Whose opinion on cricket holds more substance: A cricketer's or a religious cricket follower's?

[asfandyar]

Imagine two people, A and B. A has played cricket for 20 years, while B has religiously followed cricket for the same period. Both have excelled in their respective fields. Considering all other factors remain comparable for both (e.g, M Yousuf factor, etc), whose opinion should be considered more?

Most cricketers spend a large chunk of their lives playing cricket, and for them cricket comes as a profession from a first person perspective. An obsessed cricket fan on the other hand views it from a third person perspective and may have more cricketing knowledge than an average cricketer.

In my opinion, in matters related to on field tactics, A will have more experience than the fan, and hence his opinion holds more substance. In analytical matters, B may have pondered and researched all different angles, and his opinion matters more.

In technical aspects, I am unable to pick one. A obviously has a lot of experience, and there is no alternative for experience. But A has been practicing his trade for 20 years, and may have adopted a style that suits him. Moreover, since A plays cricket as a profession, there is a high chance that he spends his leisure time away from cricket. He may have not have followed the playing style of his contemporary cricketers, except when playing against them head-to-head.

B, on the other hand may have watched the techniques of other great batsmen in the same era, and may have had the time to compare and contrast.

On the same token, whom do you think may prove to be a better candidate as coach, selector, TV expert, cricket administrator?

If Sachin Tendulkar says Virat Kohli is the best batsman of the current generation, does his opinion count more than if someone like Richie Benaud said so? Answer this question purely from cricketing aspect, factoring out Sachin's fan base and his stature as an All Time Great.

 

[badsha001]

Offcourse cricketer opinion as wasim akthar say to all the bowler who is not swinging the ball, he needs to flick the wrist...

 

[asfandyar]

Offcourse cricketer opinion as wasim akthar say to all the bowler who is not swinging the ball, he needs to flick the wrist...

That worked for Wasim, may not necessarily work for others. Compare this to someone who has closely watched slow mo replays of Wasim's flicking, Asif's wobbling, McGrath's bounce, Faf's zipper etc.

 

[PakLFC]

Ex cricketer for sure. Religious cricket follower is still an armchair viewer . There is no substitute for experience of doing the job.

 

[The_KING]

Cricketer for sure. There is no substitute for going out there to perform for your team with all the expectations and pressure on your shoulder.

 

[Sherlock]

Religion/Politics should have no to say in Cricketing ventures. And ex-player can only say and do so much too, but the former at least has some jurisdiction in what they say, even if at times it's claptrap.

 

[aloo paratha]

Religion/Politics should have no to say in Cricketing ventures. And ex-player can only say and do so much too, but the former at least has some jurisdiction in what they say, even if at times it's claptrap.

He doesn't actually mean religion, it's a metaphor explaining someone who watches cricket like it is their religion.

 

[ahmadharis1]

Cricketer no question

 

[HateKiller]

Followers may have more knowledge in analytical matters(As OP said). For example,follower can provide better insight into what team should be played in a given condition. Another example, changing batting order to suit a certain position.

Cricketer will be good in technical aspects.

 

[Junaids]

Sometimes when you least expect it, someone comes up with an earth-shatteringly magnificent thread. Congratulations!

Here is my rule of thumb.

1. The most valuable opinions are those of a fairly recent captain who has won a major Test series or event in alien conditions, such as Andrew Strauss winning an away Ashes.

By the same token, captains who have been serial failures outside their citadel - such as Misbah or Dhoni - lose status on this measure. If they couldn't get the squads or preparation they needed, why should anybody listen to them?

2. On issues of player quality, generally one should accept the advice of eminent ex-players.

3. On unusual strategic matters - especially developing issues like my obsession of how to play Pink Ball Tests in Australia - players should be viewed as ignorant uninformed amateurs until or unless proven otherwise. There are people with more facts than them who are smarter than them, and they should defer to them.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Richie Benaud was a gun all-rounder who had years of on field experience. His analogy is not correct.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Sometimes when you least expect it, someone comes up with an earth-shatteringly magnificent thread. Congratulations!

Here is my rule of thumb.

1. The most valuable opinions are those of a fairly recent captain who has won a major Test series or event in alien conditions, such as Andrew Strauss winning an away Ashes.

By the same token, captains who have been serial failures outside their citadel - such as Misbah or Dhoni - lose status on this measure. If they couldn't get the squads or preparation they needed, why should anybody listen to them?

