The Unpopular Opinions Thread

[TheJediBrah]

Well averaging 50+ for most of his career I don't think he missed many chances to fill his boots on a tired attack after getting that top 5-6 out

He did it on occasion but more often than not his big innings were coming in after a bit of a middle-order collapse (as you'd expect). Against weaker teams on flatter wickets there were many times where he had to go quick and make a short cameo where batting up the order he would have had the chance to make a much bigger score.

This would be the case for most no. 7s in a strong line-up. As you mentioned you get the benefit of often coming in after the top order has done the damage and capatalising, but it comes with the limitation of opportunity as well. Whether or not you'd perform better in a different position or scenario depends on the player.

Don't get me wrong if I'm going back in time and picking the team I'm not going to move Gilchrist to 4, even though I think he'd probably do a better job than Damien Martyn, just because he did such a good job at 7. It's easier to find a Martyn to bat 4 than another counter-attacking no. 7 with half the ability of Gilchrist

 

[Molehill]

Don't get me wrong if I'm going back in time and picking the team I'm not going to move Gilchrist to 4, even though I think he'd probably do a better job than Damien Martyn, just because he did such a good job at 7. It's easier to find a Martyn to bat 4 than another counter-attacking no. 7 with half the ability of Gilchrist

**** me, I'm English, but are you telling me that the most aesthetically pleasing Number 4's just grow on trees??

 

[TheJediBrah]

**** me, I'm English, but are you telling me that the most aesthetically pleasing Number 4's just grow on trees??

Might be the right thread for this, but I think Damien Martyn (good as he was) was easily replaceable by quite a few players during his career, like Hodge, Bevan, or even Hussey just coming in earlier. Lehmann and Katich could have done what Martyn did during that time. Martin Love maybe but that could be a stretch.

There was no one to even come close to Gilchrist. Throughout his whole career Haddin was there waiting in the wings but would have been half the player GIlchrist was. Even without the keeping there wasn't another batsman who could do what Gilchrist could. Even around the world Sehwag probably the only one on a similar level

 

[TheJediBrah]

I might as well have @trundler'd on that one

 

[Chubb]

IMO:

Test matches in mainland Australia are pointless and boring unless India are playing. Previously you could say South Africa too, but not anymore.

The Ashes are a farce that brings out the worst in everyone involved, including fans.

Most international cricketers don’t enjoy playing or like the sport and are only in it for the money.

The result of roughly 90% of games can be predicted within 10 overs of the start. This includes test matches.

When you think things can’t get any worse for your team, they can and very probably will.

 

[howitzer]

**** me, I'm English, but are you telling me that the most aesthetically pleasing Number 4's just grow on trees??

The modern version of 'No *** please, we're British'

 

[Coronis]

IMO:

Test matches in mainland Australia are pointless and boring unless India are playing. Previously you could say South Africa too, but not anymore.

Most international cricketers don’t enjoy playing or like the sport and are only in it for the money.

The result of roughly 90% of games can be predicted within 10 overs of the start. This includes test matches.

I mean its not our fault everybody else sucks in Australia is it?

I doubt that very much.

lol what a joke.

 

[Molehill]

I doubt that very much.

Agreed, if you were a talented sportsman who just wanted to earn a load of money, I doubt cricket would be your number one port of call.

 

[Owzat]

IMO:

Test matches in mainland Australia are pointless and boring unless India are playing. Previously you could say South Africa too, but not anymore.

The Ashes are a farce that brings out the worst in everyone involved, including fans.

I'd add India to that, any country where home dominance is in no small part down to their pitches and simply noone affords the time any more to play warm ups necessary to get a feel for them are.

