Crabcakes wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 10:52 am
Oboogie wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 11:06 pm
Bloke who's good at one thing is crap at something else.
Isn't that true of all of us?
While this is very much true of all of us, what isn’t is that most of us appreciate we’re crap at other things and don’t try and do that thing on a national level based on the assumption we’ll be good at it based on our talent at other thing.
The worst case scenario though is when you’re not even remotely any good at the main thing either, but think you are, and then you turn your cack hand to something else and are equally bad if not worse at that (see: the prime ministerial career and written portfolio of one L. Truss)
Bear with me while I ramble on sport-philosophy.
Cricket is perhaps unique in forcing many well-regarded players to do things they aren't good at.
In Panesar's case, he's in the team to bowl slow with an old ball - that's his strength.
The format of the game also requires him to bat.
He's not good at that, goes in last and usually gets out very soon after.
You can make it in cricket, while being crap at some aspects of the game.
Speculate whether this insulates retired cricketers against imposter syndrome.
Other sports funnel their stars extremely aggressively, but provide a career for "doing one thing extremely well".
Nobody expects most Rugby wingers to take a turn in the front row of the scrum.
Now that football has generous substitutions, it's extremely rare for an outfield player to have to play in goal.
The stars do the thing they're best at, at an elite level, then physical deterioration forces them to stop.
Speculate whether this is the root of so much post-retirement delinquency.