2. On issues of player quality, generally one should accept the advice of eminent ex-players.

3. On unusual strategic matters - especially developing issues like my obsession of how to play Pink Ball Tests in Australia - players should be viewed as ignorant uninformed amateurs until or unless proven otherwise. There are people with more facts than them who are smarter than them, and they should defer to them.

I find that interesting.

To play the devil's advocate today, almost every ex crickter rates Sachin Tendulkar the best batsmen cricket ever saw (a shade below Bradman, but above all others mostly).

Then why is it, that we should hold more value to your opinion, when you claim, that Tendulkar is 6th or 7th greatest in Asia, and 13th or 14th in the world, when ex-cricketers who played with him, and watched him, are more better equipped to tell about him.

Why must it happen?

 

[Convict]

One thing you note with a lot of commentators is how little domestic cricket they actually follow.

 

[Junaids]

I find that interesting.

To play the devil's advocate today, almost every ex crickter rates Sachin Tendulkar the best batsmen cricket ever saw (a shade below Bradman, but above all others mostly).

Then why is it, that we should hold more value to your opinion, when you claim, that Tendulkar is 6th or 7th greatest in Asia, and 13th or 14th in the world, when ex-cricketers who played with him, and watched him, are more better equipped to tell about him.

Why must it happen?

I don't agree with your sample.

I find that when ex-cricketers still derive a significant income from India, they tend to pay lip service to the Cult of Sachin.

But those who don't seem to recognise a range of people as the best player that they have ever seen - Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis, Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist most frequently.

But my comment wasn't intended to be about the GOAT.

I was trying to say that when, say, Michael Vaughan said six months ago that Haseeb Hameed was special and a talent of far greater potential than Alex Hales, I listened.

 

[Junaids]

One thing you note with a lot of commentators is how little domestic cricket they actually follow.

I remember Warnie's "I hear that Cameron Bancroft is a pretty aggressive young batsman".

 

[cricket.mad]

I don't agree with your sample.

I find that when ex-cricketers still derive a significant income from India, they tend to pay lip service to the Cult of Sachin.

But those who don't seem to recognise a range of people as the best player that they have ever seen - Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis, Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist most frequently.

But my comment wasn't intended to be about the GOAT.

I was trying to say that when, say, Michael Vaughan said six months ago that Haseeb Hameed was special and a talent of far greater potential than Alex Hales, I listened.

I never knew Don Bradman used to derI've his substantial income from India, when he paid lip service about sachin''s batting

 

[Junaids]

I never knew Don Bradman used to derI've his substantial income from India, when he paid lip service about sachin''s batting

I also heard Don Bradman describe Barry Richards and Garry Sobers as the greatest batsmen that he ever saw.

 

[Gilly]

I also heard Don Bradman describe Barry Richards and Garry Sobers as the greatest batsmen that he ever saw.

No one can say anything other than give an opinion, words like the "best batsman" should be followed by "in my opinion". People trying to give definitive lists of players and or abilities are just blowing in the wind. I still remember how NZ were going to beat Australia last year.

 

[fawad_wellwisher]

Statistically speaking good players seldom turn out to be good coaches after their retirement. You have to be a keen observer of the game to be able to give good advice.

A good comparison of who would you listen to can be made between Ramiz an ex-cricketer and Fazeer Mohammad, a commentator who never played cricket but has very good knowledge of the game and about cricketers playing F/C cricket. Ultimately for me it will come down to the kind of advice I am seeking.

 

[JaDed]

Sometimes when you least expect it, someone comes up with an earth-shatteringly magnificent thread. Congratulations!

Here is my rule of thumb.

1. The most valuable opinions are those of a fairly recent captain who has won a major Test series or event in alien conditions, such as Andrew Strauss winning an away Ashes.

By the same token, captains who have been serial failures outside their citadel - such as Misbah or Dhoni - lose status on this measure. If they couldn't get the squads or preparation they needed, why should anybody listen to them?

2. On issues of player quality, generally one should accept the advice of eminent ex-players.

3. On unusual strategic matters - especially developing issues like my obsession of how to play Pink Ball Tests in Australia - players should be viewed as ignorant uninformed amateurs until or unless proven otherwise. There are people with more facts than them who are smarter than them, and they should defer to them.

In LOI's Dhoni is among the top captains born in India,offlate though he has been below par but has won tournaments outside India and first to get a WC within their own country.

 

[kingusama92]

Ideally, a former cricketer with a prowess for analytics is the best source.

