...
When ever that wk bat average of 40 is brought in, this has to be brought in for context. Sorry, but that is what it is. When Scrodinger's logic is used such details has to be repeated.
I think many are just waiting for his career to end tbh. If his average falls below 50, many people may not view him as an ATG.
I mean, that's fair and all, but my point was that if one believes in sports evolution due to fitness and so forth, one should also believe the Fab 4 are the greatest 4 bats because in last 25 years sports science made far more evolution than in the 20th century, I'm not completely dismissive of the concept of sports evolution (though, I disagree considering Cricket is mostly skill oriented, not phsyicals) but I simply am not a fan of selective implementation of that argument to make sure everyone before a certain era is discreditted but people from 50 years ago get to be on the same level as the current players too. It's just hypocritical in my opinion.
I think nearly everyone agrees that the best players from those really old eras are top tier ATGs (Hobbs, Hutton, and Hammond are rated in the top 10 batsmen, Barnes and O’Reilly are rated in the top 10 bowlers). It’s not a big deal if 2-3 people don’t rate those players as high.
How many wc have you won?
What do you mean, we literally discussed this before, I put Hobbs in my list with an asterisk. You might have forgotten.
How many multi's have you made?
Caption: haters can suck it
Narayana>Australia