Bijed
International Regular
I'm using Roy as the example here, but there will be quite a few of the current generation of ODI batsmen that this will apply to to varying extents. Or indeed, players of any discipline in any format at various times in history.
Basically, Roy (moreso in light of his recent indifferent/poor performance) cops deserved criticism for being a hack, cashing in batting friendly circumstances (whether those be conditions, opposition or whatever) and generally being a bit unconvincing when things aren't all in his favour. If his career were to end now, with him averaging ~40 and striking at ~105, people will almost certainly be queuing up to point out that he wasn't as good as those eye-catching statistics would suggest.
Thing is, he was picked with a certain mindset/conditions/role in mind. We all know how England were shown to be woefully outmoded in ODIs up to and including the 2015 WC and Roy was brought in as part of a huge push to turn that around. That is, it was hoped he could score rapidly, and hopefully sometimes substantially whilst doing so, in conditions that usually favoured batting - and there's been plenty of (correct, imo) criticism of how favoured batters are in ODIs. He's done that, including against good bowlers and in a World Cup. Basically, he did what was required of him very well, regardless of whether he continues to do so in the future and in doing so, helped turn around his teams' fortunes in as big a way as could have been imagined.
Virtually no-one talks about him or others who have benefited from the same factors whilst maintaining only 'good' records as if they're ATGs or anything, so why do we feel the need to put them down so much? Obviously, we're on a cricket forum so critically assessing players is a good thing to do, but why go out of our way to put down players who will probably only be remembered as 'they played and did alright'. Does it really matter if their headlines stats flatter them? All players are a product of their time and circumstances, after all
NB: It's late here, and I'm tired and drunk. But I've wanted to make a thread for a while about how some players have their positives talked up and their weaknesses downplayed whilst others get the opposite treatment, and this seemed like a way of framing that, at least
Basically, Roy (moreso in light of his recent indifferent/poor performance) cops deserved criticism for being a hack, cashing in batting friendly circumstances (whether those be conditions, opposition or whatever) and generally being a bit unconvincing when things aren't all in his favour. If his career were to end now, with him averaging ~40 and striking at ~105, people will almost certainly be queuing up to point out that he wasn't as good as those eye-catching statistics would suggest.
Thing is, he was picked with a certain mindset/conditions/role in mind. We all know how England were shown to be woefully outmoded in ODIs up to and including the 2015 WC and Roy was brought in as part of a huge push to turn that around. That is, it was hoped he could score rapidly, and hopefully sometimes substantially whilst doing so, in conditions that usually favoured batting - and there's been plenty of (correct, imo) criticism of how favoured batters are in ODIs. He's done that, including against good bowlers and in a World Cup. Basically, he did what was required of him very well, regardless of whether he continues to do so in the future and in doing so, helped turn around his teams' fortunes in as big a way as could have been imagined.
Virtually no-one talks about him or others who have benefited from the same factors whilst maintaining only 'good' records as if they're ATGs or anything, so why do we feel the need to put them down so much? Obviously, we're on a cricket forum so critically assessing players is a good thing to do, but why go out of our way to put down players who will probably only be remembered as 'they played and did alright'. Does it really matter if their headlines stats flatter them? All players are a product of their time and circumstances, after all
NB: It's late here, and I'm tired and drunk. But I've wanted to make a thread for a while about how some players have their positives talked up and their weaknesses downplayed whilst others get the opposite treatment, and this seemed like a way of framing that, at least
