Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[aussie]

You did imply we are idiots. No one thinks your Stewart thing makes any sense except you. So you bring in articles from various online sites to say, oh look what world are you guys living in. Seriously, every one can think for themselves. We don't need to be schooled. You believe what you believe but not need to try to run your beliefs down the noses of people.

Right so I tell you I don't think anyone here is a idiot, but you don't believe me - instead insist that I've offended everyone calling site members and idiot. Interesting touchy response, because a few pages ago when a poster actually referred to me as a racist in a cricket discussion - I didn't see too much people saying anything that even bothered them from a simple posit #doubestandard

I'm also pretty sure I've said a few times in thread that who don't agree its fine & I never was forcing anyone to agree with my assertion on Stewart in a ATXI. At the end of the day these are teams of every individuals imagination - its hypothetical - its not like the match will play

So let me repeat me highlighting the cricinfo examples was simply show - some of the presumptions I made were done by people before when selecting their ATXIs - so such selection theories is not a far fetched as you or others may think.

 

[cnerd123]

Also I love how you think Sanga would be just as good keeping and batting at 5, when such a strong part of your pro-Knott analysis is to ignore his performances outside of the number 7 slot. Batting position is so critical to you when you analyse Knott's batting achievements, yet you would happily bat Sanga out of position and expect him to do just as well. Should add a lack of logical consistency onto your list of fallacies...

 

[Pratters]

So the list of fallacies now read as:

- Infallible selectors fallacy
- Evaluating cricketers on cricket they never played
- Being the best option available = actually being good
- Appeal to Authority

Good stuff. Needs some statistical manhandling in here to round it off.

- Overrating English players of the 90s
- Searching on Google.com based on your hypothesis to find random articles and some how thinking they give credence to beliefs.

 

[Pratters]

Also I love how you think Sanga would be just as good keeping and batting at 5, when such a strong part of your pro-Knott analysis is to ignore his performances outside of the number 7 slot. Batting position is so critical to you when you analyse Knott's batting achievements, yet you would happily bat Sanga out of position and expect him to do just as well. Should add a lack of logical consistency onto your list of fallacies...

This has been the most blatant fallacy for me. It boggles the mind because at one point some thing is argued with x logic as base and at another skmenthing is argued against x logic as base.

 

[aussie]

Hardly. PEWS analysed the cricket White did play to suggest he was a better bowler than his stats suggest, whereas your tried to analyse cricket he didn't play (the 14 tests he missed at his 'peak', in your words) to suggest he would have ended up with a better record than he did.

Is someone using your profile? its not very ***** to actually reply to post and explain anything related to cricket. No sure if I should be impressed or seriously considered - so i read and reply with caution...


No me mentioning the 14 tests he didn't play had nothing to do with my actual assessment of his career peak record from WI 2000 - AUS 2002/03. There was an obvious distinction between the points, this is why you should have been tempted to reply and just carry on posting random nonsense all over the thread.

Neither match up to what your initial assertion was - that White was a 'good' allrounder and not a bits-and-pieces cricketer. PEWS leans towards him being more of a bowler who can bat a bit, and I'm sure you'll find a few who will agree on that. But you're going to have to do better to convince people that he was a Test Standard allrounder - and no a handful of Cricinfo articles wont be enough either

The evidence of White's career at his peak clearly shows he was a test standard all-rounder & I'm comfortable with that belief and will certainly take it with me to the grave and when i meet allah. And I'm willing to bet a lot of money if we could get Nasser Hussain and Duncan Fletcher view on it they will agree.

However if you and others here believe he wasn't a test standard all-rounder and was just a bits and pieces cricketer on the same level as David Capel, Mike Watkinson, Mark Ealham, Chris Lewis - then like in UK politics between labour and conservative - we have reached the ideological gridlock point & we the issue can be left there.

 

[aussie]

Stewart shouldn't have kept in so many tests. He batted far better when he didn't keep. Would have made more sense to have him bat as a specialist and have some one else keep.

Says the man who just accused me of running my beliefs down the noses of people...

 

[cnerd123]

Atleast he's consistent in believing that batting accomplishments as a pure-batsman should carry as much weight as those made as a keeper with regards to Stewart and Sanga. It's flawed but its consistent.

 

[cnerd123]

The evidence of White's career at his peak clearly shows he was a test standard all-rounder & I'm comfortable with that belief and will certainly take it with me to the grave

Lolololol

 

[aussie]

Also I love how you think Sanga would be just as good keeping and batting at 5, when such a strong part of your pro-Knott analysis is to ignore his performances outside of the number 7 slot. Batting position is so critical to you when you analyse Knott's batting achievements, yet you would happily bat Sanga out of position and expect him to do just as well. Should add a lack of logical consistency onto your list of fallacies...

