• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Is Ravichandran Ashwin an ATG test bowler?

Is Ravichandran Ashwin an ATG test bowler?

  • Total voters
    75
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Nonsense. The term 'All-Time Great' is meaningless if that individuals greatness to be compared across eras isnt apparent in their prime.
Click to expand...
I mean hell, Bradman wasn’t recognised as the best Australian batsman ever during his career. People still heavily advocated for Trumper.

**** like that is why peer ratings and perceptions of players need to be taken with a grain of salt.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
I mean hell, Bradman wasn’t recognised as the best Australian batsman ever during his career. People still heavily advocated for Trumper.

**** like that is why peer ratings and perceptions of players need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure in his era folks comfortably thought this guy Bradman was one of the greatest cricketers ever.

Just because peer rating is subjective doesn't mean you chuck it out. The qualitative counts too along with quantitative.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
The value of perspectives of peers in any sport, as in any other field, is of very variable significance/reliability. The simple reason being: lots of people who were very good at said sport have ****ing terrible opinions about it
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
sledger said:
The value of perspectives of peers in any sport, as in any other field, is of very variable significance/reliability. The simple reason being: lots of people who were very good at said sport have ****ing terrible opinions about it
Click to expand...
Sure but if a consensus of peers are that a peer is the best at something that should be factored in.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Consensus as the basis for a conclusion is only ever invoked when the empirical evidence isn't strong enough to support it. It's not a totally irrelevant consideration given the subjective nature of things like sport, but it's also entirely possible for the "consensus" to arrive at a conclusion that is objectively and patently garbage.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
sledger said:
Consensus as the basis for a conclusion is only ever invoked when the empirical evidence isn't strong enough to support it. It's not a totally irrelevant consideration given the subjective nature of things like sport, but it's also entirely possible for the "consensus" to arrive at a conclusion that is objectively and patently garbage.
Click to expand...
Examples, out of curiosity
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
sledger said:
Consensus as the basis for a conclusion is only ever invoked when the empirical evidence isn't strong enough to support it. It's not a totally irrelevant consideration given the subjective nature of things like sport, but it's also entirely possible for the "consensus" to arrive at a conclusion that is objectively and patently garbage.
Click to expand...
You don't conclude on peer rating alone. Possible sure but I always remind posters that peer rating consensus is only one secondary or tertiary method to assess cricketers.

And we also contextualise peer rating too.

Record obviously is most important.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Pretty sure in his era folks comfortably thought this guy Bradman was one of the greatest cricketers ever.

Just because peer rating is subjective doesn't mean you chuck it out. The qualitative counts too along with quantitative.
Click to expand...
Coronis said:
I mean hell, Bradman wasn’t recognised as the best Australian batsman ever during his career. People still heavily advocated for Trumper.

**** like that is why peer ratings and perceptions of players need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
ftr, these are not the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top