Brian lara vs steve smith

[Johan]

Based on what?

longer career, higher output even though he opened, Invincibles performance, McGrath esque indifference of Cricket moving from a relatively batting friendly era to the most bowling friendly era since the first war and so forth.

 

[subshakerz]

longer career, higher output even though he opened, Invincibles performance, McGrath esque indifference of Cricket moving from a relatively batting friendly era to the most bowling friendly era since the first war and so forth.

Ok longevity isn't that big of a deal since he didn't bat in intl cricket for seven years due to that war. I will grant bowling friendly era.

But end of the day he wasn't a dominant bat in his style which between bats of similar quality is usually my differentiator. However if Smith flops in a next tour in SA I might downgrade him.

 

[Johan]

Ok longevity isn't that big of a deal since he didn't bat in intl cricket for seven years due to that war. I will grant bowling friendly era.

But end of the day he wasn't a dominant bat in his style which between bats of similar quality is usually my differentiator. However if Smith flops in a next tour in SA I might downgrade him.

coming back from the war is very impressive, it's the most horrific mental effect of all time and for him, the physical impact too, Hutton himself said he was at his peak in 1939, the war really just took away his entire peak.

He was pretty dominant, just ask Australia on the day he made 364, or when he thrashed the Invincibles on a wet pitch after the war in Sydney when he finally figured his technique out, or his conquest in the West Indies where Ramadhin compared his competence to the combination of the three Ws etc, Hutton's "negativity" was in his captaincy and not really his batting.

 

[subshakerz]

coming back from the war is very impressive, it's the most horrific mental effect of all time and for him, the physical impact too, Hutton himself said he was at his peak in 1939, the war really just took away his entire peak.

He was pretty dominant, just ask Australia on the day he made 364, or when he thrashed the Invincibles on a wet pitch after the war in Sydney when he finally figured his technique out, or his conquest in the West Indies where Ramadhin compared his competence to the combination of the three Ws etc, Hutton's "negativity" was in his captaincy and not really his batting.

That's the Gavaskar argument, that he could be occasionally aggressive but largely he was dour.

 

[Johan]

That's the Gavaskar argument, that he could be occasionally aggressive but largely he was dour.

isn't that just playing to the match situation?

 

[subshakerz]

isn't that just playing to the match situation?

I think folks here sometimes underestimate the value of being dominating. I went over the ATG XIs of the 90s and 2000s cricketer be we surprised how unanimous Hayden was as a selection and all of them talked about his bully effect.

Aggressive players set the pace and intimidate bowlers which can affects fields and team morale.

 

[Coronis]

Based on what?

He’s English

 

[Johan]

He’s English

+ He's not a convict, that's an extra boost.

 

[Coronis]

I think folks here sometimes underestimate the value of being dominating. I went over the ATG XIs of the 90s and 2000s cricketer be we surprised how unanimous Hayden was as a selection and all of them talked about his bully effect.

Aggressive players set the pace and intimidate bowlers which can affects fields and team morale.

By that logic shouldn’t Sehwag have been even more unanimous?

 

[subshakerz]

He’s English

Lol I thought I was the only one who noticed.

 

[Johan]

I think folks here sometimes underestimate the value of being dominating. I went over the ATG XIs of the 90s and 2000s cricketer be we surprised how unanimous Hayden was as a selection and all of them talked about his bully effect.

Aggressive players set the pace and intimidate bowlers which can affects fields and team morale.

Hutton could bully, ask the Windies pacers, he just didn't choose to because he thought tactically it was better to be defensive.

 

[subshakerz]

By that logic shouldn’t Sehwag have been even more unanimous?

Sehwags flaws were more noticeable.

 

[Johan]

Lol I thought I was the only one who noticed.

I literally wear it on my sleeve how tf you just noticed lol.

 

[subshakerz]

Hutton could bully, ask the Windies pacers, he just didn't choose to because he thought tactically it was better to be defensive.

That's tantamount to the same thing. And he was slow even by opener standards.

 

[subshakerz]

I literally wear it on my sleeve how tf you just noticed lol.

I tend to treat my interlocutor by the argument they give and not have to resort to bias accusation.

But your case became so obvious, passionate defenses of Hobbs and Barnes, Lillee over Trueman, Hammond over Viv and now Hutton over Smith. Your tiebreaker is clearly England.

But its ok, kinda endearing.

 

[Coronis]

Lol I thought I was the only one who noticed.

I meant Hutton tbh

 

[Johan]

I tend to treat my interlocutor by the argument they give and not have to resort to bias accusation.

But your case became so obvious, passionate defenses of Hobbs and Barnes, Lillee over Trueman, Hammond over Viv and now Hutton over Smith. Your tiebreaker is clearly England.

Hutton won both the last polls against Smith iirc, that's not a crazy stance at all, plus I've always said, as Imran for you, Marshall/Viv for Kyear, Sunny for Luffy, Hutton for me.

 

[Johan]

That's tantamount to the same thing. And he was slow even by opener standards.

at the time? not at all

 

[subshakerz]

Hutton won both the last polls against Smith iirc, that's not a crazy stance at all, plus I've always said, as Imran for you, Marshall/Viv for Kyear, Sunny for Luffy, Hutton for me.

Not saying a crazy stance neither is Trueman over Lillee.

I know I have been stuck with Imran but that is mainly a Kyear debate thing otherwise I rate him perhaps less as a cricketer than CW consensus, just more as a bowler.

 

[Johan]

Not saying a crazy stance neither is Trueman over Lillee.

I know I have been stuck with Imran but that is mainly a Kyear debate thing otherwise I rate him perhaps less as a cricketer than CW consensus, just more as a bowler.

Hammond>Viv is also less of me of upping Hammond and more of me giving the middle finger to Viv and the other guy