• 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.

Simon Jones Sent Home

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:

Yes, though, I do think you, Richie, Athers and co. judge bowlers on the wrong thing. Believe it or not, I do have the nerve to think that you don't have to have watched cricket for vast numbers of years, or played it to an exceptional standard, to be a good analyst of it.

erm...you what....you see the thing is you THINK you are a good analyst. Give me Richie's opinion (one of the great leggies and one of the great captains of all time mind) over an 18year old club cricketer (at best i would imagine, forgive me if i am wrong) any day of the week....I am afraid your opinions (no matter how well thought out, I apprciate your comments dont come without thought, however misguided) lack true historical depth and knowledge of how the game is really played at the top level. Watching film of pre war cricket is all well and good, but some of these people who you dont appear to value actually saw those players live.

I dont know what you intend doing with your life, but please, for your own sake, dont venture into cricket journolism coz you would be laughed out of town.

I know I havent seen that much cricket (1980 onwards for me), but at least I appear to have developed a sense of knowing what i know, and not relying on pure guess work based on what i think i know.

What your lack of experience of watching live cricket and or playing the game brings about is a lack of deep understanding of how the game is played and how it works.....and I am not claiming to have all the answers on that one,I am still learning about those things, thats one of the things that makes the game facinating to me..there is so much to learn...you appear to have reached a point where you beleive you have reached your zenith, that you know pretty much all there is you need to know about the game...sorry mate, you are way off the mark.

When you have seen the game as much as Benaud has, then i might take your opinions on matters such as this a bit more seriously.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
This whole thing is ludicrous - watching more players simply means you'll have more opinions, not more guided ones.
If I didn't think I was a good analyst, meanwhile, I wouldn't bother analysing.
The basic thing which you cannot seem to accept is that I am not a bad analyst because I am in fact very good at predicting, etc.
I'm afraid just because I choose to value good bowling and runs which have been earnt through good batting, I'm afraid doesn't make me a poor analyst.
Basically the only thing for which you can criticise someone is inconsistencies in angles, and if you can find any of that I simply ask you to try.
No-one will ever stop learning, but I will never change my attitudes and values.
There is no significant difference between seeing stuff live, and knowing people behind them, and watching tapes of it, and if you can't see that you really do need to think seriously. Because the fact is I have watched every bit as much cricket as many, many people - just not watched it live, and watched it in a hell of a shorter space of time.
If you really want to compare me and Richie, just take some cases - Harmison, for instance. And you ignore the massive number of players who have been talked-up by various so-called experts who have been complete flops.
The fact is, expertism is simply a random pick, often based on former playing ability. There are many, many people (some on this board) who are every bit as observant as the TV and radio pundits and the tabloid-journalists.
Meanwhile, if I would be "laughed-out" of journalism then fine - but for sure I wouldn't be laughed-out for reporting stuff inaccurately.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
I've never said anything of the sort.

Richard said:
But if he ends-up with good figures against his name I'll know WI have underperformed (I won't even need to recall what I've watched), or just had a strange spate of playing all the poor strokes (that they will inevitably play - because they are human) against him.

So what do you mean by this - saying if he takes a load of wickets it's either underperforming batsmen or a spate of poor shots.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Why?
Because someone who judges batsmen on how well they bat and bowlers on how well they bowl can't be making the right judgement?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
So what do you mean by this - saying if he takes a load of wickets it's either underperforming batsmen or a spate of poor shots.
True, slightly misphrased.
Just to avoid it looking like I'm contradicting myself, I'll edit that.
 

twctopcat

International Regular
Richard said:
This whole thing is ludicrous - watching more players simply means you'll have more opinions, not more guided ones.
Yet your abundance of opinions are supposedly supposed to be correct and analytical at the same time. The whole point of analysis is that it is supposed to be objective, which is why people such as benaud have a greater ability of it than you, because they have far more expertise in their field than you in terms of cricketing technique, both physical and mental, no matter how many prehistoric cricket videos you may have seen. Get over it sunshine, your not as enlightened as you may wish to be.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Basically what you've just said there is "you're a better analyst if you've seen more stuff".
What you have not said is why.
The closest you have come is saying that they have seen cricketing technique in person. Wow. :rolleyes:
 

twctopcat

International Regular
Richard said:
Basically what you've just said there is "you're a better analyst if you've seen more stuff".
What you have not said is why.
The closest you have come is saying that they have seen cricketing technique in person. Wow. :rolleyes:
No, but it certainly does help, experience helps in any field i find. Cricket isn't as black and white as you sometimes presume. And experience is a thing that comes with age, which is sometimes something you see to forget. I know your trying to say how the large majority of ex-cricketers who are now analysts are often incorrect (the old phrase "those who can do, those who can't teach" is obviously your motto) but i don't really buy that. Having listened, read and watched to plenty of them, they speak a lot of sense, which in part comes down to their many experiences of the game.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
As some people have said, if you actually take some time to think about what I tend to say, it makes sense.
Most people, however, simply tend to reject it out of hand because it does not fit in with orthodoxy.
Experience, meanwhile, comes if you look for it. You don't need to be old to be experienced, you just need to have taken your chances to get experience.
 

Craig

World Traveller
I whole heartly agree, you can learn as much in 3 years as in 10 years depending on how long and committed you are.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Craig said:
I whole heartly agree, you can learn as much in 3 years as in 10 years depending on how long and committed you are.
in essense I agree...howeverwhat one would lack if the majority of ones knowledge comes from reading and watching highlight film from yesteryear, is a true sense of historical perspective....only if you were there at the time (and watching the game whether it be on TV or live at the ground) can you pick up on the context of what is happening. To know how good some one was or a team was, youneed to have seen that team/player actually play. Other than that you are making assumptions,which could quite easily be wrong.

So if you dont see it yourself, you have to pick up on comments made by people who did see it/or play in it.

So yes you can learn alot of facts and figures in 3 years and you can study a lot of players in that time, but you wont get a true vision of what was really going on..and that my friends is where Richie Benaud has it over Richard (to be honest I cannot beleive I have wasted 5 mins trying to justify why I would trust Benauds opinion over Richard's)
 

Craig

World Traveller
I think watching highlights from when Bradman batted right to the mid 1990s helps a lot if you werent around.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Craig said:
I think watching highlights from when Bradman batted right to the mid 1990s helps a lot if you werent around.
possibly..or on the other hand..watching a few minutes of highlights from a given period of time may well help distort what you beleive to be the truth
 

Swervy

International Captain
Craig said:
I think they are a little bit longer then a 'few minutes'.
ok maybe i have assumed that..but it certainly would not too much footage,because there isnt THAT much around,well not enough to make accurate judgments of an entire period of cricket
 

Craig

World Traveller
Well when I invent a time machine, I will travel through the era's of the game and come back and have a vast superior knowledge :D :baddevil: :ninja:
 

Swervy

International Captain
Craig said:
Well when I invent a time machine, I will travel through the era's of the game and come back and have a vast superior knowledge :D :baddevil: :ninja:
indeed you would
 

Top