The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Starfighter]

I must say, I'd like to have seen Bo Jackson dominate the Isle of Man TT. That would have been a great test of his reactions and everything.

 

[TheJediBrah]

No it really doesn't.

Bo Jackson smashed 100mph fast balls with a tiny bat fora living. He threw the ball in on the full from further than any cricket boundary. He ran the 100m in Olympic medal time at high school. He was the superstar of teh Raiders in the NFL running in long range touchdowns.

For me, there is no contest. For you, you prefer Bradman, That's your choice. I think it's an odd one, but you can go with dominance if you like. Someone else may go with Phiul Taylor for all his championships dominance.

I prefer the multi skilled multi faceted freak that is Bo.

Yeah we know, you've said that a few hundred times. Can you stop now?

wait let me guess "not if people keep replying to me"

 

[Pratters]

No it really doesn't.

Bo Jackson smashed 100mph fast balls with a tiny bat fora living. He threw the ball in on the full from further than any cricket boundary. He ran the 100m in Olympic medal time at high school. He was the superstar of teh Raiders in the NFL running in long range touchdowns.

For me, there is no contest. For you, you prefer Bradman, That's your choice. I think it's an odd one, but you can go with dominance if you like. I prefer the multi skilled multi faceted freak that is Bo.

Playing balls off the surface is completely different to hitting balls in baseball. You have to adjust to different kinds of wickets as well. Has he every played cricket that you can be so sure he could bat well versus Shakib? I am pretty sure he wouldn't make 100, let alone 300 v Bangladesh. Hitting the kind of runs Bradman did is unimaginable. If cricket was so easy, he would be able to do it.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Fat consumes less oxygen than muscle. Surely you knew this? There is a reason the best edurance athletes are all skinny fat. More muscle = less endurance. The three guys I mentioned are all fat as **** but also have the best endurance the the heavyweight division (not just MMA - wrestling and kickboxing too).

The muscular explosive guys gas out quickly - Andre Russel isn't built to bat long innings, he's built for short explosive ones.

Russell is about as close as you'd get to Bo, with far less talent imo.

Bo was an absolute freak of nature in his prime. Dre Russ is a good t20 player.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Because it definitely does. Sure Inzy carried a few extra pounds you do need a certain amount of fitness which he obviously had. You don't need explosive power or incredible speed, but it's not like any unfit person could come in and do it.

Inzi and Ranatunga used to get winded very easily. They had rubbish fitness and stamina. What Inzi had was good muscle memory and a solid technique which meant his lack of stamina didn't affect his strokeplay, but did affect his running. A lot. I don't think there's any way anyone can argue he was some great athlete by any of the usual parameters. Great sportsmen can be poor athletes you know, it's not necessarily an insult because he didn't need it.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Playing balls off the surface is completely different to hitting balls in baseball. You have to adjust to different kinds of wickets as well. Has he every played cricket that you can be so sure he could bat well versus Shakib? I am pretty sure he wouldn't make 100, let alone 300 v Bangladesh. Hitting the kind of runs Bradman did is unimaginable. If cricket was so easy, he would be able to do it.

If it paid anywhere near what MLB or NFL did at the time, he probably woulda tried it.

So now where in the demand and supply zone.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah he is the latter. Neither of the former.

https://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2013/03/bo_jackson_named_greatest_athl.html

Athlete isn't the same as sportsperson. Your argument was greatest SPORTSPERSON. My point is you can't compare Comaneci, Federer, Jordan, Bradman etc as they are all supremely skilled and the greatest sports persons in their own rights. Dissing on a sport doesn't put forward your argument either, no.

 

[Starfighter]

Playing balls off the surface is completely different to hitting balls in baseball. You have to adjust to different kinds of wickets as well. Has he every played cricket that you can be so sure he could bat well versus Shakib? I am pretty sure he wouldn't make 100, let alone 300 v Bangladesh. Hitting the kind of runs Bradman did is unimaginable. If cricket was so easy, he would be able to do it.

Put simply, if strength and speed are the only important things in batting why are the powerful T20 batsmen like Lynn so appalling against spin?


And how the hell does needing skill make something a 'game' and not a 'sport'? Sports are games anyway, and both NFL and MLB require plenty of skill to reach elite levels.

 

[cnerd123]

Miyagi, you

1) Have admitted you don't actually play cricket
2) Have admitted you don't understand the athletic demands of cricket
3) Have shown to not understand how cardio/musculature works in athletes
4) Don't seem to have a grasp on how broad and vague the term 'athleticism' is
5) Still do not know why you were wrong in post #7900 on page 198

Why are you arguing all this so vociferously?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Athlete isn't the same as sportsperson. Your argument was greatest SPORTSPERSON. My point is you can't compare Comaneci, Federer, Jordan, Bradman etc as they are all supremely skilled and the greatest sports persons in their own rights. Dissing on a sport doesn't put forward your argument either, no.

I'm not dissing on cricket. It is my favorite game to watch.

Seen my post count? I clearly love cricket.

But don't make out like it something its not. It is a game of skill and stuff all else if not fast bowling.

 

[Pratters]

If it paid anywhere near what MLB or NFL did at the time, he probably woulda tried it.

So now where in the demand and supply zone.

