Can you have an opinion on people you haven’t seen olay

[ma1978]

Outside of Bradman who is ina different universe

Why do folks here feel they can credibly comment on people they’ve never seen play.

Stats are pointless because statistical analysis in cricket is prehistoric

People can read about players but apparentl “peer rating” is meaningless

So how do people here credibly justify an opinion?

 

[the big bambino]

With some qualifications stats across eras have been consistent enough to provide a reliable measure of class.

I rate peer reviews from players and, to an extent, the press and other critics.

 

[ma1978]

With some qualifications stats across eras have been consistent enough to provide a reliable measure of class.

I rate peer reviews from players and, to an extent, the press and other critics.

I agree completely they provide a measure of class, but they are parsed to create a degree of ridiculous false precision. Like the Ponting vs Gavaskar argument, the stats don’t tell us anything to differentiate them and we have people who’ve never seen them play trying to take strong views

 

[GirthQuake]

Of course you can have an opinion it'd just be indistinguishable from speculation/agenda.

But also, it depends on the content of the opinion itself. It's one thing to say Bradman is a GOAT because he was so far ahead of his peer and his astronomical average. This is an acceptable opinion.

But to go further and say that Bradman would average the same in the modern era with all the variables etc (some autists actually claim his exact average in modern era) or that Bradman is objectively a better batsman than modern day greats does not have legs to stand on.

 

[Nintendo]

I agree completely they provide a measure of class, but they are parsed to create a degree of ridiculous false precision. Like the Ponting vs Gavaskar argument, the stats don’t tell us anything to differentiate them and we have people who’ve never seen them play trying to take strong views

Watching both of these two play isn't really gonna help you make a better comparison, is it? Comparing those two is stupid anyway. Ponting is a #3/middle order bat who had the craziest peak the games seen bar Bradman and was a par at best batsmen outside of that peak. Gavaskar is an opener without the same crazy deviance. They also played in very different eras for batting.

 

[the big bambino]

I agree completely they provide a measure of class, but they are parsed to create a degree of ridiculous false precision. Like the Ponting vs Gavaskar argument, the stats don’t tell us anything to differentiate them and we have people who’ve never seen them play trying to take strong views

Look I generally stay away from those threads because they become a battle of personal preferences. They’re both great players and, not surprisingly, the stats bear that out. It’s the interpretation (distortion) of them to support a preference that undermines their value.

Now to indulge, I’d prefer Ponting because of his aggression and well - I just loved his hook shot.

However if Sunny was an Aussie he’d likely get more votes for a Aus “greatest XI.” Mainly because none of our openers over the years have been as good.

 

[R!TTER]

Outside of Bradman who is ina different universe

So he's not from earth 616

 

[Line and Length]

This highlight how these endless player comparison threads are ridiculous. Not only are certain posters comparing players they may not have seen, they are also comparing across eras and comparing players in totally different rolls.

 

[Coronis]

Outside of Bradman who is ina different universe

Why do folks here feel they can credibly comment on people they’ve never seen play.

Stats are pointless because statistical analysis in cricket is prehistoric

People can read about players but apparentl “peer rating” is meaningless

So how do people here credibly justify an opinion?

Yes. Imagine how boring any sports debate would be if you could only debate players you’ve seen. This is why you have people thinking LeBron is the undisputed GOAT.

 

[honestbharani]

Ok

 

[the big bambino]

(some autists ...

Why use the term autists in the context used?

 

[Qlder]

I agree completely they provide a measure of class, but they are parsed to create a degree of ridiculous false precision. Like the Ponting vs Gavaskar argument, the stats don’t tell us anything to differentiate them and we have people who’ve never seen them play trying to take strong views

Why is there even a Ponting vs Gavaskar 'argument' in the first place? It's not like they are competing for the same spot in an ATG team so just like both of them

 

[Athlai]

Yes

 

[honestbharani]

Why use the term autists in the context used?

Think they may have meant authors

 

[Victor Ian]

 

[Shady Slim]

i struggle with this a lot especially as i’m not as appraised offhand of the relative differences in stats of any given players

you probably can make an educated comment like if you’re appraised of the numbers and have watched a lot of footage, but unless you have done both you’re close to base speculating

 

[the big bambino]

Think they may have meant authors

Think that quite unlikely. As does predictive text.

 

[Qlder]

Outside of Bradman who is ina different universe

Why do folks here feel they can credibly comment on people they’ve never seen play.

Stats are pointless because statistical analysis in cricket is prehistoric

People can read about players but apparentl “peer rating” is meaningless

So how do people here credibly justify an opinion?

Do some reading. Peer ratings aren't meaningless when combined with records, match reports and sports articles as it gives a decent idea of how good players were in their era.

I then use the logic that if a player was an ATG in their era, they would likely be an ATG in any era

 

[ma1978]

Do some reading. Peer ratings aren't meaningless when combined with records, match reports and sports articles as it gives a decent idea of how good players were in their era.

I then use the logic that if a player was an ATG in their era, they would likely be an ATG in any era

I agree. I’m all about the peer rating and more so the pundit rating. But it gets dismissed a lot around here’s

 

[capt_Luffy]

Well, stats aren't the end all/ be all definitely; but with proper enough context and especially even more with match footages, they can definitely give you a better idea than some biased writters. It's more or less just common sense really.....