Should have seen me four years ago, then... oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
A lot of it is, I think, acquired communication skills and word choice in the way that you post what you post, coming across as authoritative but not arrogant when you make claims or assertions, and being accomodating and not simply state/restating when discussing.
For example...
"Granted, the match-winning innings that Dalton played at Wellington in 2002 was a fine example of batting under pressure - not many people can make those kinds of scores with a middle-order and tail committing hara-kiri around them, but there has been little else in his career to back up your claim that he's one of the world's best batsman.
If, for example, you look at the ODI series in Sri Lanka the year after - there were two or three times where he played very rash, injudicious shots when the onus was on him to remain unbeaten and see the team to victory in the games. His disproportionately high ratio of dismissals in single figures also suggests a weakness early in his innings"
contrasted against...
"rubbish. one innings doesnt make dalton a good batsman even if that innings was good and on that i would disagree entirely because the bowlers bowled short and wide too often and the wicket was flatter than others he has failed repeatedly on. in sri lanka he was nothing but useless and probably cost the game and series because he was unable to play anything other than that idiot hoik shot off the leg spinner and got stumped twice and caught off skiers so many other times. no one who bats like that can even be thought of as good never mind great"