The primary value of a cricketer is in...

[TheJediBrah]

The currency of cricket is runs and wickets. You don't get results by beautifully caressing a ball down on one knee straight to cover.

One could argue the currency of cricket is also the literal monetary currency that the game brings in, which is also necessary for professional cricket to exist as it is.

hence why entertainment value could be considered a factor

 

[Burgey]

If you've got two blokes of similar output, then certainly I would rather watch the more entertaining player. But if you have to choose between a bloke who churns out runs or wickets with bloke who looks stylish but can't perform, I'd have the former all the time.

 

[Black_Warrior]

his ability to win games or to entertain the crowd?

Was thinking about this with special reference to the McGrath vs. Wasim debate. I can grudgingly concede that if I wanted to get a batsman out I'd pick McGrath. But if I wanted to be entertained I would definitely choose Wasim.

Which has more value for a cricketer, skill value or entertainment value, is not clear.

Entertaining is a very subjective word and it means different things to different people as is apparent from the various comments on this thread.

I think a team should always be picked on ability to win games and contribute towards the team's cause.

Whether this is a valid point in the Wasim-McGrath debate is another story though.

Neither is Wasim less of a matchwinner than McGrath, nor was McGrath less entertaining that Wasim.

 

[Dan]

A cricketer's value really depends on who is evaluating it though.

****ing relativists.

 

[Dan]

"Oooh look at me I have a vague grasp of poststructuralism so everything is meaningless and nothing is real, let's debate what words mean for the next six pages."

(Yes I know I'm incredibly guilty of this)

 

[Black_Warrior]

I don't know what post structuralism but Entertainment is something that is subjective because it is based on personal preferences and cannot really be assessed. I mean a lot of people find Adam Sandler entertaining, I do not understand for the life of me why but they do. No accounting for that.

Match winning ability on the other hand is something that can be assessed and analysed in an objective way sports make it very simple.

You pick a team that gives you the best chance of winning the game based on hard data like performances, records, skillset. How it looks to others, whether they find it entertaining or fun or whatever should have no bearing.

 

[harsh.ag]

In the end, what this thread really comes down to is Quiney's 9 vs Tendulkar's 241*

 

[watson]

Test match cricket is the closest approximation to real life that sport offers (it even has moments of tedium and boredom). That's why it has real resonance.

The runs and wickets are neither here nor there. The tragedy of Blythe, Jackson, and Verity, the artistry of Gower, the courage of Lillee, and the inspiration of Imran and Hadlee is everything.

The primary value of a cricketer lies at the interface between their heroism and their humanity.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Test match cricket is the closest approximation to real life that sport offers (it even has moments of tedium and boredom). That's why it has real resonance.

The runs and wickets are neither here nor there. The tragedy of Blythe, Jackson, and Verity, the artistry of Gower, the courage of Lillee, and the inspiration of Imran and Hadlee is everything.

The primary value of a cricketer lies at the interface between their heroism and their humanity.

Excellent post overall but the one in bold is a quote to remember.

 

[Pratters]

The currency of cricket is runs and wickets. You don't get results by beautifully caressing a ball down on one knee straight to cover.

This is true. However, I find myself enjoying a cricketer because of his ability but also because of his style. I might enjoy watching a competent first class or club cricketer if I like his style of player or his effectiveness or both.

 

[Pratters]

When Australia was winning almost every time they set foot on the field during the late 90s, there was a media campaign that the Aussies bashing one opponent after the other wasn't good for the game. I found that to be nonsense as whole competitiveness is great, a team being excellent is enjoyable a fair bit as well.

 

[Black_Warrior]

When Australia was winning almost every time they set foot on the field during the late 90s, there was a media campaign that the Aussies bashing one opponent after the other wasn't good for the game. I found that to be nonsense as whole competitiveness is great, a team being excellent is enjoyable a fair bit as well.

