Unpopular Cricket Opinions

Remove this Banner Ad

UseYourIllusion said:
Shane Warne is given too much leeway by the cricketing public. He has been very petty over the years with his criticism of guys he didn't really like e.g. Steve Waugh, Adam Gilchrist, John Buchanan while at the same time shamelessly pumping up his mates.

He may be a legend, but he shouldn't get a free pass to talk s**t.
Click to expand...

Besides the fact he is a match cheat?
 
topjars said:
I think he was unfairly maligned in that he wasnt maligned enougho_O
Just because he is following some great keepers doesnt mean he shouldnt be judged against them.
Click to expand...

I guess that means Lyon, Casson, Krejza etc should all be judged against Warne?

We need great keepers not only because they receive the most chances in the field but because they dedicate the "gloveman aspect" of the game to perform with the gloves; not some charlatan who gets plaudits because he can bat a bit....that should come later.
Click to expand...

Hence why it was ridiculous to give Haddin a whack for not batting better.
 
ODIs are still a better format than T20s, for all the hype of T20s being more exciting you don't get as many exciting close finishes as you get in ODIs. Most T20 games end up being pretty one sided in the end.

04 Durif said:
Ian Chappells anecdotes and dressing room tales are always hilarious!
Click to expand...

He has some great stories from his playing days back in the 60s and 70s, just a pity we've heard them all about 100 times from his tv commentary, newspaper articles and books.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Twenty/20 will be around for a long time yet. It's demise has long been predicted ever since it started off as a novelty concept - as long as there is money in the sport, it will be around (whether you consider that unfortunate or fortunate is a different matter). I personally enjoy twenty/20 because it is over in a few hours, so you can blank out, enjoy it, and it's over and it's a bit of hit and giggle entertainment, and you can see it all. One of the things I don't like about test cricket is that it is very easy to miss a session that is incredibly good, you can't watch a match that goes for a whole 5 days (I'd like too but things are on etc(

The Reaper said:
I like 20/20 for domestic cricket with a world tournament-including more associate nations every 4 years.

Possibly in the commonwealth games (with a restriction of no test players) and eventually the Olympics.
Click to expand...

Commonwealth games, for sure. But Olympics? The Olympics should be the pinnacle of sport championships, so for swimming/athletics/rowing/hockey etc, the Olympics is the main event.
Don't bring in cricket if it is only going to be amateur players, or U23's like soccer etc. Tennis at the Olympics is a farce as well imo - although less so, but IIRC there was a player going around 4-5 years ago that made the comment that he'd rather be in top fitness for the Grand Slams instead of the Olympics (money!).
The pinnacle of cricket is tests (or world cups probably for the subcontinent), don't compromise the Olympics further by giving it hit and giggle entertainment - unless it's real hit and giggle entertainment.

(My reasoning for getting rid of tennis/soccer/cricket when it's there etc is because it helps the funding for Olympics problem by decreasing the number of athletes, while not compromising those other sports proper calendar years)

I would guess though I posted in the right thread
 
UseYourIllusion said:
I guess that means Lyon, Casson, Krejza etc should all be judged against Warne?



Hence why it was ridiculous to give Haddin a whack for not batting better.
Click to expand...

The main criticism with Haddin's batting was they way he constantly committed suicide when he made a start.

His keeping was not test standard either.
 
The Reaper said:
The main criticism with Haddin's batting was they way he constantly committed suicide when he made a start.

His keeping was not test standard either.
Click to expand...

I know that was the criticism of Haddin's batting. But what is worse: losing you wicket after making a start or scratching around before being dismissed for very little?

The knocks on his keeping are way overblown IMO.
 
Partridge said:
2. Steve Waugh was not a great player. Great discipline and determination yes, but not on ability. Great players are able to play the hook shot.
Click to expand...
Haha, what a random piece of criteria you have invented to define whether a player can be 'great' or not. You don't average 50+ in test cricket, score almost 11,000 runs, make 32 hundreds and captain your country without having ability. In general I think people spend too much time on Waugh's so called 'fighting spirit', and forget that he was a tremendously talented batsman that made some centuries filled with glorious stroke-play. Early on he was also a very handy bowler, 195 ODI wickets and 92 test wickets is nothing to be sneezed at. Clearly a 'great' player.
Partridge said:
3. Wicketkeepers shouldn't have to be top flight batsmen just because there have been some like that in the last few years. I would always - always - select the best keeper. If you're relying on your number 7 to score runs the top 6 aren't doing their job.
Click to expand...
Yeah, nah. I'm hearing this one more and more these days. If the best gloveman in the country would average 15 as a batsman at test level and bat at 8 picking him is simply irresponsible. It's all well and good to say that it's the job of the top 6 to make runs but invariably they won't, for a variety of reasons. In this case it's extremely useful to have a keeper that can come in when the ball is a bit older and the pitch not as lively to add valuable runs, whether it be a counter-attacking 60 or eeking out some partnerships with the tail to avoid getting rolled for 100. Picking a keeper is about finding a balance between glovework and batting, weight it toward keeping ability if you want but making that the sole criteria is asking for trouble.
Partridge said:
5. 20/20 is even more rubbish than limited overs cricket. And that's saying something.
Click to expand...

We agree on something. But I don't think it's killing off a generation of young batsman like some, I just think it's a s**t game and completely boring to watch after about 5 overs.
 
topjars said:
Not at all - Warne was one in a million; that would be comparing quartz chips with a diamond.
Click to expand...

Gilchrist was pretty well up there as well...

Anyway, none of those spinners above are right arm over the wrist spinners, no comparison!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Taylor and Slater were a better combination then Langer and Hayden. The pace attacks they faced were far watered down compared to the 90s.


Greg Blewett was 'prettier' to watch then both Mark Waugh and Damien Martyn. He just 'Blewett" when given opportunities.
 
Phil Hughes deserves to be back in the test team.

Tim Paine is better than Matthew Wade.

Tasmania are underrated.
 
Marklar_33 said:
By whom? Fans? Opposition? Administrators?
Click to expand...

Fans and the australian selectors. Could put a couple of their players in the test team, but they never even seem to be in contention.
 
Team DJ said:
Agreed.
Tim Paine > Chris Hartley > Matthew Wade > Phil Nevill > Brad Haddin
Click to expand...

I always thought him more a defensive midfielder than keeper

:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Australian Cricket Awards
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Around the Wicket
A
Wormkilla
Test Mediocre cricketers to play 100 tests
2
Replies
40
Views
989
PhatBoy
PhatBoy
PhatBoy
Favourite cricket anecdotes
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
worbod
worbod
happy_eagle
Most important position in Cricket ?
Replies
15
Views
804
Gethelred
Gethelred
Wormkilla
T20I How do you statistically determine a good T20 cricketer?
Replies
11
Views
316
Yoda_
Yoda_
Richard Pryor
Matthew Wade retiring from red ball cricket
Replies
3
Views
462
Adelaide Hawk
Adelaide Hawk
grumbleguts
New Year's Cricket Idea.
Replies
0
Views
366
grumbleguts
grumbleguts

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top