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"?
No.Should a player get extra points for "looking good"?
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.Expected a 'yes' answer from the biggest Waqar Younis fan on this forum...
There is the "other" option....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.
Yeah largely agree with this.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.
The number of people putting Ponting a tier above Border for me is a strong case for the "better to watch=better" argument.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
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.The number of people putting Ponting a tier above Border for me is a strong case for the "better to watch=better" argument.