cricket betting betway blog banner small

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

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • No,stats are the only true objective measure

    7 29.17%
  • Obviously,cricket is all about entertainment

    2 8.33%
  • It makes a difference if the stats are close enough

    11 45.83%
  • I don't care about stats

    1 4.17%
  • Other

    3 12.50%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 64

Thread: Better to watch=better player??

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,221

    Better to watch=better player??

    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"?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,221
    Poll added

  3. #3
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    235
    Depends on your reasons for watching cricket.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    7,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Avada Kedavra View Post
    Should a player get extra points for "looking good"?
    No.


  5. #5
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    65,366
    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.
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  6. #6
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,424
    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.
    Last edited by Matt79; 09-08-2010 at 09:06 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  7. #7
    Cricketer Of The Year four_or_six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,205
    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.

  8. #8
    vcs
    vcs is online now
    Hall of Fame Member vcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    India
    Posts
    19,277
    Stats aren't the only true measure of greatness but prettiness shouldn't come into it either, in an ideal world. However, it isn't an ideal world, and it does. I voted for none of the above.

  9. #9
    International Captain Himannv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SL
    Posts
    7,118
    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.
    "I will go down as Darren Sammy, the one who always smiles" - Darren Sammy

  10. #10
    International Coach weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    13,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    No.
    Expected a 'yes' answer from the biggest Waqar Younis fan on this forum...
    "Cricket is an art. Like all arts it has a technical foundation. To enjoy it does not require technical knowledge, but analysis that is not technically based is mere impressionism."
    - C.L.R. James

  11. #11
    International Coach weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    13,303
    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.

  12. #12
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    7,768
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    Expected a 'yes' answer from the biggest Waqar Younis fan on this forum...
    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.

  13. #13
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    46,566
    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.
    Cricket Web's current Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "this was Argentinaís heaviest defeat in the group stage of a World Cup since losing 6-1 to Czechoslovakia in 1958. It is also the first time they have failed to win either of their opening two matches at a World Cup for 44 years. Sampaoliís players, in other words, were creating history here" - The Guardian's Stuart James on Croatia's 3-0 dicking of the South Americans

  14. #14
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    28,131
    None of these options are any good at all. There are a lot of factors outside of pure stats that you'd typically use to determine a player's quality, but how they look isn't one of them.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    None of these options are any good at all. There are a lot of factors outside of pure stats that you'd typically use to determine a player's quality, but how they look isn't one of them.
    There is the "other" option....

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Battrick
    By James in forum Battrick
    Replies: 2535
    Last Post: 31-10-2015, 04:47 PM
  2. *Official* UK off-season 2009/10
    By Richard in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 476
    Last Post: 24-03-2010, 05:11 PM
  3. Mystery Draft V.2 (1989-2009)
    By Mupariwa_Magic in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 492
    Last Post: 21-11-2009, 01:00 PM
  4. One Day Round 7 Team & Player of the Week
    By Simon in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 21-06-2009, 05:43 PM
  5. my team
    By bugssy in forum Battrick
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 18-04-2007, 06:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •