The Unpopular Opinions Thread

[karan316]

I have been grilled for this over here, but I will repeat it again. I feel NZ should have considered Nathan McCullum for the test team at some point. They went ahead with the lesser talented Mark Craig while he was still around.

My suggestion was purely based on what I saw in NMac's bowling(not going too much into the stats here). He was always very accurate, and did well against the Asian teams(in whatever LO cricket he played against them) who usually play spin very well. One thing that really stood out for me was that he could bowl at different speeds with the same amout of tidyness and subtle variations. You see a lot of spinners who struggle to adjust their pace/lengths according to the pitches.

Its just my opinion and you can disagree, but I think NMac could have been a decent pick for the NZ test side as a bowling all-rounder.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I have been grilled for this over here, but I will repeat it again. I feel NZ should have considered Nathan McCullum for the test team at some point. They went ahead with the lesser talented Mark Craig while he was still around.

My suggestion was purely based on what I saw in NMac's bowling(not going too much into the stats here). He was always very accurate, and did well against the Asian teams(in whatever LO cricket he played against them) who usually play spin very well. One thing that really stood out for me was that he could bowl at different speeds with the same amout of tidyness and subtle variations. You see a lot of spinners who struggle to adjust their pace/lengths according to the pitches.

Its just my opinion and you can disagree, but I think NMac could have been a decent pick for the NZ test side as a bowling all-rounder.

NMac's darts would not take wickets in tests. Not even at Mark Craig rates.

He would hold an end better than Craig, but Santner does that.

NMac's batting is unreliable at best. I think you're possibly overrating NMac.

Craig was good for NZC for a time, he spun us victories and scored runs, and overall I think he did much better than I expect NMac to have done had he played (bar the first team innings E/R horror shows).

 

[Singh767]

Not been on this forum long, but some guy called "*****" said after the latest Bangladesh embarrassment against West Indies that the Bangladesh team was "so talented". So that's an entry, no flippin way are they near that tag at all lol. West Indies and Sri Lanka are more "so talented" for sure.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Not been on this forum long, but some guy called "*****" said after the latest Bangladesh embarrassment against West Indies that the Bangladesh team was "so talented". So that's an entry. West Indies and Sri Lanka are more "so talented" for sure.

You just cost yourself a lot of likes. So many likes.

I've been there. I chose Buttler over Dhoni, my like ratio to post ratio from that day has drastically dropped as a result.

 

[vcs]

You just cost yourself a lot of likes. So many likes.

I've been there. I chose Buttler over Dhoni, my like ratio to post ratio from that day has drastically dropped as a result.

What are you talking about, I bet you ***** will like that very post when he sees it.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

What are you talking about, I bet you ***** will like that very post when he sees it.

Maybe he will now you've written this

 

[Bolo]

Till where does one extend this theory though? Home track bullies get less respect than players who are successful in varying conditions. So should stats of a Jayawardene have a weightage basis? Or every one, for that matter? Say a 100 point index. Subcontinent matches have less weightage than 50 percent, say 30 percent, bouncy like SA and Aus in one bracket, England in another for swing etc..

Hard cutoffs won't really work. While Sehwag for example is less than his 50 average because he only bossed Asia, giving a 30% weight to these would penalize him too heavily. It would be possible to get this working in an objectivish way via a form of logarithmic function.

As a simple example (without actually using a log function, but demonstrating approximate effects), if a guy averages 60 home and 50 away, same runs. He gets 90% credit for the first 10% in average difference and 80% of the next 10%. His home average becomes (59+58)/2. 58.5.

You get credit for being a home track/minnow basher etc. You are just judged against your own baseline, and the more you outperform your own baseline for tough circumstances, the less relative weight is given to the extent of your overperformance. Fail against your own baseline and there is no need for adjustment- the failure still counts against you.

You would need overlapping log functions to account for runs/wickets/games and averages. Take Warne vs Murali vs Kallis. Warne gets no benefit because he did not bash minnows. Kallis and Murali were excellent minnow bashers and get some credit for it, but their average against minnows is adjusted to closer to their career averages. Murali played a lot vs minnows, so the weight of his games is adjusted more than Kallis, but he still gets more credit for minnow bashing, just not to the extent his career average reflects, because the number of games he played in addition to the games Kallis played count for a lower proportion of weight.

