Who is the best since Bradman?

[subshakerz]

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

Our argument is mainly that the 30s quality of cricket cannot be sufficiently verified as to its standards.

 

[Johan]

Our argument is mainly that the 30s quality of cricket cannot be sufficiently verified as to its standards.

ok, I don't find 70s cricket verifiably good, and the logic of progression says there is gonna be a bigger gap between today and 70s then between 70s and 30s, so simply put, Crawley>Gavaskar.

is Miandad even better than Shan Masood?

 

[subshakerz]

ok, I don't find 70s cricket verifiably good, and the logic of progression says there is gonna be a bigger gap between today and 70s then between 70s and 30s, so simply put, Crawley>Gavaskar.

is Miandad even better than Shan Masood?

Right and you are just being disagreeable for the sake of it by not admitting that the standards to verify the 30s, nearly a century ago, is much harder than the 70s.

 

[DrWolverine]

Many of us are having differing opinions.
There is no correct answer in my opinion.

 

[Johan]

Right and you are just being disagreeable for the sake of it by not admitting that the standards to verify the 30s, nearly a century ago, is much harder than the 70s.

verification of the standard being compareable to the modern game is inherently a subjective and arbitrary measure, again, if you think 30s is irrelevant to 70s then Gavaskar is irrelevant to Crawley, why is it so hard for you to accept that

 

[subshakerz]

verification of the standard being compareable to the modern game is inherently a subjective and arbitrary measure, again, if you think 30s is irrelevant to 70s then Gavaskar is irrelevant to Crawley, why is it so hard for you to accept that

Because the 70s meets a standard of verifiability while the 30s does not.

 

[Johan]

Because the 70s meets a standard of verifiability while the 30s does not.

the standard is subjective, one can post a 5 min video of 30s Cricket and say "it looks good enough to me" and that would be as legit a standard of verifiability as 50 min footage from 70s.

 

[subshakerz]

the standard is subjective, one can post a 5 min video of 30s Cricket and say "it looks good enough to me" and that would be as legit a standard of verifiability as 50 min footage from 70s.

Ok so we disagree about the standard. But I don't think it's right of you saying that my standard of not being able to see any video recording of a cricketer and hence suspending judgment is crazy.

I don't consider those who rate Hobbs to high crazy. I get it, just disagree.

 

[Johan]

Ok so we disagree about the standard. But I don't think it's right of you saying that my standard of not being able to see any video recording of a cricketer and hence suspending judgment is crazy.

I don't consider those who rate Hobbs to high crazy. I get it, just disagree.

Ok, but I find your insistence on applying sports progression to 30s greats when compared with 70s ones but your reluctance to apply it and say Duckett>Gavaskar quite hypocritical, that's just how things are

 

[subshakerz]

Ok, but I find your insistence on applying sports progression to 30s greats when compared with 70s ones but your reluctance to apply it and say Duckett>Gavaskar quite hypocritical, that's just how things are

To be clear I am not definitive that 20s and 30s was that far regressive to the modern era but it's my assumption, but primarily my hesitation is that I don't have the means to verify it.

 

[Johan]

To be clear I am not definitive that 20s and 30s was that far regressive to the modern era but it's my assumption, but primarily my hesitation is that I don't have the means to verify it.

being hesitant is okay I guess

 

[subshakerz]

being hesitant is okay I guess

Yup. I have Hobbs in my top ten cricketers for the record. But putting him close to top as I do Tendulkar would require the most rock solid case.

 

[Johan]

Yup. I have Hobbs in my top ten cricketers for the record. But putting him close to top as I do Tendulkar would require the most rock solid case.

put an * next to Hobbs if you've doubts rather than making definitive placements

 

[subshakerz]

put an * next to Hobbs if you've doubts rather than making definitive placements

Lol I have literally done that when I put my ATG batting list. I put Hobbs no.3

 

[govinda indian fan]

Imo 90s>80s>70s>30s>>>modern day

 

[govinda indian fan]

2000s was worst. No atgs except sanga and styen

 

[OverratedSanity]

Imo 90s>80s>70s>30s>>>modern day

Modern day tests (since 2015 or so) are as good if not better than the 90s. Lots of quality attacks around the world with great pacers, good spinners, tough conditions for batsmen all leading to entertaining cricket.

 

[govinda indian fan]

Modern day tests (since 2015 or so) are as good if not better than the 90s. Lots of quality attacks around the world with great pacers, good spinners, tough conditions for batsmen all leading to entertaining cricket.

Agree but not better then 90s

 

[subshakerz]

Modern day tests (since 2015 or so) are as good if not better than the 90s. Lots of quality attacks around the world with great pacers, good spinners, tough conditions for batsmen all leading to entertaining cricket.

Batting quality was better then maybe. And I think there are more great pacers in the 90s.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Modern day tests (since 2015 or so) are as good if not better than the 90s. Lots of quality attacks around the world with great pacers, good spinners, tough conditions for batsmen all leading to entertaining cricket.

The only thing down is the quality of batsmanship