Flem274*
123/5
i would not be surprised if the cricketing narrative pre-tv is all crap.
all we have to go on are statistics and former players opinions. one of these can be manipulated and the dribble on commentary we hear from former players nowadays shows the latter is terrible and should just be ignored.
im going to take mitchell starc as an example, since he annoys his own fans by bowling 80% dribble and 20% perfect second new ball bowling yet averages 28, only 2 runs more than jason gillespie and the same as craig mcdermott.
if these ****s played pre-tv, they'd be bloody hard to separate using numbers and commentators mix up starc in odis vs starc in tests all the time. we know gillespie and mcdermott were far better, but it would be hard to show it before tv.
ian chappell is far more interested in the bounce at the waca and intent than actually having a good opinion, and i can't think of many commentators around the world with actually good and interesting opinions, so im not having a bar of their ratings of former cricketers when they can barely form a sentence better than 'the bowling side will really want to get a wicket!' (shaun pollock, cwc 2019)
some pom is going to mention atherton and hussain, the same atherton and hussain who get so excited by a mark wood 139kph ball (160kph on the pommie speed guns) they forget he's terrible.
then there's cricinfo, who generally just talk about south africa choking every 5 minutes if they don't have any posts from here to steal from and make into an 'article'.
can you actually imagine the narrative on virat kohli if he played before tv? you'd be convinced he's better than bradman by the way every commentator fawns over his every move. even now he's going to be the most egregiously overrated cricketer in history which is quite an achievement given he's a great player. simon doull should be executed for treason during his 'commentary stint' in the semi final.
we can make some broad conclusions on the past, but the sort of hair splitting player v player debates we get into are pretty pointless when you go back before tv. everything we know beyond bradman is the best, larwood was terrifying and a few other obvious things is probably just all crap fed to us by blokes who'd bore us to tears if they had to commentate on tv.
all we have to go on are statistics and former players opinions. one of these can be manipulated and the dribble on commentary we hear from former players nowadays shows the latter is terrible and should just be ignored.
im going to take mitchell starc as an example, since he annoys his own fans by bowling 80% dribble and 20% perfect second new ball bowling yet averages 28, only 2 runs more than jason gillespie and the same as craig mcdermott.
if these ****s played pre-tv, they'd be bloody hard to separate using numbers and commentators mix up starc in odis vs starc in tests all the time. we know gillespie and mcdermott were far better, but it would be hard to show it before tv.
ian chappell is far more interested in the bounce at the waca and intent than actually having a good opinion, and i can't think of many commentators around the world with actually good and interesting opinions, so im not having a bar of their ratings of former cricketers when they can barely form a sentence better than 'the bowling side will really want to get a wicket!' (shaun pollock, cwc 2019)
some pom is going to mention atherton and hussain, the same atherton and hussain who get so excited by a mark wood 139kph ball (160kph on the pommie speed guns) they forget he's terrible.
then there's cricinfo, who generally just talk about south africa choking every 5 minutes if they don't have any posts from here to steal from and make into an 'article'.
can you actually imagine the narrative on virat kohli if he played before tv? you'd be convinced he's better than bradman by the way every commentator fawns over his every move. even now he's going to be the most egregiously overrated cricketer in history which is quite an achievement given he's a great player. simon doull should be executed for treason during his 'commentary stint' in the semi final.
we can make some broad conclusions on the past, but the sort of hair splitting player v player debates we get into are pretty pointless when you go back before tv. everything we know beyond bradman is the best, larwood was terrifying and a few other obvious things is probably just all crap fed to us by blokes who'd bore us to tears if they had to commentate on tv.