Do some players get under-rated sometimes on basis of nationality?

[Chemosit]

That if a player is primarily going to look after himself when it 'doesn't matter' he is also more likely to do so when it does.

 

[Richard]

The thing is, though, practice and in-game are both very common things. Cases where the needs of the individual go counter to the needs of the team are exceptionally rare; mostly the needs run concurrantly. I don't think there'd be such a large degree of run-off in one as there would be in the other.

 

[shortpitched713]

I don't think there are "plenty" of occasions like this at all. Such scenarios happen once in a blue-moon. As I say - 95%+ of the time the better the batsman\bowler's figures, the better the team's chances of winning.

Doesn't matter whether its 95, 75, or 99.8. The fact of the matter is that when such situations arise then its reflective of a cricketer and his values what he does in that situation. I think that a player should always put the interests of the team first. You seem to be indicating otherwise.

No, not at all. Any decent batting side will smash 440 from 50 overs off part-timers. That miracle SA win was nothing like the miracle that would result from a team saving a match after conceding a 415-run opening stand. Or nothing like the miracle that would result from many, many other long-gone-stories scenarios.

What if it rained? Yes none of the players could have done anything about it, but it takes away your claim that a draw was a long-gone scenario, and thus at that moment in time the players should be doing whatever is possible to help the team win.

I don't feel it's anything to do with the reason they rarely draw (or lose). That's just because they're better (or, at least, have been the last 10 years or so), much better often, than everyone else. Most of their victories in the last decade could easily have afforded such an innings and it'd have made no difference at all to the result.

Whats telling though is that their players rarely, if ever took that risk. Clearly that means that they felt that doing what they could to help the team, even in long-gone stories scenarios, was more important than padding their averages.

I wasn't purely referring to this case, more the general, but really, if it makes Kallis happy and Kallis is therefore a more contented dressing-room presence than had he hit one straight up for 12, then yes, it does help the rest of the team.

You and I know full well that Kallis can score quickly without going the aerial route.

 

[adharcric]

As for being over rated, one only has to look at Tatenda Taibu, who, if he was Australian would be turning out for a grade cricket side.. Because he is a young black captain from Zimbabwe he's being mentioned in the same sentences as guys like Healy, Boucher and Gilchrist..

By who?

 

[pasag]

SP right on the money here.

 

[Richard]

Beevs?

 

[Richard]

Doesn't matter whether its 95, 75, or 99.8. The fact of the matter is that when such situations arise then its reflective of a cricketer and his values what he does in that situation. I think that a player should always put the interests of the team first. You seem to be indicating otherwise.

I am indicating that there are times when the interests of the team are basically served equally well by anything. You could play out 20 consecutive maiden-overs and it wouldn't alter, in the slightest, the position of the match. You could waste time and lose 20 overs from the game, and it wouldn't alter it either. In situations such as these, players are entitled to do whatever they wish to, IMO.

What if it rained? Yes none of the players could have done anything about it, but it takes away your claim that a draw was a long-gone scenario, and thus at that moment in time the players should be doing whatever is possible to help the team win.

There is such thing as a weather-forecast, y'know, and in certain places at certain times of year it's less of a forecast than a declaration. In this case, it was known beyond all doubt that the chances of rain were approximately zero. If there'd been rain forecast, my attitude would obviously have been different. And there are several occasions where such a thing has indeed happened, and teams have beaten the weather and thought "good job we didn't dawdle there". But there are also times when teams can rest assured that a full five days' play will be available.

Whats telling though is that their players rarely, if ever took that risk. Clearly that means that they felt that doing what they could to help the team, even in long-gone stories scenarios, was more important than padding their averages.

Yes, indeed. And I disagree. Just because it's Australian, doesn't make it right.

You and I know full well that Kallis can score quickly without going the aerial route.

Attempting to go the aerial route is not the only thing that's risky about trying to up the pace. In any case, this is not the important thing - the important thing is whether Kallis gets what he wants, thus improving dressing-room atmosphere.

 

[Migara]

Possibly agree.

Best examples are Aravinda de Silva, Dean Jones, Martin Crowe and Md. Azharuddin.

On their thrilling best they could easily match Sachin, Lara, Gilchist or Jayasuriya at their brutal best. Like Sachin, they achieved it with breath takingly orthadox shots too without swipes.

No one realizes that De Silva has a SR of 81, and even a player like Hayden, who is percieved as attacking, has a SR of 79, and that too on far more batting friendly pitches than above players played on. Same applies to Azhar. On his day he's an unstoppable hurricane too.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Beevs?

Err shortpitched perhaps?

 

[Richard]

Haha, oh yeah - sp713, SP. Confusing bugger y'are, Gelman.