Cricket things that annoy you

Remove this Banner Ad

big_e

Existential crisis management consultant
Apr 28, 2008
8,412
24,580
Hermit Kingdom of Western Australia
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers
Is your 6yo unable to read the names on the bottom of the screen?
No, he's only just learning to read, so the numbers are better for him.

Also, names don't come up when a player fields, so having a number really helps with recognition. Not just for kids, but any casual viewer.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

t_94

Premiership Player
May 6, 2014
3,578
5,986
AFL Club
St Kilda
When people say ‘we need more chat and intensity in the field’ when the bowlers are bowling custard tarts.

Chat\intensity in the field are important but if the bowlers aren’t hitting a length consistently then it means nothing.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
19,833
40,878
AFL Club
Carlton
When people say ‘we need more chat and intensity in the field’ when the bowlers are bowling custard tarts.

Chat\intensity in the field are important but if the bowlers aren’t hitting a length consistently then it means nothing.
See, I don't know that I agree. A team that fields well can to a certain extent cover ordinary bowling if the captain's canny, and keeping up morale is part of the duties of a captain.

I played against opposition who - frankly - had no idea about cricket, except the captain who knew his own bowling as a defensive leggie. All he did early was play for containment - albeit, the muppet had no slip, gully or third man all day, and kept getting grumpy when the ball went through there for runs - until he got the good bats out, and then bowled himself to keep things tight for the rest of the innings. They were a bunch of uni mates, and they had footballers and soccer players and ultimate frisbee players as part of the group; they were all fit, didn't drop a catch, and kept stopping the ball when they shouldn't at the grade, and they got two direct hit run outs.

I've said this plenty of of times, but teams that field well tend towards finals. It's arguably more important than teams that bat well, as if your opposition makes more than 10 mistakes and you don't drop a catch, you're going to get a lot of people.

Obviously this goes a bit beyond the meat of your post - and this kind of applies at test level, but to a lesser extent; you don't get sh*t bowlers or batters at test level - but chat can easily be the difference when you're exhausted and your feet are killing you but the game is tight and you have to know your team has your back, as both the bowler and the fielder.
 

Nankervis brothers

Premiership Player
Aug 16, 2006
4,899
6,058
Sydney
AFL Club
Geelong
I get annoyed at commentators using the phrase 'excellent cricket shot.' What other shot could it be? Badminton? Why not use existing words to describe the type of shot—pull, cut, drive, hook, etc. And some commentators seem to apply it to any shot that ends in a boundary, even brute, flatfooted slogs. There is a difference between effective and excellent.
 
Last edited:

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
30,463
32,780
AFL Club
Geelong
Not sure if I’ve said it in this thread or not, I’ve definitely mentioned it in others.

These stupid player or commentator Twitter wars where some c*** - often Shane Warne - will refute someone’s comments because they didn’t average enough or they once blew a winning position in a match via a stupid shot or something.

Here’s a hint Warnie: the comment they make, doesn’t know the history of the player making it, and as such isn’t made incorrect because of that history
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
19,833
40,878
AFL Club
Carlton
The proposed NZ Steve Smith short ball weakness.

Firstly, NZ weren't the first to do it to him, Dhoni did it to him way back in Melbourne in the mid 2010's. Secondly, it's not a bouncer barrage that got him; it's dotting him up and then giving him a ball on or above his him for him to glide to that leg slip position. That he's gone out pulling as well in this series is making it look a trend where previously it wasn't a weakness in the pull shot, but a very specific weakness borne from forcing him to leave for 30+ balls before giving him what would be his bread and butter in a very specific place too high to keep down.

Secondly, Smith is very much a form player, despite his batting prowess. When in form, he can and will roll out ton after ton; when out of form, he'll look lazy and go out to spinners in Bangladesh or NZ. He's not played any cricket for almost a year, then we're back playing in an Ashes series, and the last time he played this particular opposition he took them for 115+ per innings in the series. He was always going to go a little worse, and he's had no continuity leading in.

Thirdly, when you add the most profitable bits of a player's career together, then add a period in which he's barely played and the only opposition he's played a test against since has been either this series or India, you're going to observe a substantial difference. It's not a shock what happens to someone's career when you cut the best bits out, why is anyone surprised when the inverse is also true?

So, let's look at this picture: you have a NZ unearthed weakness that wasn't unearthed by NZ, you have a gross oversimplification concerning how it works, you have a player who has barely played any cricket before this series and this supposed weakness was unearthed, and you have a manipulation of statistics to demonstrate the weakness.

