sayon basak
International Regular
If someone is better than Shakib, he is automatically better than Sachin.Agree
If someone is better than Shakib, he is automatically better than Sachin.Agree
If I had to make a troll OP in a comparisons thread in the @PlayerComparisons style I would say:Hobbs batting > Hayden batting
And Great records in South AfricaEnglandNew Zealand.If I had to make a troll OP in a comparisons thread in the @PlayerComparisons style I would say:
Two very versatile batsmen with great footwork and technique.
What about the droid attack on the wookies?What about Hayden's record in SEN?
Because it was objectively worse?Nah makes no sense to me. If we can take players from any time in this situation why can’t I take a matting wicket from South Africa or a deadly Australian sticky? Why can’t I bring back some bats where the sweet spot isn’t giant? Why can’t I bring back the back foot law?
Matter of opinion tbh. Not sure you can say many changes were objectively good (outside of obvious safety ones)Because it was objectively worse?
Give everyone helmets and giant bats. But make the pitches sporting.
For his batting.Garner > Warne
Both ODIs and Test Cricket
Anyone who believes this after seeing modern batting or even the famed batsman of the 80s struggle with even ordinary leg spin needs their head read.I also understand that people don't like it when someone changes their stance, as it's more convenient to have a caricature than nuance. However, I want to change my opinion on Hobbs in particular. Reading into his career, it really was incredibly long and did span acrosseras, with a different group of bowlers all together at the end as compared to the beginning (likely a stronger group, with better approaches). So my current re-evaluation is that indeed Hobbs likely could have a bit more quality to his batting than Shakib al Hasan.
However, this is just a Hobbs specific change in evaluation for me. I still poo poo all over the older time eras batsmen, and believe in general they faced weaker bowling, and thus demonstrated considerably less skill, especially the earlier in time you get before WWII, it was likely a crapshoot.
So we could update to something like Trumper and Hill couldn't tie Watson and Katich's shoelaces when it comes to demonstrated batting skill. I really still believe like this.
For his batting.
Garner the better bowler for his batting.
Except for Murali, Warne and O'Reilly.Garner>Spinners*
+1Except for Murali, Warne and O'Reilly.
Garner is just betterExcept for Murali, Warne and O'Reilly.
The number of 5'fers and 10 wickets in a match is not quite flattering for him.Garner is just better
I mean, he played in the strongest bowling unit ever and didn’t get the new ball for the majority of his career. It makes sense for him to have a low amount of 5’fers.The number of 5'fers and 10 wickets in a match is not quite flattering for him.
Joel Garner played alongside some of the greatest bowlers of all time and did not get to bowl much with the new ball so that is understandable.The number of 5'fers and 10 wickets in a match is not quite flattering for him.
I mean, he played in the strongest bowling unit ever and didn’t get the new ball for the majority of his career. It makes sense for him to have a low amount of 5’fers.
fwiw when he finally did get the new ball (which he kept til the end of his career)
26 matches 128 @ 20.09 SR 45.6 5 5’fers
Perfectly acceptable rate of 5’fers imo.
Fair enough, and that's why I rate him as one of top 11/12 quicks. But Muralitharan, Warne and O'Reilly are just better imo.Joel Garner played alongside some of the greatest bowlers of all time and did not get to bowl much with the new ball so that is understandable.