Unpopular Cricket Opinions

[Adelaide Hawk]

Seems to really have gotten up a few noses that the Indians aren't mentally breaking like the English did last summer. Seems like some of the Aussies don't know what to do when their chat doesn't work, and they get something back coming the other way (both verbally and with bat and ball). Good on the Indians I say.

I agree. I have no problem with Kohli giving our players some lip, or any problem with our players doing it either, so long as it doesn't become personal, doesn't hold up the game, and is left on the field. What I don't like is players waiting at the wicket so they can mouth off to the incoming batsman and everyone left standing around waiting for the game to re-start. I also detest the cowardly act of giving it to a batsman after he's been dismissed. That's just not on. Batsmen are volatile enough after being dismissed, the last thing they need is someone walking behind them chirping away at them. That's where a real problem could occur, if a player got too close and it got physical.

And, more to the point. You can't spend the whole day mouthing off yourself and then go complaining on social media networks about the treatment you copped. Leave it ON the field. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Simple as that. It's been too convenient for some people to think this sort of stuff only comes from Australians. If that's so, why do we see so many incidents occur in matches that don't involve the Australians?

I don't think you can have a double standard here. If you want to condemn the way the Australians behave on the field, you can't turn around and say "good on the opposition for giving it to the Australians". Either it's accepted behaviour, or it isn't. We can't have it both ways.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

More of a 50/50 but the novelty of the big bash has worn off. It's contrived, wannabe American sport rubbish. Also, 98 percent of the games are wildly predictable.

I don't like T20, so I'll qualify my stance from the beginning. I watched a game the other night and could not believe how dopey the batsman are. I don't know if they get caught up in the artificial frenzy, or what the reason, but unless they can get a clear hit at a ball and send it into the grandstand, they don't seem to know what else to do. And of course, there were batsmen getting out to the reverse sweep when they could have played a legitimate stroke and scored runs.

Brett Lee was bowling to some guy, and bowled about 4 slower balls in a row, and each time the batsman took a huge swing before the ball got to him, so he missed it. So Lee kept bowling slow balls. Whatever happened to watching the ball onto the bat? Plus it seems every shot has to be hit in the air, I saw very few balls actually hit along the ground. The game just doesn't make much sense to me because I loathe dumb batting.

 

[sherb]

Didn't the Strikers win their first three and then lose their next five last year?

And from memory the scorchers lost their first two and won it.

That's not what he is saying.

He is saying that there is little, if any, room for ebbs and flows of ascendancy within a 20/20 game.

And he is right.

 

[PrideOf]

Brett Lee was bowling to some guy, and bowled about 4 slower balls in a row, and each time the batsman took a huge swing before the ball got to him, so he missed it. So Lee kept bowling slow balls. Whatever happened to watching the ball onto the bat? Plus it seems every shot has to be hit in the air, I saw very few balls actually hit along the ground. The game just doesn't make much sense to me because I loathe dumb batting.

That's a point that Pieterson made in the commentary for the Strikers v Hurricanes match. Ludeman and Simmons were going nuts, but KP pointed out that they were playing proper, well-executed cricket shots. Ludeman especially.

 

[PrideOf]

I agree. I have no problem with Kohli giving our players some lip, or any problem with our players doing it either, so long as it doesn't become personal, doesn't hold up the game, and is left on the field. What I don't like is players waiting at the wicket so they can mouth off to the incoming batsman and everyone left standing around waiting for the game to re-start. I also detest the cowardly act of giving it to a batsman after he's been dismissed. That's just not on. Batsmen are volatile enough after being dismissed, the last thing they need is someone walking behind them chirping away at them. That's where a real problem could occur, if a player got too close and it got physical.

On this - I don't mind a bowler celebrating his victory over the batsman (providing it's not over the top) but I really hate other fieldsmen getting involved.

I don't think you can have a double standard here. If you want to condemn the way the Australians behave on the field, you can't turn around and say "good on the opposition for giving it to the Australians". Either it's accepted behaviour, or it isn't. We can't have it both ways.

That's what is both shitting me and making me enjoy listening to Indian cricket fans at the moment. The same people who wanted to burn effigies of a series of Australian players for sledging are now celebrating Kohli doing it.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

That's a point that Pieterson made in the commentary for the Strikers v Hurricanes match. Ludeman and Simmons were going nuts, but KP pointed out that they were playing proper, well-executed cricket shots. Ludeman especially.