May be only way England can be competitive, to make swing friendly pitches, and touring teams can struggle, but essentially better than India and Australia borefests

Test nations series at home (2010 - present)
India : P22 W20 D1 L1 (Won 90.91%, to nil x14)
South Africa : P22 W16 D2 L4 (Won 72.73%, to nil x11)
Australia : P20 W14 D1 L5 (Won 70.00%, to nil x14)
England : P28 W19 D6 L3 (Won 67.86%, to nil x9)
New Zealand : P26 W17 D4 L5 (Won 65.38%, to nil x15)
Pakistan* : P18 W8 D6 L4 Won 44.44%, to nil x7)

Sri Lanka : P26 W10 D8 L8 (Won 38.46%, to nil x9)
Afghanistan : P3 W1 D1 L1 (Won 33.33%)
West Indies : P22 W7 D5 L10 (Won 31.82%, to nil x5)
Bangladesh : P24 W5 D6 L13 (Won 20.83%, to nil x2)
Zimbabwe :P13 W1 D2 L10 (Won 7.69%)
Ireland : P1 W0 D0 L1 (Won 0.00%)

*Pakistan "home" not necessarily in Pakistan.

I haven't done "to nil" where either not applicable or a one-off Test eg Afghan win, 2010 start is only series starting in 2010 ie not all 09/10.

last 3 England drawn home series have been 2-2, and 4 of the 6 in that period. in spite of aussie arrogance I find it funny England played more home series and lost less! (South Africa and India winning 2-1 twice apiece, England the one win down under since 1987 being 3-1)

Sri Lanka record looks pretty good but basically beating Ireland, windies x2, Bangladesh x2 and zimmers makes up 6 of the 10 home series wins, although wins over South Africa, Australia, Pakistan x2 not to be scoffed at

quite surprised kiwis have so many to nil, but then they play mostly 2 match series, England, India and Australia play more long series

Funnily enough that split is how I'd do Tests, two tiers and that split, with or without said win percentages to back it up

 

[Coronis]

I'd add India to that, any country where home dominance is in no small part down to their pitches and simply noone affords the time any more to play warm ups necessary to get a feel for them are.

May be only way England can be competitive, to make swing friendly pitches, and touring teams can struggle, but essentially better than India and Australia borefests

Test nations series at home (2010 - present)
India : P22 W20 D1 L1 (Won 90.91%, to nil x14)
South Africa : P22 W16 D2 L4 (Won 72.73%, to nil x11)
Australia : P20 W14 D1 L5 (Won 70.00%, to nil x14)
England : P28 W19 D6 L3 (Won 67.86%, to nil x9)
New Zealand : P26 W17 D4 L5 (Won 65.38%, to nil x15)
Pakistan* : P18 W8 D6 L4 Won 44.44%, to nil x7)

Sri Lanka : P26 W10 D8 L8 (Won 38.46%, to nil x9)
Afghanistan : P3 W1 D1 L1 (Won 33.33%)
West Indies : P22 W7 D5 L10 (Won 31.82%, to nil x5)
Bangladesh : P24 W5 D6 L13 (Won 20.83%, to nil x2)
Zimbabwe :P13 W1 D2 L10 (Won 7.69%)
Ireland : P1 W0 D0 L1 (Won 0.00%)

*Pakistan "home" not necessarily in Pakistan.

I haven't done "to nil" where either not applicable or a one-off Test eg Afghan win, 2010 start is only series starting in 2010 ie not all 09/10.

last 3 England drawn home series have been 2-2, and 4 of the 6 in that period. in spite of aussie arrogance I find it funny England played more home series and lost less! (South Africa and India winning 2-1 twice apiece, England the one win down under since 1987 being 3-1)

Sri Lanka record looks pretty good but basically beating Ireland, windies x2, Bangladesh x2 and zimmers makes up 6 of the 10 home series wins, although wins over South Africa, Australia, Pakistan x2 not to be scoffed at

quite surprised kiwis have so many to nil, but then they play mostly 2 match series, England, India and Australia play more long series

Funnily enough that split is how I'd do Tests, two tiers and that split, with or without said win percentages to back it up

So - if we ever lose a home test, we won’t win the series. We either whitewash em or lose basically.