He wouldn't be able to do it even if he tried it. Not every one who is a great athlete can become a great batsman. Great athlete Atul Sharma could never be a great fast bowler, for example.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Inzi and Ranatunga used to get winded very easily. They had rubbish fitness and stamina. What Inzi had was good muscle memory and a solid technique which meant his lack of stamina didn't affect his strokeplay, but did affect his running. A lot. I don't think there's any way anyone can argue he was some great athlete by any of the usual parameters. Great sportsmen can be poor athletes you know, it's not necessarily an insult because he didn't need it.

This is all true. I don't even know how this reached the point of us trying to defend Inzi's "athleticism".

Cricket doesn't require as much athleticism as many other sports, pretty sure we can all agree on that. Inzi was a fat ****, we can agree on that too.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Miyagi, you

1) Have admitted you don't actually play cricket
2) Have admitted you don't understand the athletic demands of cricket
3) Have shown to not understand how cardio/musculature works in athletes
4) Don't seem to have a grasp on how broad and vague the term 'athleticism' is
5) Still do not know why you were wrong in post #7900 on page 198

Why are you arguing all this so vociferously?

*****, I am whatever you say I am

 

[Red]

Russell is about as close as you'd get to Bo, with far less talent imo.

Bo was an absolute freak of nature in his prime. Dre Russ is a good t20 player.

No one here's arguing against the fact that someone like Bo Whoever could probably smack a few balls around in T20 cricket and make a few quick 20s or 30s after a few net sessions. Most hand eye athletes could on a flat T20 wicket.

But, no one here really cares that much about that skill aspect of cricket as much as they do test match batting with all its nuances and variables.

 

[Pratters]

I'm not dissing on cricket. It is my favorite game to watch.

Seen my post count? I clearly love cricket.

But don't make out like it something its not. It is a game of skill and stuff all else if not fast bowling.

Greatest Sportsperson is some one who is a great sports person, not a great athlete. Argument can be made for Comaneci, Federer, Bradman, Jordan, Phelps, Bolt etc.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

He wouldn't be able to do it even if he tried it. Not every one who is a great athlete can become a great batsman. Great athlete Atul Sharma could never be a great fast bowler, for example.

You're talking about a guy who is already a great batsman in baseball

Atul Sharma a great athlete? What he run the 100m in? Which MLB team he play for? Which NFL team he play for?

Dream on

 

[cnerd123]

Inzi and Ranatunga used to get winded very easily. They had rubbish fitness and stamina. What Inzi had was good muscle memory and a solid technique which meant his lack of stamina didn't affect his strokeplay, but did affect his running. A lot. I don't think there's any way anyone can argue he was some great athlete by any of the usual parameters. Great sportsmen can be poor athletes you know, it's not necessarily an insult because he didn't need it.

Inzy and Ranatunga got winded running but never seemed to lose power on their shots.

I always got the impression they were lazy more than they were unfit - running isn't fun, smashing a ball is fun. They were gassed after running 10 singles but somehow still had the reserves to smack balls away late into their innings. It reflected in their body language when they fielded too.

I think being in better shape would have helped Ranatunga play longer innings in Tests, but Inzy seemed to have no issue batting on for ages and ages.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Greatest Sportsperson is some one who is a great sports person, not a great athlete. Argument can be made for Comaneci, Federer, Bradman, Jordan, Phelps, Bolt etc.

Bolt is going to play pro soccer in Aus next year aint he?

Handy bowler in cricket in his early days before choosing track n field (Fast bowler of course).

 

[OverratedSanity]

Define athleticism.

A weightlifter and a marathon runner are both athletes, but very different athletes.

You absolutely require some degree of athletic ability to be a top level batsman - put aside reflexes and hand/eye coordination, the sheer stamina required to bat for hours on end is not something a powerlifter or sprinter will have. The power required to hit sixes is not something a marathon runner or yogi will have. The dexterity and flexibility to have good footwork and range of movement will not be found in an NFL linebacker.

When you start saying 'more' or 'less' athleticism - you need to now define athleticism within certain parameters and have a concrete way of evaluating it.

When people look at fat guys like Inzy and Ranatunga they think that anyone can pick up a bat and be an elite cricketer. But no one who has seriously attempted to play the game at a high level will agree with you here. It's just that cricket, for the longest time, paid no attention to the athletic requirements, whilst simultaneously appearing to the eye to be an easy laid back sport. It doesn't mean these men weren't athletes. You couldn't get off your couch and accomplish what they did even if we gifted you with the reflexes, hand eye coordination and technique to do it. Just go have a net session and bat for 2 hours and report back to us how you feel.

Similarly, go look up pictures of Roy Nelson, Mark Hunt and Daniel Cormier. And then look at their achievements, and tell me they aren't athletic just because they are fat.

Plenty of athletes in the NFL and MLB are overweight too. But somehow these sports are being held up as being far more athletically demanding than batting in cricket.

This is a load of pretentious horse**** tbh. The only real athletic or physical gift that batsmen need is hand-eye co-ordination. Fitness is less important in cricket batting than most popular sports. Plain and simple. This is not arguable.

Also plenty of strawmen in there like "When people look at fat guys like Inzy and Ranatunga they think that anyone can pick up a bat and be an elite cricketer". No one is saying this.

 

[stephen]

Hitting a baseball is harder than hitting a cricket ball in three same way that running a 100m sprint requires faster running than a marathon.

Cricket is an endurance sport that requires a different skill set from baseball. In baseball you need good hand eye coordination. In cricket you need good hand eye coordination and the ability to be flexible in your stroke play and endurance to bat long periods.

Baseball pitches are faster and baseball bats are smaller but your success rate doesn't need to be anywhere near as high.