Erroneous revisionism that needs to be corrected

[Coronis]

Why on earth would you think that

Its usually a somewhat linear relationship.

You've only been here just over 12 months, and you've made over 10,000 posts. You're averaging 23 a day.

Aren't you a young dude? Get out and chase some girls, man.

How dare you make such assumptions in 2019. Chase blokes if you want to as well trundler.

 

[trundler]

Well I'm glad my love life is a hot topic in 2 separate threads

 

[Burgey]

It's so hard for people to accept this. Look at how many people submit Top 20 ODI batsmen lists without Sachin in the Top 5 and then argue to death that it's a serious opinion.

Downplaying and undermining Sachin's accomplishments is absolutely 100% new school revisionism, at least on CW. Fits this thread perfectly.

Not true. I was downplaying his achievements as they happened. Why wait?

By your flawed logic and definition, your own habit of making excuses for officialdom is revisionism. But it isn’t, it’s just stupidity.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah but you don't see that on CW. Go do that on the comments on sportskeeda or troll cricket. Reactionary nonsense is still nonsense. Why are Indian fans here expected to atone for the direness of rabid ones elsewhere?

They should atone for their own direness on here first.

 

[cnerd123]

Not true. I was downplaying his achievements as they happened. Why wait?

By your flawed logic and definition, your own habit of making excuses for officialdom is revisionism. But it isn’t, it’s just stupidity.

Never said 'Burgey' anywhere in my post. Why do you think I was talking about you?

Now that you've made this topic about yourself (as you usually do) - 'WC KO games being the only ODIs that matter' is a philosophy completely ignores the history and growth of ODI cricket. It's revisionist bullshit that's also illogical and dumb. Just like your face.

 

[srbhkshk]

Never said 'Burgey' anywhere in my post. Why do you think I was talking about you?

Now that you've made this topic about yourself (as you usually do) - 'WC KO games being the only ODIs that matter' is a philosophy completely ignores the history and growth of ODI cricket. It's revisionist bullshit that's also illogical and dumb. Just like your face.

Yeah it's funny how every single ODI has been made JAMODI retrospectively, there was no such thing before 2013ish if I recall correctly, the tri-series in Australia especially were valued as a great prize.

 

[Flem274*]

it began before the 07 wc. nz, aus and eng were all doing 'rotation' policies as it was called then. nz coach john bracewell was getting toasted by sections of the public for not trying to play his best team every game.

 

[Burgey]

Never said 'Burgey' anywhere in my post. Why do you think I was talking about you?

Now that you've made this topic about yourself (as you usually do) - 'WC KO games being the only ODIs that matter' is a philosophy completely ignores the history and growth of ODI cricket. It's revisionist bullshit that's also illogical and dumb. Just like your face.

You literally do not know what revisionism is.

You also should know that I am currently wearing a white shirt with a tie and black trousers, which automatically means you have to agree with me because I'm dressed like an umpire and therefore in your eyes can say and do no wrong.

 

[TheJediBrah]

it began before the 07 wc. nz, aus and eng were all doing 'rotation' policies as it was called then. nz coach john bracewell was getting toasted by sections of the public for not trying to play his best team every game.

This is when I first noticed it too. Australia sent a genuinely 2nd string side to NZ just prior to the '07 WC

Yeah but you don't see that on CW. Go do that on the comments on sportskeeda or troll cricket. Reactionary nonsense is still nonsense. Why are Indian fans here expected to atone for the direness of rabid ones elsewhere?

you never met honestbharani did you

 

[Athlai]

This is when I first noticed it too. Australia sent a genuinely 2nd string side to NZ just prior to the '07 WC

Revisionism honestly.

It wasn't Australia genuinely sending a second string side, they sent their best XI they could muster in Feb 2007 excluding risking Ponting who had injury concerns.

Missing Ponting/Gilchrist/Symonds and Clarke. But Ponting had a back issue they were genuinely resting, Gilchrist was having a kid, Symonds was injured and thought to potentially miss the entire World cup. Clarke injured and sent home on the tour with a hip issue.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Revisionism honestly.

It wasn't Australia genuinely sending a second string side, they sent their best XI they could muster in Feb 2007 excluding risking Ponting who had injury concerns.

Missing Ponting/Gilchrist/Symonds and Clarke. But Ponting had a back issue they were genuinely resting, Gilchrist was having a kid, Symonds was injured and thought to potentially miss the entire World cup. Clarke injured and sent home on the tour with a hip issue.

You've lost me. The reason a 2nd string side was sent is irrelevant. Regardless you really think those issues would have kept all those guys out if it was a more serious serious?