Well of course in your mind as is the trend with most your posts - with the use of your favourite word again - you have convinced yourself what your typed here is logical.

I never ignored Knott's performances outside of 7, i just acknowledged he had his best record was at 7. What does that have to do with the base point that I said, which is he is IMO the best all-round keeping option in a ATXI by the way?

 

[aussie]

Atleast he's consistent in believing that batting accomplishments as a pure-batsman should carry as much weight as those made as a keeper with regards to Stewart and Sanga. It's flawed but its consistent.

No that's your consistent flawed interpretation of what you think I've said.

 

[Pratters]

Not sure where you get that from *****. Keeping affected averages of Sangakarra and Stewart. Not so much Gilchrist. Not sure I have even considered what weight what carries. That would depend on a lot of factors.

 

[cnerd123]

Not sure where you get that from *****. Keeping affected averages of Sangakarra and Stewart. Not so much Gilchrist. Not sure I have even considered what weight what carries. That would depend on a lot of factors.

Basically if you are picking a keeper/batsman, you evaluate him based mainly on the matches he actually played as a keeper batsman. To pick Sanga to keep wicket and bat 5 based on his batting 3 isn't logical.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah, I believe the same. Not sure why you felt I don't.

 

[aussie]

I have never met a person who has been persuaded by the logic of a rational argument. Not one. Rather we make our decision based on how we feel about the person making the argument.

In my picking of hypothetical ATXIs all my life randomly, I've always been picking Stewart to keep for England interchanging with Knott based on opposition (key part of my point that has flown over some posters understanding) long before cricinfo did their ATXI media exercise. The examples I gave with their specific team choices just shows some of the same permutations I made in backing Stewart to do a job in my version of the ENG ATXI - was done by other people when picking ATXI teams.

So again who don't agree my imagination that's fine - the way people arguing you swear this ENG ATXI going and play Pakistan in Sharjah next week

 

[Pratters]

Would you pick Dhoni in your all time xi of India or Dinesh Karthik in your all time xi of India?

 

[cnerd123]

I never ignored Knott's performances outside of 7, i just acknowledged he had his best record was at 7. What does that have to do with the base point that I said, which is he is IMO the best all-round keeping option in a ATXI by the way?

Lol you literally picked Knott over Gilchrist in this very thread in pages 3 and 4 on the strength of his record batting at 7. You ignored his overall average and decided that since he will be batting at 7 in the ATG XI, those are the performances that will carry the most weight in your evaluation.

You then picked Stewart at 6 because you gave equal weight to his performances all around the batting order when comparing him vs Knott, and decided he is a better batsman and thus fits the England ATG XI balance better.

But atleast Stewart has some experience and success batting at 6. You pick Sanga to bat at 5 and keep wicket even tho he basically has never done that (I checked - 5 innings with 79 runs), based on the strength of his keeping ability and runs at 3.

It has been some very impressive goalpost shifting, I must say. I'll add this onto the list of fallacies.

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah, I believe the same. Not sure why you felt I don't.

Was targeted at Aussie not you lol.

 

[cnerd123]

Anyways this has all been very amusing. Not expecting you to change your mind Aussie - you'd rather go to your grave believing Craig White was a Test Standard allrounder than accept you are wrong. It's just been hilarious to read all this.

Also I cant let your flawed posting go unchallenged, lest some young impressionable cricket fan in the future stumbles across this thread and reads your posts. The flaws in your arguments should be apparent to most people (as evident by the reactions in this thread), but its nice to have then spelt out clearly.

 

[Pratters]

In my picking of hypothetical ATXIs all my life randomly, I've always been picking Stewart to keep for England interchanging with Knott based on opposition (key part of my point that has flown over some posters understanding) long before cricinfo did their ATXI media exercise. The examples I gave with their specific team choices just shows some of the same permutations I made in backing Stewart to do a job in my version of the ENG ATXI - was done by other people when picking ATXI teams.

So again who don't agree my imagination that's fine - the way people arguing you swear this ENG ATXI going and play Pakistan in Sharjah next week

But why? Knott was a far better keeper than Stewart and they both bat to a certain level as keepers. Knott is actually brilliant if we go by the number 7 logic you put. Even if we just go by your logics, Knott would win million out of million times v Stewart for England surely?

 

[cnerd123]

Thats the secret Pratters - its not about simply using flawed logic, you've got to use it inconsistently as well. That is how you consistently convince yourself that you are always right.