Players that are the most overated by CW posters.

[hang on]

new on here and not that good with the quotes and multiquotes widgets!

 

[Jacknife]

Naseer Hussein, Michael Artherton, Alec Stewart, Darren Gough, Caddick and every other English cricketer that is considered better than the likes of Hayden, Gilchrist, Gillespies etc in their respective field.

Seriously, has anyone here ever claimed this because although I haven't been here years and haven't seen such, they'd have to be pretty deluded.

 

[Burgey]

It's going to be massively lol-worthy if I get infraction points for calling someone a buffoon. I mean if I'd called anyone a **** I could understand it.

 

[GIMH]

Richard claimed Hussain and possibly Atherton were better than Hayden. Sanz was just being a buffoon with his post though because one guy holding an opinion does not make the players that are the subject of it overrated when no-one else agrees.

 

[Jacknife]

He was before your time, but one person actually did think that. Partly because he takes FCA and FPT for granted too much.

Richard claimed Hussain and possibly Atherton were better than Hayden. Sanz was just being a buffoon with his post though because one guy holding an opinion does not make the players that are the subject of it overrated when no-one else agrees.

I didn't catch on, until I read morgieb's post, bit before my time, although I'd seen his name and his 1 million post count around.

 

[Fusion]

GIMH and Burgey, please stop with the buffoon insult. You may consider it harmless, the members you directed it towards may not. The rule is not to insult other members; the terminology you use to do it is all considered the same.

Hang on and everyone else, please move on from the moderating discussion. As noted earlier, if you have a problem with a post, please report it and the mods will take a look at it.

 

[Maximus0723]

In baseball, perhaps the most stat-laden sport there is after cricket, a career batting average of 0.350 is considered nigh impossible to better, though quite a few batters have come close.

No baseball is before cricket. Not after. 100%.

 

[Blaze 18]

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between a moderator and a staff member ?

 

[GIMH]

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between a moderator and a staff member ?

A moderator enforces forum rules etc.

Staff members do work for the site, such as writing features/blogs, book reviews, updating fantasy cricket etc.

Staff members don't have authority on the forums. Except for me, bow down to me

 

[fredfertang]

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between a moderator and a staff member ?

One group is much more important than the other

 

[Blaze 18]

A moderator enforces forum rules etc.

Staff members do work for the site, such as writing features/blogs, book reviews, updating fantasy cricket etc.

Staff members don't have authority on the forums. Except for me, bow down to me

Cheers for the info!

One group is much more important than the other

Right.

 

[Furball]

Old, and dusted argument. There are only few crickerters in school cricket who average 100+. But that does not conclusively say that they are better than a test batsman averaging 25. Inthe case of school cricket and test cricket, we know what has the superior quality. But when it comes to test cricket of 30s and now, the answer is not clear cut due to various pro and con reasons.

It's pretty ****ing clear cut when it comes to Bradman. For someone who loves jacking off to stats you've got this strange aversion to recognising Bradman's greatness, when he's by far the greatest batsman the game's ever seen by whatever statistical measure you wish to use.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah, but correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. I think the main difference between the averages comes from the 90s and 00s being more result orientated whereas draws were more common in the 20s-40s. Naturally, that'll bump averages a bit higher..

Think whether you want to argue that pitches were flatter or the bowling was worse, the bottom line is that scoring runs was at least as easy if not more so than scoring runs in the last 2 decades. It cant merely be coincidence that some of the highest batting averaging players happened to be playing in that era. In fact, in the top 10 highest averaging players of all time (who have played more than 20 tests), 9 of them (Bradman, Pollock, Headley, Sutcliffe, Paynter, Barrington, Weekes, Hammond and Sobers) all played in the era of uncovered pitches and no helmets.

Does it not strike you as slightly ironic that whilst they were playing on uncovered pitches and against batsmen that didnt have half as much protection as they have today that batsmen happened to have comparable averages to the current era? Could it be that perhaps the bowling wasnt as good as people like to think it was? Its certainly a valid argument. I simply cant agree with the flip side though, suggesting that it was more difficult to bat back then while a bloke was averaging 99.94 and another handful averaging nearly 60 is just ridiculous.

 

[smash84]

Think whether you want to argue that pitches were flatter or the bowling was worse, the bottom line is that scoring runs was at least as easy if not more so than scoring runs in the last 2 decades. It cant merely be coincidence that some of the highest batting averaging players happened to be playing in that era. In fact, in the top 10 highest averaging players of all time (who have played more than 20 tests), 9 of them (Bradman, Pollock, Headley, Sutcliffe, Paynter, Barrington, Weekes, Hammond and Sobers) all played in the era of uncovered pitches and no helmets.

Does it not strike you as slightly ironic that whilst they were playing on uncovered pitches and against batsmen that didnt have half as much protection as they have today that batsmen happened to have comparable averages to the current era? Could it be that perhaps the bowling wasnt as good as people like to think it was? Its certainly a valid argument. I simply cant agree with the flip side though, suggesting that it was more difficult to bat back then while a bloke was averaging 99.94 and another handful averaging nearly 60 is just ridiculous.

that is a very interesting point

 

[smash84]

Staff members don't have authority on the forums. Except for me, bow down to me

 

[Migara]

It's pretty ****ing clear cut when it comes to Bradman. For someone who loves jacking off to stats you've got this strange aversion to recognising Bradman's greatness, when he's by far the greatest batsman the game's ever seen by whatever statistical measure you wish to use.

For stats to be used we have to make sure that the conditions are the same or at least similar. That is the very thing we don't know. Failing to accept that the game Bradman played was different to today's, and thiniking that Bradman has a god given right not to be criticized is borderline fan-boyism in my honest opinion.

 

[Burgey]

For stats to be used we have to make sure that the conditions are the same or at least similar. That is the very thing we don't know. Failing to accept that the game Bradman played was different to today's, and thiniking that Bradman has a god given right not to be criticized is borderline fan-boyism in my honest opinion.

What are your criticisms of him then? Pray tell, enlighten us.

 

[Migara]

What are your criticisms of him then? Pray tell, enlighten us.

So Bradman is as perfect as a Omnipotent / omnimax god?

 

[Burgey]

So Bradman is as perfect as a Omnipotent / omnimax god?

That's not an answer to the question. What are your criticisms of him?

 

[Migara]

That's not an answer to the question. What are your criticisms of him?

That was not my initial statement. Don't put word in my mouth. I said he should not immune from criticism and you tend to differ. So must be as perfect as the creator if there's one.