 

[trundler]

Uh of course it's relevant. That's qualitatively different from the Avant Garde funk that's served up in the year leading up to a world cup which makes ODIs meaningless. When a series is scheduled and lots of injuries happen at once you can't cancel and not send a squad because the squad would not be full strength.

 

[TheJediBrah]

M8 they weren't genuine injuries. We still do that these days "hip soreness", "resting a back strain", it basically means "cant' be bothered playing this guy so giving him a rest but don't want to say that so will pretend he is missing because he's injured" when in reality players play through that kind of soreness most games they play in their careers

And regardless, no it's not relevant. I said it was a 2nd string side, I didn't say it wasn't because of injuries

edit: oh and despite all that, it's definitely not revisionism because this is what all the talk was at the time, I remember it very clearly. People were treating it as a bit of a joke that Mike Hussey had to captain the side despite being ~4th in line.

So even if all the players were genuinely injured (which they weren't), and even if why they were missing was relevant (which is isn't), it still wouldn't be revisionism.

 

[thierry henry]

Really? I know there was always a certain amount of posturing, but that never bothered me. It just looked ridiculous when subsequent generations gave it all the posturing without being nearly as good. But they never struck me as dickheads in the 1980s because for the most part they simply stfu and got on with the game. Golden age compared to what followed. Looking at your location, maybe the 1979/80 series would be a factor tbf. And I'll give you Viv Richards' antics over the Rob Bailey dismissal in 1990. But that's about it.

Ironically, Clive Lloyd has been guilty of some pretty serious revisionism since he retired, but that's another matter.

Aside from Gayle, you've also got the likes of Pollard and Samuels who have been involved in multiple ugly incidents, generally with them being clearly in the wrong. I mean seriously, the team is full of weirdos. Blokes like Gayle and Russell are genuine nutters for mine, absolute self-obsessed narcissists.

I dunno, I'm surprised I have to do the legwork to remind people of all of the specific incidents but I guess that's my point- it gets glossed over or reinterpreted because people just like the "cool" West Indies.

 

[thierry henry]

Longevity is dramatically underappreciated on this forum though, can't perscribe it a numeric value so people sort of punish players for it in an odd way.

Can't agree with that. If it wasn't for this forum I probably would have never seriously taken longevity into consideration as a major factor when assessing players. I always just assumed that once you got a big enough sample size (whatever that means to you) that was good enough.

While I get the longevity argument, I still find it a bit perverse when a generally inferior player who played 150 tests over 20 years gets ranked above someone who played 100 tests over 15 years, due to longevity.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Aside from Gayle, you've also got the likes of Pollard and Samuels who have been involved in multiple ugly incidents, generally with them being clearly in the wrong. I mean seriously, the team is full of weirdos. Blokes like Gayle and Russell are genuine nutters for mine, absolute self-obsessed narcissists.

I dunno, I'm surprised I have to do the legwork to remind people of all of the specific incidents but I guess that's my point- it gets glossed over or reinterpreted because people just like the "cool" West Indies.

Yeah it kind of proves your point doesn't it? that people overlook the obvious negative personality traits

 

[trundler]

Samuels got into a fight with Warne though. That should absolve him of everything.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Aside from Gayle, you've also got the likes of Pollard and Samuels who have been involved in multiple ugly incidents, generally with them being clearly in the wrong. I mean seriously, the team is full of weirdos. Blokes like Gayle and Russell are genuine nutters for mine, absolute self-obsessed narcissists.

I dunno, I'm surprised I have to do the legwork to remind people of all of the specific incidents but I guess that's my point- it gets glossed over or reinterpreted because people just like the "cool" West Indies.

Chill bud...that's the West Indian way...

If yuh nah like it, move yuh bomboclaat from yah suh.

 

[thierry henry]

Samuels got into a fight with Warne though. That should absolve him of everything.

Managed to be the bigger dickhead in a stoush with Warne tbh, quite an achievement

 

[Athlai]

M8 they weren't genuine injuries. We still do that these days "hip soreness", "resting a back strain", it basically means "cant' be bothered playing this guy so giving him a rest but don't want to say that so will pretend he is missing because he's injured" when in reality players play through that kind of soreness most games they play in their careers

And regardless, no it's not relevant. I said it was a 2nd string side, I didn't say it wasn't because of injuries

edit: oh and despite all that, it's definitely not revisionism because this is what all the talk was at the time, I remember it very clearly. People were treating it as a bit of a joke that Mike Hussey had to captain the side despite being ~4th in line.

So even if all the players were genuinely injured (which they weren't), and even if why they were missing was relevant (which is isn't), it still wouldn't be revisionism.

Clarke was Husseys vice captain. So he was 3rd in line. Classic revisionism