Debate thread for 2024 Ranking of batsmen poll

[kyear2]

Not exactly bias, but doesn't really makes much sense either.

Barry literally made the Cricinfo ATG XI, not definitive for anything but counts for how damn highly he was regarded. Everyone who saw.hi, said he was the absolute best, rated on par with his name sake.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Barry literally made the Cricinfo ATG XI, not definitive for anything but counts for how damn highly he was regarded. Everyone who saw.hi, said he was the absolute best, rated on par with his name sake.

I mean, Proctor also made SA ATG XI. And if you are talking about the 2nd XI, Larwood also made the 3rd one.

 

[Coronis]

Barry literally made the Cricinfo ATG XI, not definitive for anything but counts for how damn highly he was regarded. Everyone who saw.hi, said he was the absolute best, rated on par with his name sake.

>name sake

How conceited can you get.

Yes bias. Bias towards Richards, whilst ignoring other players with similar reputations and similarly peer reviews. (which is a highly flawed method of judging but its perfectly fine for you to use it for him and not others)

Why didn’t you vote Procter or Cowie in the bowlers poll? What about Shane Bond even?

 

[ma1978]

The criteria is tests

For all forms of cricket, Barry R has a great case but not with tests

then again, neither does Pollock and yet he’s highly rated over people with longer, fuller characters

 

[kyear2]

>name sake

How conceited can you get.

Yes bias. Bias towards Richards, whilst ignoring other players with similar reputations and similarly peer reviews. (which is a highly flawed method of judging but its perfectly fine for you to use it for him and not others)

Why didn’t you vote Procter or Cowie in the bowlers poll? What about Shane Bond even?

How was any of that remotely conceited?

What is your issue with the aggression?

We've done this dance, yes peer review is highly flawed, but that's all we have to go on and it was universal.

I didn't and haven't followed Procter's career to nearly the same extent, why are acting as if someone is attacking you personally.

 

[capt_Luffy]

How was any of that remotely conceited?

What is your issue with the aggression?

We've done this dance, yes peer review is highly flawed, but that's all we have to go on and it was universal.

I didn't and haven't followed Procter's career to nearly the same extent, why are acting as if someone is attacking you personally.

Imo, we should atleast set up some cut off of minimum no of Test matches for a ranking of Test batsmen only. I personally use a minimum 15 Test/majority of career post 1900; as a cut off, you could use what you are comfortable with, but surely, 4 Test matches is a very small sample size. As a pure opening batsman, I rate him as my 6th (including Grace, so basically the same) ; but as a Test batsman, Yashasvi Jaiswal unironically has an equal case.

 

[Coronis]

How was any of that remotely conceited?

The namesake comment reeks of it mate.

We've done this dance, yes peer review is highly flawed, but that's all we have to go on and it was universal.

No. This is about test cricket. What we have to go on are tests, unlike Barry.

I didn't and haven't followed Procter's career to nearly the same extent, why are acting as if someone is attacking you personally.

This is exactly what I mean when I say bias. You ignore all these other cricketers who have similar cases - and aren’t “niche” players who you wouldn’t know, especially after being on here for over a decade, and fixate on this one player you’re enamoured with, and only use this argument for him. You’re biased for Barry.

 

[kyear2]

The namesake comment reeks of it mate.



No. This is about test cricket. What we have to go on are tests, unlike Barry.



This is exactly what I mean when I say bias. You ignore all these other cricketers who have similar cases - and aren’t “niche” players who you wouldn’t know, especially after being on here for over a decade, and fixate on this one player you’re enamoured with, and only use this argument for him. You’re biased for Barry.

How? Lillee and others from the era directly compared him to Viv, how is that conceited? You're reading way too much into this.

He played test cricket and hence he's eligible. He also had a head to head career with Sir Gordon, my first cricketing hero and, and out performed him. Why would this bother you so much? He was a unicorn, a brilliant, talented, quick scoring opener who had the chance to be the best ever. I'm not putting him in the top 10

I know of Procter's test career, not so much on his first class career, heaven forbid.

I'm trying to figure out how many players I'm biased for and against today.

 

[capt_Luffy]

How? Lillee and others from the era directly compared him to Viv, how is that conceited? You're reading way too much into this.

He played test cricket and hence he's eligible. He also had a head to head career with Sir Gordon, my first cricketing hero and, and out performed him. Why would this bother you so much? He was a unicorn, a brilliant, talented, quick scoring opener who had the chance to be the best ever. I'm not putting him in the top 10

I know of Procter's test career, not so much on his first class career, heaven forbid.

