Selfish mother ****ers

[Mike5181]

Check out Shane Watson's AMA on reddit. Completely changed my opinion of him:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/5tri15/hi_rcricket_this_is_the_ama_for_shane_watson/

 

[Debris]

I guess this thread wouldn't be complete without at least one mention of Shane Watson, a real narcissist behind closed doors.

Chris Gayle also fits this bill, not for being a T20 mercenary, but for the lack of support he gives his team-mates IMO.

Shane Warne definately. Especially for that "can't bowl, can't throw" comment about Scott Muller. Obviously Muller didn't fit into the the Aussie dressing room "boys club" according to Warne.

David Gower was known for repeatedly pissing off his skipper Graham Gooch by batting carelessly during key moments in sessions.

Shahid Afridi too. Back when he was captaining Pakistan in Tests, couldn't he have, you know, not gone the tonk everytime he was at crease? Subsequently he would be out for 10 of 3 balls

SF Barnes was somewhat selfish, in that his attitude to cricket was "I'm here to do one thing only: take wickets". Rarely did Barnes ever display any ambition to become a better batsman, fielder or team man.

WG Grace, of course, perhaps the most selfish of them all, never gave a flying f-bomb about anyone else on the field.

And pretty much anyone who ever fixed a match I guess.

How Shane Warne is mentioned here mystifies me if we are still talking about players who cost their side the game. He is a massive douchebag but I almost literally can't think of anyone who was less likely to cost you a game.

Just as a side note, someone else had admitted to making that comment so you are verging on joining the tinfoil hat brigade if you still are accusing Warne. He has plenty of actual douchery to his name so no real need to pin anonymous comments on him.

 

[Red]

Why though? No way this applies to someone who's top order constantly fails. If you're the best batsman in your team at no. 6, you should be able to be the best batsman in your team at no. 3

That'd be the case if cricketer's skills were simply robots who had a simple skill percentage out of 100% and you put your best in first, like computer cricket.

As it stands with humans, sometimes the best batsman in a team doesn't necessarily want to potentially face the second ball of the innings against a fresh paceman. Maybe they edge the new ball, or are masters against spin. You bat players where they're gonna contribute most for the team. Thought this was pretty simple.

Chanderpaul, Clarke, SWaugh, Lara, KP have all been guys better suited down the order in spite of being the best batsman in their team at times.

 

[cnerd123]

I can understand the Warne selection if you consider stuff like behaviour in the dressing room and at practice sessions and stuff. I can't imagine him wanting to stay back and help pack up the kit or sit out of a warmup game and run drinks to the boys playing and stuff.

In fact even on the field, would Warne be willing to be a nightwatchman, or run around and throw himself around on the field vs just being parked at slip?


Afridi is a great shout tho. So much batting talent wasted because he wanted to be entertaining and couldn't learn to resist his impluses to smash the ball. WAG.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How Shane Warne is mentioned here mystifies me if we are still talking about players who cost their side the game. He is a massive douchebag but I almost literally can't think of anyone who was less likely to cost you a game.

Just as a side note, someone else had admitted to making that comment so you are verging on joining the tinfoil hat brigade if you still are accusing Warne. He has plenty of actual douchery to his name so no real need to pin anonymous comments on him.

Yeah people are taking "selfish" as meaning very different things. There's selfish players (Warne, Pietersen) who are cricketers that happen to be selfish people but not in the way they play, and those who play selfishly (Kallis, Chanderpaul).

That'd be the case if cricketer's skills were simply robots who had a simple skill percentage out of 100% and you put your best in first, like computer cricket.

As it stands with humans, sometimes the best batsman in a team doesn't necessarily want to potentially face the second ball of the innings against a fresh paceman. Maybe they edge the new ball, or are masters against spin. You bat players where they're gonna contribute most for the team. Thought this was pretty simple.

Chanderpaul, Clarke, SWaugh, Lara, KP have all been guys better suited down the order in spite of being the best batsman in their team at times.

It is very simple. So overly simple such that you've confused yourself.

 

[Red]

It is very simple. So overly simple such that you've confused yourself.

So it's better to have someone average 36 at #3 rather than 56 at #5 because they're the best batsman even though they struggle against the short new ball or edge the new ball to slips?

 

[Daemon]

Bradman was very selfish. Didn't want anyone else past or future to ever be as good as him.

 

[honestbharani]

But RedHill, if by averaging 36 at #3, you might actually be getting more runs for your team than averaging 56 at #5 with red inks everywhere.