Has anyone seen this in an article? I'm sure someone has done a log analysis of sorts and I'd like to see the results.

 

[Bijed]

I'm generally not fussed as to whether a test match is a series decider or a dead rubber, or whether an LO game is a WC final or a bilateral JAMODI: I just enjoy each match in and of itself for the contest it provides.

Edit: There are notable exceptions to this rule, The Oval 2005 for example

 

[trundler]

I'm generally not fussed as to whether a test match is a series decider or a dead rubber, or whether an LO game is a WC final or a bilateral JAMODI: I just enjoy each match in and of itself for the contest it provides.

I'm revoking your true cricket fan card.

 

[Burgey]

I'm generally not fussed as to whether a test match is a series decider or a dead rubber, or whether an LO game is a WC final or a bilateral JAMODI: I just enjoy each match in and of itself for the contest it provides.

Edit: There are notable exceptions to this rule, The Oval 2005 for example

Interesting POV. I tend to be far more invested if it’s a decider or a WC final.

 

[mr_mister]

Is this even a thing?

Munro should play tests for NZC (was a thing).

Ryder should be recalled (was a thing).

He batted at 3 for Victoria a bit in recent times and there's a touch of Ponting to his batting imo

 

[Mr Miyagi]

He batted at 3 for Victoria a bit in recent times and there's a touch of Ponting to his batting imo

There's a touch of something about him. I don't dispute a test cricketer could not be made out of him, but #3 I don't think is where I'd want him.

2nd Test, Australia tour of United Arab Emirates at Abu Dhabi, Oct 30 - Nov 3 2014 | Match Commentary | ESPNCricinfo

From Maxwell batting at 3:

10.4
Mohammad Hafeez to Maxwell, no run, he's nearly bowled trying to reverse-sweep. It's almost a leg stump yorker, and he misses, and the ball only misses the stumps

 

[the big bambino]

Bradman's stats are inflated too as he played v SAF. Most players faced minnows which has inflated their stats to an extent. I agree the minnow stats should go off when rating players. We don't take into account FC stats in modern times that much, so why minnow stats.

Well yes and no. He pogoed them its true. Except they weren't minnows.

 

[Starfighter]

There's no such thing as a 'clutch' player.

 

[cnerd123]

I'm generally not fussed as to whether a test match is a series decider or a dead rubber, or whether an LO game is a WC final or a bilateral JAMODI: I just enjoy each match in and of itself for the contest it provides.

Edit: There are notable exceptions to this rule, The Oval 2005 for example

I think the contest is fun too, but enhanced with context as it defines what's on stake for the players.

JAMODIs and dead rubbers are usually great for watching newer guys who are trying to establish themselves in the team, since it still means a lot to them, so you know who to focus on. And the close we are to a WC, the more relevant team selection becomes. Its now an insight into the combination and strategies we might see from this side in the WC.

 

[Starfighter]

Current ball tampering regulations are a massive load of ****e. Ball tampering should be instituted and made legal to a certain degree and be eventually appreciated as an art in itself, with bowling coaches showing every young bowler how to most effectively tamper the ball without breaching the new regulations. If batsmen can have bats so thick that their edges clear the ropes, it's only fair.

Now this I agree with. Swing bowling is interesting. The last Ashes, which featured a paucity of it, was not.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There's no such thing as a 'clutch' player.

Never heard of James Faulkner?








he has plenty of trouble with the clutch after a few frothies

 

[quincywagstaff]

That the 1980s Australian rebel SA tourists not only got relatively light punishments but were incorporated back into the game without issue (including the current Chairman Of Selectors) is a regrettable aspect of Australian cricket.

 

[Burgey]

Very fair point imo.

 

[Bolo]

That the 1980s Australian rebel SA tourists not only got relatively light punishments but were incorporated back into the game without issue (including the current Chairman Of Selectors) is a regrettable aspect of Australian cricket.

Ball tamper- one year ban
Try to earn an honest living via Packer- two year ban
Support the apartheid state- slap on the wrist.

Hmmm...