Well it has to do with the wording. Of course if people are blaming Australia for being too good then they are being dickheads. But I think a legitimate point could be made about the other teams at that time who were pretty mediocre. I mean both 03 and 07 world cups were pretty predictable because of this, and one team winning two world cups in a row unbeaten says a lot about the quality of the rest of the world at that time. Again not a criticism of Australia at all..Kudos to them for being so good..but there was on a number occasions, a situation of mismatch because of how behind the ROW was at that time.

 

[smash84]

Well it has to do with the wording. Of course if people are blaming Australia for being too good then they are being dickheads. But I think a legitimate point could be made about the other teams at that time who were pretty mediocre. I mean both 03 and 07 world cups were pretty predictable because of this, and one team winning two world cups in a row unbeaten says a lot about the quality of the rest of the world at that time. Again not a criticism of Australia at all..Kudos to them for being so good..but there was on a number occasions, a situation of mismatch because of how behind the ROW was at that time.

I think there is a huge difference between Australia being godly and the rest being ****e. In that time the other teams did compete reasonably well against each other. It is just that the Aus team of that era is arguably the greatest team to ever take the cricket field for a significant length of time. The other teams weren't ****e.

 

[vcs]

I used to watch all their games, especially after the 2001 series because the quality of their cricket was just that good. When they won, you could admire their brilliance. And when they lost, it took something epic to stop them.

 

[Prince EWS]

Meh, value is subjective. Corey Richards and Vusi Sibanda provide more cricketing value to me personally than Greg Chappell. If we're going to discuss who was better though then this personal value is a pointless diversion from a criteria we might be able to loosely agree on though, so I I think entertainment/style/career narrative/random favouritism should be set aside in those debates. I think they're all important aspects of following cricket, but tend to just confuse potentially interesting discussions about contribution to the team cause.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Meh, value is subjective. Corey Richards and Vusi Sibanda provide more cricketing value to me personally than Greg Chappell. If we're going to discuss who was better though then this personal value is a pointless diversion from a criteria we might be able to loosely agree on though, so I I think entertainment/style/career narrative/random favouritism should be set aside in those debates. I think they're all important aspects of following cricket, but tend to just confuse potentially interesting discussions about contribution to the team cause.

Agree and disagree with the last sentence. These things are important aspects of following cricket, but they don't confuse or distract from anything imo. Talking about a player's sheer entertainment value is as legitimate as anything else, because it is precisely in a player's entertainment value that money flows into cricket and players' salaries can be paid and Test cricket can even be possible.

 

[Prince EWS]

Agree and disagree with the last sentence. These things are important aspects of following cricket, but they don't confuse or distract from anything imo. Talking about a player's sheer entertainment value is as legitimate as anything else, because it is precisely in a player's entertainment value that money flows into cricket and players' salaries can be paid and Test cricket can even be possible.

Yeah but entertainment itself is such a subjective concept in the first place. We can both watch something of which I'm entertained and you're not, but if we both watch someone take 7/20 we'll both always agree that the player has contributed to his team cause. I think your argument only holds at all if you only talk about how entertaining a player was to everyone put together rather than just yourself. I found Daren Ganga really entertaining but it didn't mean he was contributing to the market value of cricket if most of everyone else found him boring as bat****. "He brought lots of people to the game" is an argument you could make if you really wanted to commoditise a player's contribution to cricket, but "I found him entertaining personally" doesn't really say anything that makes a player better on any objective front.

 

[cnerd123]

Goddamn it Cribb. You've ruined the thread.

 

[Prince EWS]

Goddamn it Cribb. You've ruined the thread.

You really need to go to Likeaholics Anonymous or something. You liked my posts and then still complained about them.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I've got no problem with subjective concepts. They're not any less meaningful or legitimate to my mind.

Agree with your points in general. It's hard to think of a situation where a bowler taking 7/20 could not be entertaining though. Even if it happened against the BCs I'd still be mightily entertained, if not particularly thrilled.