Who is the best since Bradman?

[capt_Luffy]

I will just say, if you think the sport has progressed from like 1930 to 1970, so it has since. Believing otherwise is wishful thinking.

 

[Johan]

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 game 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.

no such shifts exist in anything but Vibe so I can't take it seriously

Wow I'm basing the intensity of an era on the basis of what actually happened instead of vibes, silly me, it's hilarious how you'd take account of 70s players and their statements about intensity but not before that, very much seems agenda driven.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

If you believe in cricket evolution like you do with fitness then applying skepticism to Hobbs era is just an extension of that whereas we can say we can have more trust in the 70s.

You do realise that between the 20s and 70s is 50 years of cricket evolution and also video?

 

[Johan]

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.

just cope, they use this method to measure bullet speed, but yeah, if you're gonna discredit 30s and Hobbs era, I'm gonna discredit and question the validity of the Imran and Gavaskar era, and I'm not giving an inch there, the delusional "it progessed till X year I pulled out of my ass and then stopped progession!" has to stop.

 

[subshakerz]

I will just say, if you think the sport has progressed from like 1930 to 1970, so it has since. Believing otherwise is wishful thinking.

Sure it has. But in ways we can measure and account for in our judgments of players. But it's harder to do that for the 30s since we can actually watch the prayers play.

 

[Johan]

If you believe in cricket evolution like you do with fitness then applying skepticism to Hobbs era is just an extension of that whereas we can say we can have more trust in the 70s.

You do realise that between the 20s and 70s is 50 years of cricket evolution and also video?

you realise 70s to today is also 50 years right? so per your logic, Gavaskar and Boycott were playing trash Cricket and now they started playing true cricket!

fitness standard increased more to today from 1980 then from 1930 to 1980

 

[subshakerz]

Wow I'm basing the intensity of an era on the basis of what actually happened instead of vibes, silly me, it's hilarious how you'd take account of 70s players and their statements about intensity but not before that, very much seems agenda driven.

Actually the contradiction is in your stance. You are basing an entire era we can't watch of the 30s on pundit opinions but the same opinions who signal a shift in cricket standards in the 70s you ignore.

 

[Johan]

Actually the contradiction is in your stance. You are basing an entire era we can't watch of the 30s on pundit opinions but the same opinions who signal a shift in cricket standards in the 70s you ignore.

No such shift has been signalled by any opinion, only an increase in intensity which died down, and we've players from "less intense" era tackling the little hyper intense Australians and Windies bowlers very well anyway.

 

[subshakerz]

you realise 70s to today is also 50 years right? so per your logic, Gavaskar and Boycott were playing trash Cricket and now they started playing true cricket!

Except for all the adjustments we make of eras, we can actually watch them play and see they weren't playing trash.

 

[Johan]

Except for all the adjustments we make of eras, we can actually watch them play and see they weren't playing trash.

can't even hit 140 at full pace, 142 is apparently demon pace for these trundlers, Chris Woakes > Malcolm Marshall

 

[subshakerz]

No such shift has been signalled by any opinion, only an increase in intensity which died down, and we've players from "less intense" era tackling the little hyper intense Australians and Windies bowlers very well anyway.

So you agree on increase in intensity, thanks.

When do you think cricket intensity died down?

 

[Narayana]

Sachin Tendulkar should be compared with Virat Kohli, he doesn't deserve to be compared with Steve Smith.

 

[subshakerz]

can't even hit 140 at full pace, 142 is apparently demon pace for these trundlers, Chris Woakes > Malcolm Marshall

Lol we can still recognize quality bowling s spells genius if you watch it. It isn't just 'trust me bro'

 

[Johan]

So you agree on increase in intensity, thanks.

When do you think cricket intensity died down?

1990s

and no, that didn't make the quality of Cricket lesser, Tbh 30s-60s were probably more intense than Cricket is today.

 

[subshakerz]

Sachin Tendulkar should be compared with Virat Kohli, he doesn't deserve to be compared with Steve Smith.View attachment 45030

Um that's a 12 pt difference not much of a comparison.

 

[subshakerz]

1990s

and no, that didn't make the quality of Cricket lesser, Tbh 30s-60s were probably more intense than Cricket is today.

90s was less intense? We are going to disagree here.

 

[Johan]

Lol we can still recognize quality bowling s spells genius if you watch it. It isn't just 'trust me bro'

Yeah it's just basically a "trust me bro", I see no definitive proof Imran Khan is a better bowler than Stuart Broad.

 

[Johan]

90s was less intense? We are going to disagree here.

yeah easily, and since then all went downhill, these days even Ashes isn't intense anymore

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah it's just basically a "trust me bro", I see no definitive proof Imran Khan is a better bowler than Stuart Broad.

You realise just repeating yourself with the same line isn't really a rebuttal of an argument? Nobody is arguing what you are stating.

 

[Johan]

You realise just repeating yourself with the same line isn't really a rebuttal of an argument? Nobody is arguing what you are stating.

again, if Cricket from 30s is irrelevant to 70s, Cricket from 70s is irrelevant to today, I've made my case and posted actual footage proving their inferiority, what they consider demonic pace of Michael Holding is the pace of Hasan Ali, these guys are state level batters my guy.