The primary value of a cricketer is in...

[Prince EWS]

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

It's not that they're less meaningful; it's just that there's no objective truth to try to find the meaning of through discussion. That doesn't make it illegitimate; it just means you can't really have a back and forth over a cricket forum about it as such. If you found something entertaining and I don't, neither of us are wrong; it's purely a matter of subjective taste. If we factor in subjective concepts like that when deciding which cricketers are better then I can straight up say I think Vusi is a better batsman than Bradman without being wrong because it could absolutely be subjectively true.

Again, it's not that these concepts are unimportant or lesser. But they should definitely be separated from discussions that centre around performance value, unless you're talking about some net entertainment value across the whole population rather than just yours personally.

 

[cnerd123]

It's not that they're less meaningful; it's just that there's no objective truth to try to find the meaning of through discussion. That doesn't make it illegitimate; it just means you can't really have a back and forth over a cricket forum about it as such. If you found something entertaining and I don't, neither of us are wrong; it's purely a matter of subjective taste. If we factor in subjective concepts like that when deciding which cricketers are better then I can straight up say I think Vusi is a better batsman than Bradman without being wrong because it could absolutely be subjectively true.

Again, it's not that these concepts are unimportant or lesser. But they should definitely be separated from discussions that centre around performance value, unless you're talking about some net entertainment value across the whole population rather than just yours personally.

Ashes to ashes
Dust to dust
If Dan doesn't bore you,
Then PEWS must.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ashes to ashes
Dust to dust
If Dan doesn't bore you,
Then PEWS must.

Look I'm sure you'll agree that it's better to hash out these things in threads kiwivictor starts than watch as he applies them repeatedly in tour threads. Bevan, anyone?

 

[cnerd123]

Look I'm sure you'll agree that it's better to hash out these things in threads kiwivictor starts than watch as he applies them repeatedly in tour threads. Bevan, anyone?

Well yea, but I quite enjoy the ****storms that result due to these misunderstandings. If we're all being smart and rational then where's the fun?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

How the **** did this end up about Michael ****ing Bevan by the third page

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

This is quite a bit off the mark. There were some very decent teams during that time, and not any worse than they have been since. Australia were just that good.

for example the 2003 world cup: Sri Lanka and India had very strong sides, New Zealand, South Africa (despite ****ing up) and even England were pretty good too.

 

[Black_Warrior]

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.

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.

It's not that they're less meaningful; it's just that there's no objective truth to try to find the meaning of through discussion. That doesn't make it illegitimate; it just means you can't really have a back and forth over a cricket forum about it as such. If you found something entertaining and I don't, neither of us are wrong; it's purely a matter of subjective taste. If we factor in subjective concepts like that when deciding which cricketers are better then I can straight up say I think Vusi is a better batsman than Bradman without being wrong because it could absolutely be subjectively true.

Again, it's not that these concepts are unimportant or lesser. But they should definitely be separated from discussions that centre around performance value, unless you're talking about some net entertainment value across the whole population rather than just yours personally.

Most of the time, posts by PEWS goes straight over my head like a Johnson bouncer. But I feel like I sort of understood what he was saying here...maybe about 60-70%?

 

[cnerd123]

He's basically saying that when you ask people what the primary 'value' of a cricketer is, you are asking them what they value in a cricketer. And they will respond accordingly. There is no right or wrong answer. The discussion is essentially meaningless. Everyone has their own preferences - the definition of value is subjective.

When you starting asking what the primary 'value' of a cricketer should be, you then need to specify which perspective you are looking from. Are you evaluating value as deemed by a coach? A sponsor? An IPL franchise? A person looking to assemble the best possible team to succeed on a cricket simulator? Depending on what perspective you look from, you will weigh each of the factors (style, statistics, mentality, etc etc) differently, and thus will have a different definition of what the primary 'value' of a cricketer is.

This is essentially a meaningless question. There is no answer to it.

God I'm boring myself now. Quick, kiwivictor, start explaining to us why Bevan sucks again plz.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Chris Gayle would say hunting *****.

 

[Black_Warrior]

He's basically saying that when you ask people what the primary 'value' of a cricketer is, you are asking them what they value in a cricketer. And they will respond accordingly. There is no right or wrong answer. The discussion is essentially meaningless. Everyone has their own preferences - the definition of value is subjective.

When you starting asking what the primary 'value' of a cricketer should be, you then need to specify which perspective you are looking from. Are you evaluating value as deemed by a coach? A sponsor? An IPL franchise? A person looking to assemble the best possible team to succeed on a cricket simulator? Depending on what perspective you look from, you will weigh each of the factors (style, statistics, mentality, etc etc) differently, and thus will have a different definition of what the primary 'value' of a cricketer is.

This is essentially a meaningless question. There is no answer to it.

God I'm boring myself now. Quick, kiwivictor, start explaining to us why Bevan sucks again plz.

So basically he just copied what I said a few pages earlier in simpler English?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I want to see a scenario where a cricketer's value is completely monetary. Batting and bowling lineups won't be decided by the captain but instead auctioned off to fans. In fact there won't be any need for teams because people will pay money to see any matchup they want.

 

[cnerd123]

So basically he just copied what I said a few pages earlier in simpler English?

He said it better tbf. You hinted to the same conclusion, he came up and outright said it and explained it well. Typical high-quality PEWS posting.

He also bored us all to death and killed the thread in the process though. WAC.

 

[cnerd123]

I want to see a scenario where a cricketer's value is completely monetary. Batting and bowling lineups won't be decided by the captain but instead auctioned off to fans. In fact there won't be any need for teams because people will pay money to see any matchup they want.

Pretty sure the BCCI is already working on this.

 

[Black_Warrior]

He said it better tbf. You hinted to the same conclusion, he came up and outright said it and explained it well. Typical high-quality PEWS posting.

He also bored us all to death and killed the thread in the process though. WAC.

Hey, English my second language..cut me some slack arlight.

 

[Flem274*]

I want to see a scenario where a cricketer's value is completely monetary. Batting and bowling lineups won't be decided by the captain but instead auctioned off to fans. In fact there won't be any need for teams because people will pay money to see any matchup they want.

pews just came

 

[cnerd123]

Hey, English my second language..cut me some slack arlight.

Irrelevant. I wasn't mocking you for your inability to explain a concept as clearly as PEWS, so there is no slack to cut. I was just pointing out that PEWS did -atleast in my opinion- a better job than you did of explaining a point.

 

[Black_Warrior]

No he didn't. It's all subjective.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

He's basically saying that when you ask people what the primary 'value' of a cricketer is, you are asking them what they value in a cricketer....

The discussion is essentially meaningless.

This makes no sense to me at all. How can you say that I can't find legitimate meaning in discussing such a thing?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Irrelevant. I wasn't mocking you for your inability to explain a concept as clearly as PEWS, so there is no slack to cut. I was just pointing out that PEWS did -atleast in my opinion- a better job than you did of explaining a point.

this makes no sense. How can English being his second language be irrelevant to who did a better job explaining in English?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

This makes no sense to me at all. How can you say that I can't find legitimate meaning in discussing such a thing?

well it depends who's point of view the value is being judged from. If it's just your personal aesthetic preference then that's fine but we can't actually discuss anything. If it's some other form of value which is shared across many different relevant parties then we can actually discuss the matter.