Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
I have been thinking about this lately based on the various discussions and posts in various tour threads in CC. One of the thing that I find interesting is how fans of different teams will have a certain way of assessing their teams.
Example: If Australia score 300 and lose an ODI game, we will most definitely criticise the bowling.
If India score 300 and lose a game, we will often say oh India should have scored 350 knowing that their bowling is ****.
South Africa failed to defend 204 yesterday and while I thought the bowling was tripe, I found it interesting that a lot of the SA fans were saying South Africa were short by 30-40 runs.
Pakistan failed to defend 130 in 20 overs against Bangladesh and some of us said well we knew the batting was **** so the bowlers should have done more.
So here's the thing, do we assess performances based on individual strengths and weaknesses of that team or do we have a common objective standard where we say 300 is a good score and if you don't defend it, your bowlers are ****, or we say I am sorry 130 is just not good enough and you can't expect any more from your bowlers.
I think it's also interesting that such different perspectives are seen in LO threads and not test match threads. Perhaps it there is a more commonly accepted objective way of assessing both bowling and batting. We rarely say oh the score was 30 runs short in test cricket.
And if we do assess them based on individual strengths and weaknesses, then essentially what we are saying is Indian batsmen scoring 300 in 50 overs is not good enough but Pakistani batsmen scoring 280 in 50 overs is absolutely brilliant.
Example: If Australia score 300 and lose an ODI game, we will most definitely criticise the bowling.
If India score 300 and lose a game, we will often say oh India should have scored 350 knowing that their bowling is ****.
South Africa failed to defend 204 yesterday and while I thought the bowling was tripe, I found it interesting that a lot of the SA fans were saying South Africa were short by 30-40 runs.
Pakistan failed to defend 130 in 20 overs against Bangladesh and some of us said well we knew the batting was **** so the bowlers should have done more.
So here's the thing, do we assess performances based on individual strengths and weaknesses of that team or do we have a common objective standard where we say 300 is a good score and if you don't defend it, your bowlers are ****, or we say I am sorry 130 is just not good enough and you can't expect any more from your bowlers.
I think it's also interesting that such different perspectives are seen in LO threads and not test match threads. Perhaps it there is a more commonly accepted objective way of assessing both bowling and batting. We rarely say oh the score was 30 runs short in test cricket.
And if we do assess them based on individual strengths and weaknesses, then essentially what we are saying is Indian batsmen scoring 300 in 50 overs is not good enough but Pakistani batsmen scoring 280 in 50 overs is absolutely brilliant.