• 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.

Better to watch=better player??

Should a player get extra points for how good he looks when he's batting/bowling?


  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
The number of people putting Ponting a tier above Border for me is a strong case for the "better to watch=better" argument.
I don't believe that's the case. Those people are doing it because Ponting's achievements are fresher in the mind.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
There's no doubt that people generally rank players they prefer to watch higher.
I don't think it's 'generally' the case at all.

When Hussey was going nuts, so many Australians (casual and expert fans) were talking him up highly. But never once was it suggested he was better to watch than Gilchrist.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I always look at the Waugh twins when this one comes up as it was obvious that Mark was more pleasing to watch from a strokemaking point of view but Steve had a more successful career in terms of runscoring and getting them at vital times.Both were brilliant but my preference has always been for Mark as he was just so great to watch when he got going as he stroked the ball around beautifully.

Each to their own though i guess.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
I don't think it's 'generally' the case at all.

When Hussey was going nuts, so many Australians (casual and expert fans) were talking him up highly. But never once was it suggested he was better to watch than Gilchrist.
Hussey in his prime wasn't exactly unwatchable though. True, not as elegant as MW/Martyn/Clarke or as brilliantly destructive as Gilchrist/well...Gilchrist, but he wasn't an ugly duckling by any means.

I mean, cricket is a form of entertainment and yes, I would watch a Mark hundred over a Steve hundred all else being equal.
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't think it's 'generally' the case at all.

When Hussey was going nuts, so many Australians (casual and expert fans) were talking him up highly. But never once was it suggested he was better to watch than Gilchrist.
Don't think you understand. Everyone subconsciously rates players they enjoy watching higher, even if their run-scoring ability isn't as good. Hussey was rated highly because he scored like 235262349 runs every time he went out to bat, but we can only imagine how highly he'd have been rated had he looked as good as Gilchrist while doing so.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Maybe.....
Post reported for muddying the waters.

Don't buy that AB is rated lower because Punter is pleasing to the eye, tbh. Personally reckon he just is a tier below. Squeezed every last drop of performance out of his talent but having seen enough of both blokes, just reckon Punter the better bat.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Just to take Ponting & Border as the examples, I'd agree the former looks a more fluent batsman, but he also seems to have a more pronounced techical glitch too where his head tends to fall away to the offside early on in his innings. Takes a good bowler to exploit it, obv, but always reckon anyone with a half-fair indipper fancies their chances whilst Punter's in single digits.

Is it just that we notice the flaws of the aesthetically pleasing more or is it really a more marked flaw?
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just to take Ponting & Border as the examples, I'd agree the former looks a more fluent batsman, but he also seems to have a more pronounced techical glitch too where his head tends to fall away to the offside early on in his innings. Takes a good bowler to exploit it, obv, but always reckon anyone with a half-fair indipper fancies their chances whilst Punter's in single digits.

Is it just that we notice the flaws of the aesthetically pleasing more or is it really a more marked flaw?
Wonder whether it's a flaw, tbh. The occasional bowler gets through but most of the time it's easy runs. Most players as they get older seem to play that sort of game, trying to cover off-stump, milking runs through leg, turn over the strike, etc.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Just to take Ponting & Border as the examples, I'd agree the former looks a more fluent batsman, but he also seems to have a more pronounced techical glitch too where his head tends to fall away to the offside early on in his innings. Takes a good bowler to exploit it, obv, but always reckon anyone with a half-fair indipper fancies their chances whilst Punter's in single digits.

Is it just that we notice the flaws of the aesthetically pleasing more or is it really a more marked flaw?
I've just finished watching his Gabba 196 again (which, in turns of controlled aggression and technique is probably one of the finest innings I've ever seen) and he isn't really doing that at his peak. Incredibly well balanced and on driving. That's the key sign. Mix that with his technique, eye and extraordinary batspeed... I would love, but don't fully expect, to see a player play like that again sometime soon.
 
Last edited:

Himannv

International Coach
IMO if Ponting retired in 2006 he would be rated much higher than what he currently is. Just feel that the fact that his peak is over and that most people dislike him contributes to the fact that he's rated lower than Border. Personally believe he's better than Border although there's no denying that Border does have a reasonable claim to be rated higher than Ponting.

As far as who's better to watch, definitely Ponting.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
IMO if Ponting retired in 2006 he would be rated much higher than what he currently is. Just feel that the fact that his peak is over and that most people dislike him contributes to the fact that he's rated lower than Border. Personally believe he's better than Border although there's no denying that Border does have a reasonable claim to be rated higher than Ponting.

As far as who's better to watch, definitely Ponting.
If Bradman retired in 1930 he would be rated much lower than what he currently is...

On a serious note, a lot of players would be rated higher had they retired earlier - Botham, Richards, Gavaskar, Waqar being some of them. But a career is a career. That remains the fact - beyond the 'if's and the 'but's.

However, coming back to the topic, had Ponting retired in 2006, I would still place Steve , Border and Miandad above him, arguably of course.
 
Last edited:

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
I voted No but I also dont think stats are the only true objective measure. You need context. Stats without context is misleading.

As for the actual question, no looking good doesnt make a better player. Whenever this topic comes up, I always use the example of Yuvraj Singh. He looks really good when timing those glorious drives through the off side, but I would not classify him as a great batsman.

Inzamam, Miandad, Steve Waugh were not the most elegant batsmen to look. All 3 average over 50.
 

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
IMO if Ponting retired in 2006 he would be rated much higher than what he currently is. Just feel that the fact that his peak is over and that most people dislike him contributes to the fact that he's rated lower than Border. Personally believe he's better than Border although there's no denying that Border does have a reasonable claim to be rated higher than Ponting.

As far as who's better to watch, definitely Ponting.
Oh man, Ponting is wayy better than Border..no comparison really.. Ponting is slotted in the same group as Lara and Tendulkar..

And no if Ponting retired in 2006, he would not be rated higher, at least not by me.
He would have less runs, less centuries. Ponting's strongest argument for greatness are his runs and centuries. The lower they are, the weaker the argument becomes.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I voted No but I also dont think stats are the only true objective measure. You need context. Stats without context is misleading.

As for the actual question, no looking good doesnt make a better player. Whenever this topic comes up, I always use the example of Yuvraj Singh. He looks really good when timing those glorious drives through the off side, but I would not classify him as a great batsman.

Inzamam, Miandad, Steve Waugh were not the most elegant batsmen to look. All 3 average over 50.
Inzamam was ***y to watch, atleast for me, I loved the way he caressed the ball into the gaps. And his running. :ph34r:
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just to take Ponting & Border as the examples, I'd agree the former looks a more fluent batsman, but he also seems to have a more pronounced techical glitch too where his head tends to fall away to the offside early on in his innings. Takes a good bowler to exploit it, obv, but always reckon anyone with a half-fair indipper fancies their chances whilst Punter's in single digits.

Is it just that we notice the flaws of the aesthetically pleasing more or is it really a more marked flaw?
I reckon it's merely the illusion of a weakness. Ponting is statistically less likely to get out lbw for less than 10 than Sachin Tendulkar. In spite of the fact that everyone bowls on his pads when he arrives at the crease because of what you just said.

Wonder whether it's a flaw, tbh. The occasional bowler gets through but most of the time it's easy runs. Most players as they get older seem to play that sort of game, trying to cover off-stump, milking runs through leg, turn over the strike, etc.
CW's resident really old man whose name escapes me reports that Don Bradman did the exact same thing, incidentally.
 

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
I dont know about statistically but the way Tendulkar plays, especially for the last 5-6 years, its extremely difficult, almost impossible to get him out lbw.
 

Top