It's the perfect blend of both.

Many former cricketers with established biases have shown they're incapable of forming a reasonable opinion, while followers can show their lack of in-game understanding as if the game is played on a spreadsheet.

Michael Atherton is a wonderful example of the ideal former player.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Depends

Ex cricketers can usually answer better when it comes to situational awareness of the game or what the player should/will do but overall I think someone who has followed varied teams in varied conditions over 2 decades will have more in-depth analysis of the overall situation.

 

[Sherlock]

He doesn't actually mean religion, it's a metaphor explaining someone who watches cricket like it is their religion.

Ah, okay. Answer is the same though, ex-cricketers just have enough leeway.

 

[Hitman]

I also heard Don Bradman describe Barry Richards and Garry Sobers as the greatest batsmen that he ever saw.

Really? Links please? Bradman considered Sobers and Pollock as the two greatest left handers they have ever seen. And Tendulkar found a place in his 'All Time World XI'. Not even Viv made it to his list.

 

[Nil Dhumrojal]

Depends on the particular player and his expertise or the particular follower.

If shoaib says something I don't care but if imran/wasim says something then I care.
Again if macgrath gives his opinion on batting then I don't care,likewise if de Silva gives opinion on bowling i don't care .
Most times I don't give much attention on followers opinions and that's because most times there remains some mixture of bias and emotional ingredients

 

[gibsyhesperis]

Im going to make an effort at trying to avoid this thread becoming yet another "Sachin is the greatest, oh no he isn't" fest.
I think the OP has raised an interesting point -- who makes the best adviser, mentor, coach.
Greats of any sport often find the game so easy that they can't understand why lesser mortals can't do what they did (and try to say).
Ferguson was a great coach but an average player. Mourinho barely played.
I'm not sure a Lara would be the best at explaining the best way of playing a cover drive (though he had a delectable one).
What former cricketers understand the best (and non-players never can) is coping with the pressure and mental preparation needed coming into a big match.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Mohammed Yousuf/insert more bitter ex cricketers with an agenda vs [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]

Jee tough call

 

[Tusker]

Imagine two people, A and B. A has played cricket for 20 years, while B has religiously followed cricket for the same period. Both have excelled in their respective fields. Considering all other factors remain comparable for both (e.g, M Yousuf factor, etc), whose opinion should be considered more?

Most cricketers spend a large chunk of their lives playing cricket, and for them cricket comes as a profession from a first person perspective. An obsessed cricket fan on the other hand views it from a third person perspective and may have more cricketing knowledge than an average cricketer.

In my opinion, in matters related to on field tactics, A will have more experience than the fan, and hence his opinion holds more substance. In analytical matters, B may have pondered and researched all different angles, and his opinion matters more.

In technical aspects, I am unable to pick one. A obviously has a lot of experience, and there is no alternative for experience. But A has been practicing his trade for 20 years, and may have adopted a style that suits him. Moreover, since A plays cricket as a profession, there is a high chance that he spends his leisure time away from cricket. He may have not have followed the playing style of his contemporary cricketers, except when playing against them head-to-head.

B, on the other hand may have watched the techniques of other great batsmen in the same era, and may have had the time to compare and contrast.

On the same token, whom do you think may prove to be a better candidate as coach, selector, TV expert, cricket administrator?

If Sachin Tendulkar says Virat Kohli is the best batsman of the current generation, does his opinion count more than if someone like Richie Benaud said so? Answer this question purely from cricketing aspect, factoring out Sachin's fan base and his stature as an All Time Great.

Every cricket fan grows up listening to fairy tales of past cricketers. Cricketers who are now retired and turned to "Experts" are also no exception to this. Therefore there is the inevitable bias and favoritism. Also you must remember that very rarely can they indulge in candid unguarded honest commentary especially when it comes to comparing current players with past greats.. Therefore it is hard to take their words at face value.

And they are not with their faults. I will give you a very simple example of why I stopped talking words of ex-cricketers and experts as Gospel.