How much more tabloid do you want to get, Fox?
 

The Passenger

Bugman & Programmer Extraordinaire
Mar 25, 2003
33,525
23,686
127.0.0.1
AFL Club
West Coast
CricInfo treating the World Test Championship as a single series.

They list Joe Root as having scored the most runs as captain in a single series in his profile.


That's actually across two series against India and in Australia.

Until they convert the WTC to a tournament category (separate from series) all series stats are going to be completely wrong.


EDIT: Looks like they are correctly excluding WTC 2019-21 from lists such as "Most X in a series", but they haven't excluded the current WTC. Ollie Robinson appears in most wickets in a series for his 32 wickets across the current WTC, but Cummins 70 WTC19-21 wickets are correctly excluded from the same list.


EDIT 2: If you go into a players profile and click on their series average, the WTC's appear, but they shouldn't. As above, they could have a tournament category and that would be fine. E.g. here is Pat Cummins list of bowling performances by series. Or at the very least, the WTC's should all appear grouped together at the bottom clearly separated from the individual series.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...s=1;template=results;type=bowling;view=series

EDIT 3: StatsGuru completely out of whack without use of the Advanced filter.

 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kickazz

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
10,243
14,183
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Blokes getting a free pass for throwing away a chance to bat the opposition out of a test match just because they ticked over into three figures.

Example: Guy gets out for 85 - "He'll be disappointed not to have put the opposition to the sword". Guy gets out for 103 - "A fine century".

Don't think I've ever seen a commentator make the former criticism of someone that's got out just after a century, but heard it plenty of times for someone out just short of a ton, even though both batsmen have probably left 50+ runs out on the field.

Obviously this is very match specific. Plenty of low scoring test matches where an 80 is more valuable than a 140 from a high scoring test.

So much this.

We need some data nerd to come up with a new stat to complement 50s and 100s. Something that acknowledges the conditions (pitch, opposition, state of game)

As a start, I'd even like to see the stats for 80s and 150s - if they are proportionally higher for a given batsman than their 50s and 100s it tells me that they are more team focussed and don't just count centuries.

It is one of the nice quirks of cricket that a batsman approaching 100 might get a bit nervous, look for the single on 99 (and likewise have the field change). But if you get bogged down in the 90s or throw the wicket away after 100 then you are not doing it right.
 

cricketnut14

Club Legend
Jan 13, 2015
1,066
526
AFL Club
Sydney
So much this.

We need some data nerd to come up with a new stat to complement 50s and 100s. Something that acknowledges the conditions (pitch, opposition, state of game)

As a start, I'd even like to see the stats for 80s and 150s - if they are proportionally higher for a given batsman than their 50s and 100s it tells me that they are more team focussed and don't just count centuries.

It is one of the nice quirks of cricket that a batsman approaching 100 might get a bit nervous, look for the single on 99 (and likewise have the field change). But if you get bogged down in the 90s or throw the wicket away after 100 then you are not doing it right.


yeah, good one.

scores like 70 not out also distort the 50 to 100 ratio as batsmen may be left stranded without a batting partner, may have been declared on or may have been batting in the 4th innings and hitting the winning runs.
 

Jamurp

Premiership Player
Apr 26, 2011
3,814
6,093
AFL Club
Melbourne
I get annoyed at commentators using the phrase 'excellent cricket shot.' What other shot could it be? Badminton? Why not use existing words to describe the type of shot—pull, cut, drive, hook, etc. And some commentators seem to apply it to any shot that ends in a boundary, even brute, flatfooted slogs. There is a difference between effective and excellent.
"that's an excellent AFL kick, straight through the middle!".
 

peternorth

Moderator
May 6, 2005
111,486
63,061
AFL Club
Richmond
Celebrations

T20 - players run onto the field yipee
Test - handshakes in the change room, stroll gently onto the field and line up for handshakes

;)
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
19,833
40,878
AFL Club
Carlton
Celebrations

T20 - players run onto the field yipee
Test - handshakes in the change room, stroll gently onto the field and line up for handshakes

;)
Why do we need to see the celebration again? Why do we need to see it in super slowmo? Why do we need to see it again seven different times from a few different angles?

Couldn't we just watch the shot they played to get the milestone? Why is the celebration - which isn't even the cricket part of the game - so prized by the broadcasters?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad