Who is the best since Bradman?

[sayon basak]

Then why rate Gavaskar ahead of Cook? #ModernDay!

 

[DrWolverine]

Barrington had a great prime(1959-1968) with an unparalleled away record but his career was cut short.
80 Tests. 6754 runs @ 59.77. 20 centuries.

 

[Johan]

rating Barrington while putting scrutiny on Hammond is just...

 

[DrWolverine]

I think cricket changed tremendously between 1900-1970 compared to how much it changed between 1970-2020. If you think it is the same, that fine.

 

[DrWolverine]

I didn’t bring up Wally Hammond. He is an ATG batsman.

 

[Johan]

This just makes no sense, if you're gonna rate Ken Barrington while not rating Jack Hobbs, atleast accept James Anderson takes a giant turd on Imran Khan, why? it's the same logic

 

[Johan]

Imran and Gavaskar played an inferior game imo, probably on the level of First class windies players these days, Brook and Carse (is arse) are better imo, what do you guys think? @sayon basak @capt_Luffy

 

[capt_Luffy]

Viv absolutely shits on Barrington

That definitely was a joke on Coronis' expense..... Though what's it worth, I think Barrington's average isn't inflated by soft runs really; the problem is it was only 10 years long.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Imran and Gavaskar played an inferior game imo, probably on the level of First class windies players these days, Brook and Carse (is arse) are better imo, what do you guys think? @sayon basak @capt_Luffy

Leave it dude...... Now you understand how I feel when you straight up refuse to rate Grace???

 

[ataraxia]

This just makes no sense, if you're gonna rate Ken Barrington while not rating Jack Hobbs, atleast accept James Anderson takes a giant turd on Imran Khan, why? it's the same logic

You have to draw the line somewhere. CW consensus as I understand it is to count all players who played tests after World War I, but it's certainly fair to move that line back 10–15 years or forward 10 years IMO.

 

[Johan]

Leave it dude...... Now you understand how I feel when you straight up refuse to rate Grace???

I've seen the light

Kraigg Braithwaite>Brian Lara
Alick Athanaze>Viv Richards

 

[Johan]

You have to draw the line somewhere. CW consensus as I understand it is to count all players who played tests after World War I, but it's certainly fair to move that line back 10–15 years or forward 10 years IMO.

wherever you make the line has to be logical, otherwise we're gonna run into this problem, because let's be real out here, not rating Hobbs in comparison to say Gavaskar is just as legit as not rating Gavaskar in comparison to Crawley

 

[subshakerz]

Then why rate Gavaskar ahead of Cook? #ModernDay!

Because it's sort of understood there is more parity and standardization between 70s to now than 30s to now.

What you discount is the 70s cricket revolution from Chappell captaincy and WSC and the accounts from cricketers in that time how aggression and greater intensity became more or less the norm in cricket and that has stayed more or less.

You can pick instances before that of aggressive tactics or players but the norm was very much less intense and more laid-back.

 

[subshakerz]

This just makes no sense, if you're gonna rate Ken Barrington while not rating Jack Hobbs, atleast accept James Anderson takes a giant turd on Imran Khan, why? it's the same logic

No it's reductive logic that doesn't address the core argument.

The issue is with the 30s era and before in particular as not being in parity with the rest.

wherever you make the line has to be logical, otherwise we're gonna run into this problem, because let's be real out here, not rating Hobbs in comparison to say Gavaskar is just as legit as not rating Gavaskar in comparison to Crawley

No that's a strawman.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran and Gavaskar played an inferior game imo, probably on the level of First class windies players these days, Brook and Carse (is arse) are better imo, what do you guys think? @sayon basak @capt_Luffy

Except we can watch them ourselves and see that they didn't. Can you do that with Hobbs? No.

 

[Johan]

Because it's sort of understood there is more parity and standardization between 70s to now than 30s to now.

What you discount is the 70s cricket revolution from Chappell captaincy and WSC and the accounts from cricketers in that time how aggression and greater intensity became more or the norm in cricket and that has stayed more or less.

You can pick instances before that of aggressive tactics or players but the norm was very much less intense and more laid-back.

So basically a double standard not rooted in any logic? got it.

also, you're not watching the game if you think it's still as intense as 70s or 80s, those eras stand alone in intensity and teams hating each other.

 

[Johan]

No it's reductive logic that doesn't address the core argument.

The issue is with the 30s era and before in particular as not being in parity with the rest.

there is no argument for me to address, it's just vibes.

No that's a strawman.

Nope, these guys are just **** players dude, no proof Gavaskar won't get one shotted by Cummins due to #modernera! #evolution and whatever other jazz.

 

[Johan]

Except we can watch them ourselves and see that they didn't. Can you do that with Hobbs? No.

get this Imran trundler to atleast learn how to hit 140 first for real, all that run up and full force balls and still lower than Hazlewood, how sad.

Matt Henry > Michael Holding

 

[subshakerz]

So basically a double standard not rooted in any logic? got it.

also, you're not watching the game if you think it's still as intense as 70s or 80s, those eras stand alone in intensity and teams hating each other.

The logic is that the shift in cricket between 30s to 70s is way too massive to consider parity than 70s to now.

And sure, we can at least verify if there are games now less intense thanks to watching them and adjust our ratings accordingly.

But you can't do that with Hobbs era. You are giving that entire era a pass based on secondhand verification.

 

[subshakerz]

get this Imran trundler to atleast learn how to hit 140 first for real, all that run up and full force balls and still lower than Hazlewood, how sad.

Matt Henry > Michael Holding

Weren't they judging it from the time it goes to the wicket rather than from the hand? Regardless those are pioneer tech and not as trustworthy.