Avada Kedavra
Banned
I've seen the argument a fair few times that if A is better to watch than B that makes him a better player.I'd like to know what the general opinion is on this one?Should a player get extra points for "looking good"?
-
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??
- Thread starter Avada Kedavra
- Start date
Avada Kedavra
Banned
Poll added
Teja.
Global Moderator
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
a) Where has this argument popped up? I think it is brought up VERY rarely. I think I heard once someone say Mark Waugh was the more talented player, and that goes to talent only being in the ability to hit more cricket shots, rather than taking into account mental strength, endurance, patience etc. No one ever said he was better/more effective
b) Judging whether a player is good to watch is incredibly subjective. Sure you have some like Sanga, Laxman, Martyn who seem to almost purely have everyone's love. But there are others like Gilly, Gibbs and Sehwag who completely divide people. Same with Dravid and Kallis.
b) Judging whether a player is good to watch is incredibly subjective. Sure you have some like Sanga, Laxman, Martyn who seem to almost purely have everyone's love. But there are others like Gilly, Gibbs and Sehwag who completely divide people. Same with Dravid and Kallis.
Matt79
Global Moderator
Wouldn't say it necessarily makes them a better player, but it's entirely reasonable to say that you like a player more because you find them more attractive to watch (Watto, I'm thinking of you...).
If, on the other hand, all other aspects of being a batsman between player A and player B are equal, I would have no hesitation in saying that I would personally rate the player who's style I admire more highly than the other guy. But only if they were otherwise equal.
EDIT: I voted for "makes a difference if the stats are close enough" because that was closest to what I've said above, but I'll add that I think stats in and of themselves are usually a very very crude and often unreliable way of judging a player's quality.
If, on the other hand, all other aspects of being a batsman between player A and player B are equal, I would have no hesitation in saying that I would personally rate the player who's style I admire more highly than the other guy. But only if they were otherwise equal.
EDIT: I voted for "makes a difference if the stats are close enough" because that was closest to what I've said above, but I'll add that I think stats in and of themselves are usually a very very crude and often unreliable way of judging a player's quality.
Last edited:
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
Certainly I prefer certain players who I find more attractive to watch, but not even I would argue that Shane Watson is a better bowler than Glenn McGrath, or deserves to be judged as such.
Himannv
International Coach
I voted Other purely because I think it depends on the player. For me the likes of Aravinda, Jayawardena, Mark Waugh and Lara will always be better to watch than the rest. While it doesn't mean that they are better players than others, I'm more likely to consider them better players and say stats dont matter simply because I'm a biased ****.
On the other hand, the likes of Zaheer Abbas, Sehwag, Watson (Ahem) and Gibbs are equally good to watch when they're on song but I'm likely to look at stats when judging them simply because I dont like them as much as the other lot.
Either way I think I can only class this view as other. And yes, I know that some of the numbers of the players I mentioned dont really suck, they're primarily examples.
On the other hand, the likes of Zaheer Abbas, Sehwag, Watson (Ahem) and Gibbs are equally good to watch when they're on song but I'm likely to look at stats when judging them simply because I dont like them as much as the other lot.
Either way I think I can only class this view as other. And yes, I know that some of the numbers of the players I mentioned dont really suck, they're primarily examples.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Expected a 'yes' answer from the biggest Waqar Younis fan on this forum...
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
It depends on whether you are putting stats in the true perspective.
If one views 'stats' as some pure numbers like batting avg., bowling avg., no. of matches, etc. etc. then he might NOT get an idea about who the better player is from stats alone.
But if one considers some other relevant factors hidden behind the stats (the era, the quality of pitches, the quality of opposition to name a few) and consider those stats which are logically relevant, and disregard those stats which are statistically irrelevant (and more importantly keep an unbiased frame of mind while judging stats), then one might get a very good idea about who the better player is using stats alone.
Having said that, there are some disciplines in cricket where probably there exists no statistically relevant numbers - wicketkeeping skills, fielding, catching and captaincy being among those disciplines. So, judging those disciplines by stats might lead to nowhere.
If one views 'stats' as some pure numbers like batting avg., bowling avg., no. of matches, etc. etc. then he might NOT get an idea about who the better player is from stats alone.
But if one considers some other relevant factors hidden behind the stats (the era, the quality of pitches, the quality of opposition to name a few) and consider those stats which are logically relevant, and disregard those stats which are statistically irrelevant (and more importantly keep an unbiased frame of mind while judging stats), then one might get a very good idea about who the better player is using stats alone.
Having said that, there are some disciplines in cricket where probably there exists no statistically relevant numbers - wicketkeeping skills, fielding, catching and captaincy being among those disciplines. So, judging those disciplines by stats might lead to nowhere.
Teja.
Global Moderator
Nah. I rate Waqar as high as I do, not because of the amazing aesthetics of his bowling, but because of the fact that he got wickets much faster than the other ATG bowlers but still maintained a very miserly average.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Ultimately cricket, like all sport in fact, is a form of entertainment so one's naturally better disposed to players who entertain. To take an obvious contrast: the two Waugh twins. I'd rather watch a Mark innings but equally I'd have Steve in my team first any and every time.
Avada Kedavra
Banned
There is the "other" option....
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
Yes. Otherwise whats the point of being a cricket fan?
Of course, what actually translates as 'better to watch' is up to someone's personal taste. I find Lara better to watch than Tendulkar, for example.
Of course, what actually translates as 'better to watch' is up to someone's personal taste. I find Lara better to watch than Tendulkar, for example.
Yeah largely agree with this.
Being a cricket fan is not supposed to be about being objective, in terms of judging who is a better player it should probably not play a role but always will in my personal estimations.
Would say though that there are certain sportsmen that appear to be blessed with something out of the ordinary. Think most of us would recognise that in certain players.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
The number of people putting Ponting a tier above Border for me is a strong case for the "better to watch=better" argument.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's no doubt that people generally rank players they prefer to watch higher. It would take some genuine effort not to. The poll is just asking whether this should be the case.
Of course Irish Opener and Pothas are right, but not when it gets to the stage where someone's scraping the barrel for arguments as to why Tendulkar is in a different league to Lara when the truth is that they just like watching him bat better.