Watch this footage of past great player Jack Hobbs : https://youtu.be/HkHWtsrt9Sk?t=5m24s

If you search anywhere all you will find is OTT praise and accolades for him. Bradman even went ahead and said that he was the Technically best batsman he saw. Now it doesn't stop there. In 2001 he was voted as one of the 5 best cricketers of the 20th Century by eminent cricketers who are generally considered as the best cricket analysts or players. Now after a few years and youtube coming along and rare footage started to emerge and become publicly available I happened to watch that footage and immediately knew that I had been duped ( Something I suspected all along but preferred to look the other way ). Because anyone who knows about cricket techniques will promptly tell you that the player in that clip has a very poor technique. But yet no cricket expert in his right mind will dare go and say that out loud in the public. Reasons are very simple. Nobody likes a hero being sullied. Its not the norm. Its the un-written rule of cricketing etiquette. ( So if I become famous overnite I will also follow that protocol )


So to answer your question : I do my own analysis and Iam comfortable judging players based on what I see. I never ever let any past player - however great his stature be - influence my opinions. I know my cricket well enough and pretty capable of backing my views even if I were debating with a top class professional cricketer. Those that rely on expert cricketers to form opinions are generally those who do not have enough time to closely follow cricket or don't yet feel comfortable in their own understanding of the game. Granted it takes a while to understand the nuances of the game.

Of the current lot I rate Nick Knight ,Nasser, Akash Chopra very highly for their very nuanced and technical insights. Ajay Jadeja was also a surprise revelation !.

 

[Chrish]

Neither..

I care about gathered opinions of each; not interested in individual opinion.

If opinion is unanimous, then I accept there must be grain to truth in it.

 

[Chrish]

Really? Links please? Bradman considered Sobers and Pollock as the two greatest left handers they have ever seen. And Tendulkar found a place in his 'All Time World XI'. Not even Viv made it to his list.

Bradman's XI was actually released after Bradman passed away by person named Perrey who is notorious for making things up. I have always had my doubts about authenticity of that XI. Not necessarily regarding inclusion of Tendulkar but just in general

Also Bradman I don't think have ever stated player X is the best he saw. All that comes from "conversations" with Cricket journalists so it's also impossible to verify the truth regarding that matter as well

 

[Misia]

the answer (professional) lies in your question. been there done that got the t-shirt

 

[coy0607]

opinions are opinions- I don't think you can say one person's opinion is necessarily more valuable, especially with how generically you describe the 2 people

like 2 people who played for 20+ years may have very different opinions
or 2 fans who have religiously followed cricket for 30+ years could have different opinions

Opinions are shaped by experiences, everyone has unique experiences and hence unique opinions

 

[Indiafan]

Bradman's XI was actually released after Bradman passed away by person named Perrey who is notorious for making things up. I have always had my doubts about authenticity of that XI. Not necessarily regarding inclusion of Tendulkar but just in general

Also Bradman I don't think have ever stated player X is the best he saw. All that comes from "conversations" with Cricket journalists so it's also impossible to verify the truth regarding that matter as well

Almost like Bradman had not been praising Sachin all his life and compared himself to Sachin

 

[MMHS]

Mohammed Yousuf/insert more bitter ex cricketers with an agenda vs [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]

Jee tough call

I think, there are two parts of the argument - one is the technical part of the game & the other is strategic part of the game. For the technical aspects of the game (batting technique, adjustments, flaws or bowling fundamentals, judging the ability of a player at nets .....) a Cricketer is definitely in better position than an enthusiast. But, when it comes to the strategy of a game, a combination for particular context, a squad selection for a tour, reporting on a match situation, or impact of a law/condition change, regarding young prospects - it's not about how much cricket one has played; rather how much games one has watched, studied or analyzed and how much domestic cricket one follows matters more. For example - we did discuss lots about the squad of AUS/NZ tour & most of the discussion are actually spot on - just one example is the recall of Asghar as a cover of Yasir, when there is a SLAO spinner already in the team. That's because we already know more or less how good is Nawaz or Asghar is - BUT, none of us is a better judge of how good a player Asghar or Gohar actually is than Inzi. Our judgements often are based on stats & real life experience (of watching matches), but Inzi is far better judge of the skill level of a player (though he might not select the best players for other reasons, which we are free to do). Obviously, if someone playing a decade of international & then spend 3/4 hours everyday studying the game will be the best in this regard because he can compliment his analytics with real life experience; but often former great players don't bother to see beyond his known world. Probably the best is those who has played long years at highest level & them studied/followed the game closely enough to match their experience.