I was having a beer with a mate, and the pub was showing replay of the previous night's T20 game. I think the player was Cooper, not sure, but he got a ball on middle and leg and lifted it over mid wicket with a proper cricket shot for 6. Next ball was in the same spot. Rather than repeat the shot, he decided to turn himself inside out and tried to sweep it. The ball fell just short of a fieldsman and he got 1. Strange, strange batting.

 

[PrideOf]

I was having a beer with a mate, and the pub was showing replay of the previous night's T20 game. I think the player was Cooper, not sure, but he got a ball on middle and leg and lifted it over mid wicket with a proper cricket shot for 6. Next ball was in the same spot. Rather than repeat the shot, he decided to turn himself inside out and tried to sweep it. The ball fell just short of a fieldsman and he got 1. Strange, strange batting.

I see this in young kids trying ramp shots before they've mastered a square cut. One of the benefits of the Strikers at the moment is that I tell them that Ludeman hits his sixes because he's still at the crease, keeps his head over the ball, hits through the line ... they look at me like it's rocket science. I know it's from my 1970s cricket coaching book by Ian Chappell.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

I don't understand the Stuart Broad hate either, he's far and away my favourite English player and have loved watching him since I first saw him play in the Ashes in 2005 I think it was. If he ever decides to emmigrate I'd love him in the Australian team and I reckon he'd fit right in! OK, so he didn't walk when he was out, wasn't the first and won't be the last.

 

[BILC]

Totally agree with the point about T20 matches not having the same ebbs and flows, I don't really like the games personally but they definitely serve a purpose. I definitely didn't have the same love for test match cricket that I do now when I was a kid, and if T20 serves as a way to keep kids interested in the sport, and as a pathway to discovering how much better test match cricket is, then I'm all for it.

 

[BILC]

I see this in young kids trying ramp shots before they've mastered a square cut. One of the benefits of the Strikers at the moment is that I tell them that Ludeman hits his sixes because he's still at the crease, keeps his head over the ball, hits through the line ... they look at me like it's rocket science. I know it's from my 1970s cricket coaching book by Ian Chappell.

Glenn Maxwell is a perfect example of what happens if kids are learning reverse sweeps alongside a forward defence.

 

[western royboy]

Test Cricket / ODI / T20

Shorten the game, reduce the true skills / increase the chance of one player to influence the result

Glenn Maxwell is a perfect example of what happens if kids are learning reverse sweeps alongside a forward defence.

When they start junior cricket nowadays - they have to score because they get very limited time to bat, the mindset is all wrong. Therefore they try and play a shot to every ball. There is no such thing as defence in this environment.

 

[BILC]

Test Cricket / ODI / T20

Shorten the game, reduce the true skills / increase the chance of one player to influence the result

When they start junior cricket nowadays - they have to score because they get very limited time to bat, the mindset is all wrong. Therefore they try and play a shot to every ball. There is no such thing as defence in this environment.

I know what you mean, I remember having to retire after 5 or 6 overs in under 12's and 14's, no time to build an innings.

 

[ioppolo]

What happened to the days of retiring when you hit a certain score? ie 30, 40, 50?

 

[western royboy]

Totally agree with the point about T20 matches not having the same ebbs and flows, I don't really like the games personally but they definitely serve a purpose. I definitely didn't have the same love for test match cricket that I do now when I was a kid, and if T20 serves as a way to keep kids interested in the sport, and as a pathway to discovering how much better test match cricket is, then I'm all for it.

Kids exit the game nowadays without having ever really played the game (long form / 2 day cricket) without that understanding, I'm not sure how they will develop a love for the purest form of the game- hope I'm wrong

 

[western royboy]

What happened to the days of retiring when you hit a certain score? ie 30, 40, 50?

The need to give everyone a bat has overtaken this in many junior comps.

 

[PrideOf]

When they start junior cricket nowadays - they have to score because they get very limited time to bat, the mindset is all wrong. Therefore they try and play a shot to every ball. There is no such thing as defence in this environment.

Wasn't that different when I was playing in school some 30 years ago. The key difference is our coaches told us the quickest way to score was to find the gaps with decent shots, not try to lob one over the keeper's head or smash an off stump length ball over square leg or try a reverse sweep.