 

[Daemon]

So it's better to have someone average 36 at #3 rather than 56 at #5 because they're the best batsman even though they struggle against the short new ball or edge the new ball to slips?

What if the guy who bats #3 averages 15 but would average 40 if he played at #5

 

[StephenZA]

Can somebody please explain why Kallis is considered a selfish cricketer? Yes he batted slowly and put a lot of value on his wicket... but this is what was asked of him for most of his career by the SA team and managment? It was not a personal choice. So how does this make him selfish?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can somebody please explain why Kallis is considered a selfish cricketer? Yes he batted slowly and put a lot of value on his wicket... but this is what was asked of him for most of his career by the SA team and managment? It was not a personal choice. So how does this make him selfish?

Dunno, everyone's just saying it so I went along with it

I guess it's just because he's slow, which hasn't really been in issue in Tests except possibly costing SA time to bowl out opposition, but there are times in ODIs where his batting has cost the team

 

[watson]

Why though? No way this applies to someone who's top order constantly fails. If you're the best batsman in your team at no. 6, you should be able to be the best batsman in your team at no. 3

Batting against the new ball requires a specific set of technical skills, and not everyone has those skills despite being world class batsman otherwise.

So why sacrifice a key batsman who is likely to make a century batting at 4-6 just so he make a mediocre score shielding mediocre batsman who are going to fail anyway no matter what?

 

[honestbharani]

I agree about the top order Vs middle order argument but as far as Chanders goes, he is still a selfish **** as he never manned up and even batted 4.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Can somebody please explain why Kallis is considered a selfish cricketer? Yes he batted slowly and put a lot of value on his wicket... but this is what was asked of him for most of his career by the SA team and managment? It was not a personal choice. So how does this make him selfish?

Kallis is a total gun and was never selfish imo. There was a match vs Aus or England I think back in 04/5 where he was accused of batting too slowly in the second innings in a declaration situation. Really unfair and he only got that criticism because of his lack of outward flamboyance. There was a big article on cricinfo at the time too.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Batting against the new ball requires a specific set of technical skills, and not everyone has those skills despite being world class batsman otherwise.

So why sacrifice a key batsman who is likely to make a century batting at 4-6 just so he make a mediocre score shielding mediocre batsman who are going to fail anyway no matter what?

Because that is a very limited factor in reality. It's just isn't realistic. No one's going to be 20 runs worse at 5 than at 3. It might have happened statistically to players but not purely because of where they batted. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Chanderpaul wasn't going to be **** if he moved up to 3 or 4. That's just stupid.

 

[Red]

Because that is a very limited factor in reality. It's just isn't realistic. No one's going to be 20 runs worse at 5 than at 3. It might have happened statistically to players but not purely because of where they batted. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Chanderpaul wasn't going to be **** if he moved up to 3 or 4. That's just stupid.

No one is saying that. The fact is some guys aren't suited to #3, and that just because you're the best batsman in the team you don't automatically have to bat there.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Batting against the new ball requires a specific set of technical skills, and not everyone has those skills despite being world class batsman otherwise.

So why sacrifice a key batsman who is likely to make a century batting at 4-6 just so he make a mediocre score shielding mediocre batsman who are going to fail anyway no matter what?

Because getting runs up front achieves both things. It gets the team runs and it blunts the attack, making it more likely that the shunts batting below you can get a few runs.

And batting at number 5,chanderpaul was far more likely to get a pretty worthless 42* than get a hundred.

 

[StephenZA]

Dunno, everyone's just saying it so I went along with it

I guess it's just because he's slow, which hasn't really been in issue in Tests except possibly costing SA time to bowl out opposition, but there are times in ODIs where his batting has cost the team

I can accept it for the ODI`s possibly... but he had a similar role early career for keeping the innings together even in ODI`s, we had many big hitters but few consistent batsmen. Still don`t think he was a selfish player in anyway.

 

[fredfertang]

Boycott was plain selfish.

Has to be the best (worst) example

I don't think there has there ever been an incidental comparable to that one in Christchurch when he was England captain and batting so slowly when we needed quick runs that his vice-captain (Bob Willis) sent Ian Botham out with instructions to run him out

 

[TheJediBrah]

No one is saying that. The fact is some guys aren't suited to #3, and that just because you're the best batsman in the team you don't automatically have to bat there.

Ok I never said otherwise