Cardus, Arlott or Swanton were outstaying cricket writers/analyst - if you read them, you can learn lots about the fundamentals of the game, the psychological aspects of early days' cricket; but a lot of their literature was fantastic description of the game, which they described with their outstanding skills of playing with English language. But, I find them often to be more poetic than strategist - they described the game the way they liked or perceived it should be. Probably, same is Harsha, Cozier, Blofield or Quarishi - lots of knowledge, passion & these guys have given more than enough time in the game & they do possessed lots of knowledge about the technical aspects of the game, young players. But, what they couldn't do is relate the situation with real life experience (not examples - that any one can do who has watched lots of cricket)

On contrary, 2 of my most favorite commentators were Benaud & Tony Grieg - they had the highest level of knowledge of the game, followed, studied the game for 50+ years in different countries - but above all, they had been in the middle for 2 decades at highest level. One great trick of Benaud was, he'll never describe what is obvious or what common people can see - he'll discuss the technical aspects - what went wrong/right & what could be the alternatives/possible out comes & definitely, at the end, he'll relate that situation with a real life example.

Another example I can give is Imran's book - all-round view - Imran wasn't a tactical genius, in fact he was often very straight forward - but, in his book, he just described the context or the situation from his own view; for readers who had seen those matches or studied carefully, can relate that from his thoughts. In that regard, you don't need to be a super cricketer like Khan or Benaud or Toni; for someone like Brearly is unbelievably astute, almost a genius of describing a cricket situation or analyzing the ins & outs of a player. His passion to study the game, his degree from Cambridge indeed helped, but what was also key is his 25 years career as County pro & his religious studying of the game - even without playing a single FC match, Richie or Mike or Tony would have been outstanding analysts for the time they invested to study/follow the game; but their playing career indeed helped them in this regard.

Most of modern cricket greats turned media person actually don't bother much to study the game or cross check their facts; hence they lose lots of credibility. One classic example I can give is Benaud's toss report - he was a freak; I have heard him confidently to forecast a match winning total at toss (& after team combination, who are the key players) - he was often 95% accurate. Because, as he explained - before any toss, he'll study that season's matches on that track, which players have done well in recent past on that ground (& who resemble them in playing 22), what are the weather context, what history tells; if possible, he'll have a chat or two with the groundsmen regarding his preparation - it's like an exam like preparation. Take any modern greats (I won't put names here - almost everyone is same) - I can tell that their 90% pitch report is almost CCP (cut, copy, paste). Besides, a trick that worked for a superstar in his game won't work for others - Benaud, ChaappleI or Tony won't tell directly what Warne or Murali or Wasim or Lara need to do - they'll describe a similar situation & tell what they/Captain/bowler/batsmen did & what was outcome - explaining technicalities of that particular situation. He who follows the game & can relate their thoughts with historical context, can understand the strategy or tactics.

Regarding MoYo, his technical knowledge of batting is quite sound - he'll be a great mentor for youngsters at NCA, but he is not diplomatic enough (partially for his educational background & partially for his superiority complex) to work in media. He speaks too much of his mind - often which is biased from emotional attachments or motivated from his beliefs, fellow feelings or personal grudge. He is prone to the biggest mistake as an analyst - his personal preference takes better of what data, history or situation indicates. Just one example I can give is Amir saga - Amir should be allowed to return in the game because he made a crime, served his punishment & now he starts from scratch (So is Asif & Butt) - NOT because Amir is young or talented. He should have argued Ram(bo) on that ground - otherwise, next time Yasir can get away after murdering someone for his talent.

A good cricketer can turn into a great analyst, if he prepares himself for that role - but no matter how good an analyst you are, one can't be a good cricketer , if he had not been already; therefore I'll always listen carefully to those cricket greats, whom I find analytical & good student of the game.

 

[Indiafan]

I will give you two scenarios and you can choose which one applies to cricket

1) Scenario one - Someone reads up a lot about how to swim, sees others swimming, follows swimming. But has never swam before. He has never stepped in deep water so he cannot swim. Will he be able to decide how to save a drowning person better than a swimmer?

2) Scenario two - We have sales reps who are great in their work. Know in and out of the part and their daily targets. Each one is an expert in their own field only. Will they be able to decide which is the best strategy to take the entire department or company forward? Or would a data/strategic/analytical expert, who has no experience selling himself but understands data and can read up on sales history do a better job when it comes to analysing and suggesting remedy to things which are wrong?

 

[Chrish]

Almost like Bradman had not been praising Sachin all his life and compared himself to Sachin

He said his batting style is similar to him; not as good as him. Two distinct meanings.

Bradman has always showered praise for Sobers. So Sachin is not the only one to get his attention.