/old fart rant

 

[BILC]

What happened to the days of retiring when you hit a certain score? ie 30, 40, 50?

That still happens, but coaches generally retire kids after they've been batting a few overs to make sure the whole team gets a hit.

 

[Plugger35]

I remember kids being retired at 50 back in junior cricket but not many kids could bat long enough to get to 50 so most kids would still get a bat anyway.

I would have been pissed off having to retire after just a few overs, may as well just play indoor cricket if that's the case.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Meh, I think it is a load of jazz that kids are some how different now to then. As a junior, I couldn't hit it off the square but then guns in the team would whack it from ball one.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Not an unpopular opinion at all.

Possibly not on bigfooty.

 

[Tulip]

Does anyone else feel uncomfortable with how quickly Phil Hughes has been put on a pedestal?

When he passed on, we were given an insight into the life of a cracking, down to earth boy from the country.

When he was still with us he was a terrific shield batsman who couldn't quite bring it to test level as an opener or down the order on a consistent basis. Too good for one but not good enough for the other.

Now, he's the standard for everything Sheffield and cricket. "Player X should be called up, he averages Y" "Yeah, but Hughes averaged Z etc". "How good is player X going to be!" "Not as good as Hughes would have."

I mean no offence by this, but the reason the guy wasn't in the side was because his technique had flaws. He could score runs but he lacked the defensive edge more often than not.

The players did the right thing, they dedicated Adelaide too him (and I'm sure day 1 of Sydney will be emotional) and then moved on with the cricket and honoured him in their own way. The crowds barely even recognise 63 or 408 as huge numbers of significance anymore.

He was a great guy who was very much with it and never made a fuss, there's really no need to eulogise him like this. Let his mates get on with the job in his honour.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

What happened to the days of retiring when you hit a certain score? ie 30, 40, 50?

Thankfully, I never played with this rule in place. My introduction to competitive cricket was as a 10 year old in Under 13s. Being so young, I didn't get much of a bowl, and usually batted 9-11, but I just loved being out there. My turn came as I grew older.

I fully understand that times have changed, and it disappoints me greatly when I hear comments such as the game is too long and kids get bored. I couldn't get enough cricket at that age. I'd have happily started at 8am and finished at 8pm, even though I would have spent most of it just fielding and watching older team mates batting. I just loved it.

Kids were taught to compete. If a batsman was good enough to make 100, then that's what he did. No thought of retiring, that would have been stupid. If other kids had to sit there all day waiting to go in, and still sometimes missing out on a bat, then tough, that's just the way it was. If you wanted a longer hit, there was one option open for you ... to improve your batting and work your way up the order.

I learnt one thing from my junior cricket. The need to improve and create opportunities for myself. I think this modern ideal of giving everyone a fair go is okay for the lesser talents, but it's stunting the development of the fair dinkum cricketer who is looking to improve their game. Let's face it, these kids who are getting bored after 2 hours are not going to make it anyway.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

I have no problem with sledging but their is a 'line'.

My problem is with the double standards, hypocrisy and the media circus that surrounds it. Why can every other country play the 'victim' card when clearly this is not the case.

Sledging is a part of cricket. If you don't like it, go play or watch another sport !

Secondly why are we basically the only test country to prepare pitches that cater for the opposition ? I'm against complete 'doctoring'. But why are we preparing flat docile pitches when India are here and not something a bit green and a bit of pace in it ?

Kohli and the rest of his over rated team are absolutely woeful on anything other than a 'road'.

 

[Kram]

Secondly why are we basically the only test country to prepare pitches that cater for the opposition ? I'm against complete 'doctoring'. But why are we preparing flat docile pitches when India are here and not something a bit green and a bit of pace in it ?

$$$ They want Tests almost guaranteed to go for the 5 days now.

 

[Kram]

I know what you mean, I remember having to retire after 5 or 6 overs in under 12's and 14's, no time to build an innings.

They did this even when I played 15s back in the mid 90s, lol always in the last over you would start just playing some silly shots. Even something like 10 overs before retirement in a 30 over game would have been better. And making everyone bowl the same amount of overs, fair enough make it so everyone has to at least bowl the 1 but let the better bowlers bowl at least 5 or something so they can develop properly..