Is the constant talk about numbers during live coverage a PR initiative?

[zen]

When listing to experts on TV, there is a constant talk on individual stats like X’s 50th 100, Y’s 5, 000 runs, Z’s 100 on a ground (even though it could have been 4-5 years ago), etc., a PR initiative?
 

Such practises need to be limited/curtailed as these may encourage players to stats pad as well (Well they do keep their numbers in mind). 
 

What should matter is the impact that you make. You can score a 200 hundred in a bilateral to help the team by 100 runs or hit 20 in the last over to get a close victory, a win is a win. For me that 20 off the last over is equally important.

 

 

[Adamant]

Consistent contributions by individuals should always be applauded. 

 

There's a reason why no one considers Faulkner a legend just bcoz he performed well in a final. 

 

Only idiots with no brain consider a one off performance equal to years of toil and consistency. 

 

But then no one listens to them and the cricketing world only considers people who actually were consistent and broke records as legends. 

 

For example Chanderpaul hardly won much with the bat but his status is bigger than the likes of Pandya, Faulkner, and all ipl superstars put together. 

[Suhaan]

11 minutes ago, Adamant said:

Consistent contributions by individuals should always be applauded. 

 

There's a reason why no one considers Faulkner a legend just bcoz he performed well in a final. 

 

Only idiots with no brain consider a one off performance equal to years of toil and consistency. 

 

But then no one listens to them and the cricketing world only considers people who actually were consistent and broke records as legends. 

 

For example Chanderpaul hardly won much with the bat but his status is bigger than the likes of Pandya, Faulkner, and all ipl superstars put together. 

What was Faulknerr's role ,are you so sensible comparing his role with some top order"consistent" batter?

[zen]

12 minutes ago, Adamant said:

Consistent contributions by individuals should always be 

I can understand the enthusiasm to post something but understand the topic then comment! 
 

 

[zen]

2 minutes ago, Suhaan said:

What was Faulknerr's role ,are you so sensible comparing his role with some top order"consistent" batter?

That kid just makes random posts on this forum w/o even understanding the topic.

 

[Sooda]

TBF to Faulkner, if not for injuries he would be an LOI legend

[express bowling]

I think it is an attempt by Broadcasters  ( especially Star ) to get more and more casual fans interested in their shows. 

 

Casual fans watch parts of games when superstars play / bat.  

 

But this exercise is highly irritating for fans who follow Indian cricket closely and know that 5 or 7 year old performances carry little meaning today.

 

 

 

 

[Bigg Brother]

1 hour ago, Adamant said:

Consistent contributions by individuals should always be applauded. 

 

There's a reason why no one considers Faulkner a legend just bcoz he performed well in a final. 

 

Only idiots with no brain consider a one off performance equal to years of toil and consistency. 

 

But then no one listens to them and the cricketing world only considers people who actually were consistent and broke records as legends. 

 

For example Chanderpaul hardly won much with the bat but his status is bigger than the likes of Pandya, Faulkner, and all ipl superstars put together. 

Logic-e-Adamant.

 

 

[Adamant]

2 hours ago, Suhaan said:

What was Faulknerr's role ,are you so sensible comparing his role with some top order"consistent" batter?

I don't care for roles, doesn't matter what his role was, wasn't he a world cup winning player. 

 

I am comparing status of players like him to Chanderpaul who hardly won anything. 

 

It's a proof of how consistent performers are treated as greats instead of one off performers, doesn't matter if the performance came in a world cup final. 

 

 

Also what would you like the broadcasters to show in a game of cricket? 

Gilli danda stats? 

 

Low iq stuff yet again

[Adamant]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

I think it is an attempt by Broadcasters  ( especially Star ) to get more and more casual fans interested in their shows. 

 

Casual fans watch parts of games when superstars play / bat.  

 

But this exercise is highly irritating for fans who follow Indian cricket closely and know that 5 or 7 year old performances carry little meaning today.

 

 

 

 

What would you like the broadcasters to show in a gme of cricket? 

What's the problem in highlighting cricket stats in a game of cricket? 

Why shouldn't they show stats of a player on a ground? 

 

Is this a new thing? 

It was the same in Sachin 's time or Akram' s time, do you think that was also a PR or a STAR SPORTD formula? 

 

This is a zero iq thread. 

[Adamant]

This was happening since 1990s, maybe according to our OP pr machinery was at work even at that time. 

[zen]

4 hours ago, express bowling said:

But this exercise is highly irritating for fans who follow Indian cricket closely and know that 5 or 7 year old performances carry little meaning today.

The discussions can go like this: 

 

kiya yeah apna ____ shatak marege (who cares! … If the batsmen gets 20 off last over to help a team win, that is good too!)

 

then in the next game, rinse & repeat 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by zen

[sarcastic]

5 hours ago, Adamant said:

What would you like the broadcasters to show in a gme of cricket? 

What's the problem in highlighting cricket stats in a game of cricket? 

Why shouldn't they show stats of a player on a ground? 

 

Is this a new thing? 

It was the same in Sachin 's time or Akram' s time, do you think that was also a PR or a STAR SPORTD formula? 

 

This is a zero iq thread. 

Very valid points.

You made a good response to a good poster such as @express bowling.

Honestly speaking, even if the broadcasters are catering to casual audience what is wrong with it.
A casual fans needs entertainment and the broadcaster needs money. Everyone is happy.
The problem is with the serious fan but they are small in number. Ideally everyone should be satisfied but that is not possible.