Who is the best since Bradman?

[subshakerz]

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

Sorry 90s especially first half was some of the more intense competitive cricket around.

 

[Coronis]

iirc test cricket has never really been intense. Until 02/06/2022.

 

[Johan]

Sorry 90s especially first half was some of the more intense competitive cricket around.

Ok, I disagree, might be true for asians, certainly wasn't true for people outside Asia.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

The footage proves nothing. It was pioneer tech and even then pace is not the same as quality.

You argument is basically 'dont trust what you can see with your own eyes, trust some pundits secondhand opinion as your sole guide'

 

[subshakerz]

Ok, I disagree, might be true for asians, certainly wasn't true for people outside Asia.

I mean in the early to mid 90s you basically had WI, Pak and Aus jostling for no.1 in the world, pace standards were highest, SA came back and were quickly a quality team, SL rose from minnow to become a stronger mid tier country. India was still indomitable at home.

 

[Johan]

The footage proves nothing. It was pioneer tech and even then pace is not the same as quality.

You argument is basically 'dont trust what you can see with your one eyes, trust some pundits secondhand opinion as your sole guide'

Your argument is sports evolution makes 30s Cricket irrelevant to 70s, sure, now you're getting bitchy about 70s Cricket being irrelevant to today because sports evolution, you're getting bitchy because you watched some 10 mins videos of 70s Cricket on YouTube while there is only 1 min ones of 30s, not my problem.

 

[subshakerz]

Your argument is sports evolution makes 30s Cricket irrelevant to 70s, sure, now you're getting bitchy about 70s Cricket being irrelevant to today because sports evolution, you're getting bitchy because you watched some 10 mins videos of 70s Cricket on YouTube while there is only 1 min ones of 30s, not my problem.

Bottomline is we have to draw the line somewhere back in cricket history when the truthworthiness of standards is too low to consider that era compatible to modern standards.

And I choose an era when we don't have video to see the players play. It's logical.

 

[Johan]

Bottomline is we have to draw the line somewhere back in cricket history when the truthworthiness of standards is too low to consider that era compatible to modern standards.

And I choose an era when we don't have video to see the players play. It's logical.

nah, I'm afraid we're not making any lines based on sports evolution, if Hammond is inferior to Gavaskar because sports evolution even though there debuts are 40 years apart, then Gavaskar is inferior to Crawley as their debuts are 50 years apart in a more developing era, it's logical.

 

[Johan]

Bottom-line, if you put doubt on the quality of Cricket in 1930s in comparison to 70s, and have Sunil Gavaskar over Zak Crawley or Sir Viv Richards over Alick Athanaze, You are a huge hypocrite.

 

[DrWolverine]

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

I am not sure there is much to debate with this point

 

[Johan]

Bottom-line, if you put doubt on the quality of Cricket in 1930s in comparison to 70s, and have Sunil Gavaskar over Zak Crawley or Sir Viv Richards over Alick Athanaze, You are a huge hypocrite.

^

Not even entertaining any further cope.

 

[subshakerz]

nah, I'm afraid we're not making any lines based on sports evolution, if Hammond is inferior to Gavaskar because sports evolution even though there debuts are 40 years apart, then Gavaskar is inferior to Crawley as their debuts are 50 years apart in a more developing era, it's logical.

You make a line as well even if you don't want to admit it bro.

 

[Johan]

You make a line as well even if you don't want to admit it bro.

Bottom-line, if you put doubt on the quality of Cricket in 1930s in comparison to 70s, and have Sunil Gavaskar over Zak Crawley or Sir Viv Richards over Alick Athanaze, You are a huge hypocrite.

I don't even need to say anything else.

 

[subshakerz]

Bottom-line, if you put doubt on the quality of Cricket in 1930s in comparison to 70s, and have Sunil Gavaskar over Zak Crawley or Sir Viv Richards over Alick Athanaze, You are a huge hypocrite.

I don't even need to say anything else.

Where is the line when you consider stats before that time untrustworthy?

 

[DrWolverine]

With the exception of an extreme statistical outlier like Don Bradman, I am not sure if I can rate the legends of past(pre-1950s) ahead of modern day greats

 

[Johan]

With the exception of an extreme statistical outlier like Don Bradman, I am not sure if I can rate the legends of past ahead of modern day greats

agreed, you've retards thinking trundlers like Imran Khan and nobodies like Sunil Gavaskar are better than express pacers like Matt Henry and great batters like Ben Duckett, it's insulting to the progession of the game.

 

[subshakerz]

With the exception of an extreme statistical outlier like Don Bradman, I am not sure if I can rate the legends of past ahead of modern day greats

We can if there is a clear statistical advantage otherwise I think it is logical to be biased towards the modern era.

 

[subshakerz]

agreed, you've retards thinking trundlers like Imran Khan and nobodies like Sunil Gavaskar are better than express pacers like Matt Henry and great batters like Ben Duckett, it's insulting to the progession of the game.

Not the argument we are making no matter how many times you repeat it bro. You know better.

 

[Johan]

Where is the line when you consider stats before that time untrustworthy?

by my personal logic, sometime after test cricket started, sometime during the golden age makes sense as mechanically the game became complete. by your logic of random progression, there's no cut off point, it's just retards thinking Ken Barrington is a match for Ollie Pope.

 

[Johan]

Not the argument we are making no matter how many times you repeat it bro. You know better.

Just because you're hypocritical with it doesn't mean I should be hypocritical when mocking your argument.