Fred Trueman vs Joel Garner

[subshakerz]

So, your logic is hypocritical and doesn't apply to the eras you like?

got it

That disingenuous. There was always going to be a historic cut off point when the reliability of the cricket results goes off the rails. Ours is different than yours. Just accept it.

 

[honestbharani]

So, your logic is hypocritical and doesn't apply to the eras you like?

Just easier to understand that all salty has is bias and he just likes to call it whatever the normalized neutral vogue term in his head that day is.

 

[subshakerz]

I hold 70s and 80s to be valid and unprofessional tbh, there, Root>Viv

You don't though. It's an unconvincing example.

 

[subshakerz]

Just easier to understand that all salty has is bias and he just likes to call it whatever is the normalized neutral vogue term in his head that day.

Yeah pls ignore the couple others in the thread who agree with my view of their own judgment.

 

[Johan]

That disingenuous. There was always going to be a historic cut off point when the reliability of the cricket results goes off the rails. Ours is different than yours. Just accept it.

Arbitrary and random cutoff point clearly influenced by nothing objective and just random yap, while referencing sports with constant progression to give examples, if Sobers is better than Hobbs cuz muh era, Root is better than Viv cuz muh era, cry me a river

 

[Johan]

You don't though. It's an unconvincing example.

I can link a site where many think Stokes is a better Batsmen than Sobers because muh progression, what's convincing and isn't, is not decided by what a couple of people like and don't like

 

[capt_Luffy]

.



This is about the stupidest thing I’ve read on here. We should also exclude every **** who played in WSC and IPL. Lets also exclude Bradman for being a massive piece of **** hypocrite and selfishly earning money for himself during his career with his **** writing and getting mad over WSC. Lets also exclude your favourite “amateur” W.G Grace, probably the most selfish and money grubbing player in the history of the game.

Dude, what are you getting on about?? Where I said he was right or wrong for that? But I do generally dislikes players who ditch national duty for T20 Leagues.

 

[Johan]

Just easier to understand that all salty has is bias and he just likes to call it whatever the normalized neutral vogue term in his head that day is.

oof

 

[DrWolverine]

There was always going to be a historic cut off point when the reliability of the cricket results goes off the rails. Ours is different than yours. Just accept it.

This

 

[Johan]

Arbitrary and random cutoff point clearly influenced by nothing objective and just random yap, while referencing sports with constant progression to give examples, if Sobers is better than Hobbs cuz muh era, Root is better than Viv cuz muh era, cry me a river

This

 

[subshakerz]

Arbitrary and random cutoff point clearly influenced by nothing objective and just random yap, while referencing sports with constant progression to give examples, if Sobers is better than Hobbs cuz muh era, Root is better than Viv cuz muh era, cry me a river

It's not arbitrary or random at all. You don't need to pretend cricket had evolved to that level of standards and intensity where it compares to the rest of the 20th century.

 

[subshakerz]

I can link a site where many think Stokes is a better Batsmen than Sobers because muh progression, what's convincing and isn't, is not decided by what a couple of people like and don't like

Um ok. But we aren't debating progression as that blunt point outside of the 1910s. So this is a strawman.

 

[kyear2]

Well that's all well and good but bottomline you need a minimum international career sample to qualify for ATG consideration, WSC is fine as supporting evidence if he had international numbers (outside of one solo series) they could be added to.

This should be a redline otherwise we muddy the waters. Peer rating never replaced record for me.

There is a redline, it's playing a test series. You can then only base it on what he did.

And there's no doubt he's seen as an ATG cricketer.

Where is this red line for you?

If his test series vs England was changed back to test status tomorrow (as it was when he played it) and WSC was given it's rightful dues and elevated. He then has 14 tests at 60, does that then change your mind?

Quality is quality, and a triple vs McKenzie, Lillee and Lock is just that. Taking apart a touring Aussie attack with prime Thompson is quality.

And again, I base my selections based on how good are you, and who I believe would perform the best in varied conditions.

In both categories he's right up there.

But as usual, we too shall agree to disagree.

 

[Johan]

It's not arbitrary or random at all. You don't need to pretend cricket had evolved to that level of standards and intensity where it compares to the rest of the 20th century.

Ok, so the same thing as 60s-80s Cricket

0 evidence

0 nuanced reasoning

7 posts of yap

if Hobbs to Hammond era is invalid because muh era garbage argument, then Viv is worse than Nitish Kumar Reddy because muh era!, cope with it.

 

[Johan]

Um ok. But we aren't debating progression as that blunt point outside of the 1910s. So this is a strawman.

Tennis mentions were in the last page btw, doesn't matter, if game progressed between 1910-1960s, it should progress even more between 1960s-2010s, so if Hobbs's era makes him invalid to compete with Viv and Sobers, Viv and Sobers era makes them invalid to compete against Root, either accept that or just say "I consider Cricket invalid because X year of my liking" and call it a day

 

[subshakerz]

Ok, so the same thing as 60s-80s Cricket

0 evidence

0 nuanced reasoning

7 posts of yap

if Hobbs to Hammond era is invalid because muh era garbage argument, then Viv is worse than Nitish Kumar Reddy because muh era!, cope with it.

Except we are saying it's not 60s to 80s since cricket had already matured.

We are just debating when the maturity point started. You seem to suggest there never was a start lol.

 

[Johan]

Except we are saying it's not 60s to 80s since cricket had already matured.

We are just debating when the maturity point started. You seem to suggest there never was a start lol.

Ok, cricket had matured in 1895

my source? the same as the one that told you Cricket matured in 1960s.

 

[subshakerz]

There is a redline, it's playing a test series. You can then only base it on what he did.

And there's no doubt he's seen as an ATG cricketer.

Where is this red line for you?

I told you. Minimum international sample. One series isn't nearly enough.

If his test series vs England was changed back to test status tomorrow (as it was when he played it) and WSC was given it's rightful dues and elevated. He then has 14 tests at 60, does that then change your mind?

Bottomline they aren't and even if they did it's a dubiously small sample. You really are stretching man.

Quality is quality, and a triple vs McKenzie, Lillee and Lock is just that. Taking apart a touring Aussie attack with prime Thompson is quality.

And again, I base my selections based on how good are you, and who I believe would perform the best in varied conditions.

In both categories he's right up there.

But as usual, we too shall agree to disagree.

Again, single first class games can't replace proven long term performance. You know my redline.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok, cricket had matured in 1895

Ok so we believe it matured maybe decades later. It's not some unfathomable position.

 

[kyear2]

So, your logic is hypocritical and doesn't apply to the eras you like?

got it

This is going off the rails a little. Why would anyone dislike an era.

So basically, you're biased.

Why is it hard to understand that for some, they would like to be able to at least see the cricketers and how they actually performed to actually rate them?

Test cricket Grace was an out of shape old man and we have no idea what passed for a technique back then.

No one here can arrest in the slightest, not can anyone alive as to how or what Barnes even bowled. And the descriptions are ridiculously over the top.

Is that bias or preference?

This isn't even against a particular nation to say this. I still have Hutton and advocate for Knott and even Hammond.

Mw personally, if I can't even see them, I can't rate them, and as such I rate them within the era among themselves.

Is that unreasonable?