I'm trying to figure out how many players I'm biased for and against today.

For: Ricky Ponting, Barry Richards, Ricky Ponting, Viv Richards, Ricky Ponting, Malcolm Marshall, Ricky Ponting..... Ohhh, and have I mentioned you might be a little biased for Ricky Ponting??

Against: Any player I rate higher than you for any reason whatsoever.

 

[kyear2]

For: Ricky Ponting, Barry Richards, Ricky Ponting, Viv Richards, Ricky Ponting, Malcolm Marshall, Ricky Ponting..... Ohhh, and have I mentioned you might be a little biased for Ricky Ponting??

Against: Any player I rate higher than you for any reason whatsoever.

I think you mentioned Punter a couple times.

I'm not biased, I watched him. It's like how people felt about Smith a few years ago, this guy is going to be ranked the 2nd or 3rd best ever. He was just productive, .... productive and destructive.

And with regards to the players listed there, who do I rate higher than the consensus?

Plus was kinda rhetorical, lol

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think you mentioned Punter a couple times.

I'm not biased, I watched him. It's like how people felt about Smith a few years ago, this guy is going to be ranked the 2nd or 3rd best ever. He was just productive, .... productive and destructive.

And with regards to the players listed there, who do I rate higher than the consensus?

Plus was kinda rhetorical, lol

Man, I was clearly being sarcastic (about Richards and Marshall, had I mentioned Ponting it might had been serious....)

On the players listed in the batsman's poll, I don't rate anyone higher than the consensus much really, probably Pollock and Chappell a couple of spots. Though I rate Ponting and Kallis 5-6 spots lower, under the aforementioned two, Border, Sangakkara and Waugh.

 

[Coronis]

How? Lillee and others from the era directly compared him to Viv, how is that conceited? You're reading way too much into this.

He played test cricket and hence he's eligible. He also had a head to head career with Sir Gordon, my first cricketing hero and, and out performed him. Why would this bother you so much? He was a unicorn, a brilliant, talented, quick scoring opener who had the chance to be the best ever. I'm not putting him in the top 10

I know of Procter's test career, not so much on his first class career, heaven forbid.

I'm trying to figure out how many players I'm biased for and against today.

Please look up what namesake means

Andy Ganteaume also is eligible. Why not pick him?

Mark Waugh and Michael Bevan both had head to head FC careers with Steve Waugh and smashed him. Which of the three will you pick first?

 

[kyear2]

Please look up what namesake means

Andy Ganteaume also is eligible. Why not pick him?

Mark Waugh and Michael Bevan both had head to head FC careers with Steve Waugh and smashed him. Which of the three will you pick first?

 

[Coronis]

View attachment 39927

Very convenient place to crop that mate. If you’ve ever seen the word namesake used purely as “the same name as someone else” please share.

 

[kyear2]

Very convenient place to crop that mate. If you’ve ever seen the word namesake used purely as “the same name as someone else” please share.

 

[ataraxia]

Very convenient place to crop that mate. If you’ve ever seen the word namesake used purely as “the same name as someone else” please share.

If you don't trust dictionaries, pretty much every use of the word on CW.

 

[kyear2]

Barry Richards: A sublime career that bloomed unseen — CricketMash

Barry Richards, born July 21, 1945, was perhaps the best batsman of the world during his playing days who could showcase his brilliance in just four Tests. Arunabha Sengupta takes a detailed look at the career of this superb cricketer that bloomed mostly in the remote grounds

cricmash.com

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Barry Richards: A sublime career that bloomed unseen — CricketMash

Barry Richards, born July 21, 1945, was perhaps the best batsman of the world during his playing days who could showcase his brilliance in just four Tests. Arunabha Sengupta takes a detailed look at the career of this superb cricketer that bloomed mostly in the remote grounds

cricmash.com

I don’t think anyone would disagree that he was a great batsman at first class level. This poll is specifically for test batsmen though and Barry barely did anything at test level.

It’s like putting Sobers into a top 20 ODI batsmen list.

 

[kyear2]

I don’t think anyone would disagree that he was a great batsman at first class level. This poll is specifically for test batsmen though and Barry barely did anything at test level.

It’s like putting Sobers into a top 20 ODI batsmen list.

You do know I'm not campaigning for him. I gave him a vote, wasn't trying to convince anyone else

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Very convenient place to crop that mate. If you’ve ever seen the word namesake used purely as “the same name as someone else” please share.

Lol what