Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Viv was better
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Best test match number 3 since 1970?
- Thread starter England First
- Start date
aussie tragic
International Captain
Except some people actually watched people play rather than look at their stats
Migara
International Coach
Stats > SeeingExcept some people actually watched people play rather than look at their stats
Flem274*
123/5
you know i think i'd love viv if it wasn't for his diehard fans. they really are the most pretentious *****. the conversation goes the same way every time.
person A: "i really like this batsman, he's probably the best i can think of behind bradman"
person B: "it's viv"
person A: "oh why's that?"
person B: "he just dominated everyone, and without a helmet."
person A: "oh cool, i do see though his peak was a bit shorter than some and he scored a few less runs than some really, really good players. had a while being meh too."
person B: "stats aren't everything. it's viv"
person A: "why though?"
person B: "it just is. you had to be there and watch him play."
person A: "i have on youtube. amazing player."
person B: "you can't understand, you didn't really see him, you just had to be there."
it's obnoxious 'i know more than you' snobbery. 'just coz!' is not an argument. king viv was obviously the most fun a young boomer cricket fan could have watching, but they seem so afraid of the idea someone else might have surpassed him. it doesn't lessen how insane viv was or make you stupid to select him in your all time side to admit the possibility other guys were better, if not as fun for you to watch.
person A: "i really like this batsman, he's probably the best i can think of behind bradman"
person B: "it's viv"
person A: "oh why's that?"
person B: "he just dominated everyone, and without a helmet."
person A: "oh cool, i do see though his peak was a bit shorter than some and he scored a few less runs than some really, really good players. had a while being meh too."
person B: "stats aren't everything. it's viv"
person A: "why though?"
person B: "it just is. you had to be there and watch him play."
person A: "i have on youtube. amazing player."
person B: "you can't understand, you didn't really see him, you just had to be there."
it's obnoxious 'i know more than you' snobbery. 'just coz!' is not an argument. king viv was obviously the most fun a young boomer cricket fan could have watching, but they seem so afraid of the idea someone else might have surpassed him. it doesn't lessen how insane viv was or make you stupid to select him in your all time side to admit the possibility other guys were better, if not as fun for you to watch.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The context of the era is important, of course. No one can get why or in what way was Tendulkar a god in the 90s without having stayed in 90s India for a decent amount of time. YouTube clips don't do that justice in any sense. Viv has the same thing. Lillee too.
Doesn't mean they are better but they brought something to the game at that particular juncture of time that even better players before or later didn't to their times.
Doesn't mean they are better but they brought something to the game at that particular juncture of time that even better players before or later didn't to their times.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Dude, this is a ridiculous and uneducated take.
I want to create some ranking system that uses peer reviews to rate cricketers. Because nearly everyone from Viv’s era says he’s the best batsman ever.
It’s no fluke he made Wisdens 5 cricketers of the century or made both wisden and cricinfo’s all time XIs.
He’s not a myth.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
One of the reasons was the timing of it and who the voters were. If Wisden ran the same poll for 5 cricketers of the 20th century in 2100, there would be a lower probability of Viv making the list because the voters won't be the people from the 1970s and 80s who were so wowed by him.
He might still make the list, of course.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
You can have your discussions over who was the best in any given position over whatever era (save Bradman) but one thing I will not hear a counterpoint to is that when Lillee bowled to Viv, there was so much Alpha that anyone who wasn't also peak Alpha just melted into nothingness.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Yeh, legit alphas head to head. Before “alpha” was some meme and people just were.
might need to start thinking about the alpha all time XI
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
This is all you needed
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah Kohli over Lara if it's reaching meme level. Though I was trying to think more of genuine alphas rather than confected stuff. Either way, bit of a fun exercise.
Unfortunately Stokes doesn't qualify as he should be reading this list from a 6x8 foot cell in Pentonville Road Gaol.
Unfortunately Stokes doesn't qualify as he should be reading this list from a 6x8 foot cell in Pentonville Road Gaol.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Haha yeah but what I meant was there is also a reason some of the older fellas didn't rate him as high. Because they had their own favourites from earlier eras. It's just that the 70s and 80s crowd, whose favourite was Viv, had more influence in deciding these lists.This is all you needed