People aren't arguging that you can't hypothesise something without having seen the footage - my arguement (and I wouldn't claim to speak for others) is that I am not comfortable with giving objective'ish judgements in cases where I haven't actually seen the players in question ply their trade.
This particular post underscores the dangers in relying on subjective 'expert' opinion.I would have to look it up, but I think he said players he had watched or batted against, but as he had not watched Barnes he was unsure, but as Barnes did not have the wrong-un. he would put Tiger first
Still I would be happy with Bradman rating Tiger No.1, his choice
Your mileage may vary.
I think the point was more with regards to how the Don made his opinion and not who he chose. Different eras have used different criteria and put value on certain criteria when judging Cricketers. For example, people know and touted then how many wickets he took per match, but they never talk about his strike-rate. Whilst that is a big thing nowadays.I would have to look it up, but I think he said players he had watched or batted against, but as he had not watched Barnes he was unsure, but as Barnes did not have the wrong-un. he would put Tiger first
Still I would be happy with Bradman rating Tiger No.1, his choice
This for me too.
But when threads like these are created they're not asking for clear cut objective judgements. It's pretty obvious that they'll contain a fair bit of subjective analysis, no one is claiming otherwise.
Best post in the thread.
The irony is that some of the people are saying they'd rather not judge at all are being lambasted for not doing so or for holding the opinion that they can't judge accurately even if they were to take a punt.
It reminds me of a Channel 4 show on the best album ever, as voted by the Channel 4 viewers. The winner was The Stone Roses by The Stone Roses, which I felt said more about the Channel 4 viewer demographic than the relative merits of the albums. Ditto Q Magazine, winner being OK Computer. If you put that issue to the vote of say, Golf Weekly readers, you'd get a different answer (probably).
I have to admit I am not a huge fan of strike rate, and can see why it was not that important in games in Aust where the Tests were played to a finish. Also in the 60s they scored much slower, which you would think meant they took less risk then these days, which I would imagine would reduce SR
That is a spurious statement
People jump on these threads when people compare past players and say 'you can't compare players you did not see' 
Read back through the thread and see who actually said "You can't" then realise you're acting like a tool about this.That is a spurious statement
They don't start by saying personally I don't like to compare players, they say:'you can't'
And then when people point out how silly that line of thinking is, they come with stupid arguments to try and convince people that so called experts from the past did not know what they were saying
The problem is much harder to evaluate. For example, what was Barrington's or Boycott's SR? Does the stat even exist? If they were in the 30s, then I actually would rather the latter pair.I have to admit I am not a huge fan of strike rate, and can see why it was not that important in games in Aust where the Tests were played to a finish. Also in the 60s they scored much slower, which you would think meant they took less risk then these days, which I would imagine would reduce SR
Imagine bowling to a team containing Boycott and Barrington, as opposed to Hayden and Langer. The four batsman have a similar Test ave: (as a pair), but I am sure the bowlers SR bowling to the former would be much higher
I understand about the critera, you have to be able to use your brain when reading things that were written a long time ago. If you have an understanding, then that should not be a concern
I didn't read that. I read that in their opinion they can't judge them so they don't. I haven't seen anyone quote anybody else and say "don't judge".That is a spurious statement
They don't start by saying personally I don't like to compare players, they say:'you can't'
And then when people point out how silly that line of thinking is, they come with stupid arguments to try and convince people that so called experts from the past did not know what they were saying
Personal abuse is unlike you, and so I shall just pretend it did not happen
I have no doubt we would rate Sobers as the greatest AR no matter what era he played in, and really can't fathom you thinking otherwise
I beg to differ. His bowling record is in tatters statistically and every discussion we have surrounding his bowling is off pure commentary and not something that is necessary backed by facts. But let's not digress.I have no doubt we would rate Sobers as the greatest AR no matter what era he played in, and really can't fathom you thinking otherwise
I am not saying you shove your opinion in people's throats but that people generally talk about players like Hobbs as if there is no other option than to agree...despite such a person not ever seeing Hobbs play. See...one can have an idea about Hobbs but never ever be that sure.
You're missing the point. But let's move on.And if people don't think Hobbs and Barnes are two of the greatest players of our game, fine, but don't make the comment on a cricket forum and just expect everyone to except it, and then when they don't; say: 'it is just my opinion'
So they were not big on SR and they were more into time rather then balls faced, I can still compare them, and as it is impossible to line up players from 100 years ago and pit them against players of now, then it is just going to be my opinion
As for prefering to watch the latter pair, again; your choice
Anyway sick of debating this, you are giving no ground, and we are starting to go around in circles
