s, not blind cricket but Mens National Team.

And how will the game be competitive if players like Flintoff, Dravid sit out ? Dont you think these two add a different level competitiveness to a cricket match ? TBF, the current series has been boring and very one sided and I dont think it was a top level series at all.

The game did not stop when Bradman retired, nor with Sobers and will not when Lara goes.Are you seriously saying that you consider which guys are taking the field before becoming interested in a game?

I am not claiming that the game would have stopped, but do you really think Cricket in 90s would have been same if you took out players like Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, Wasim Akram, Donald, Shane Warne, Glen Mcgrath, Murali, Ambrose etc from the game ? IMO these handful individuals (out of some 1000 that played in 90s) brought that 'TOP LEVEL' of performance to Cricket and I certainly went to watch these guys play regardless of who was playing who.