Shane Warne vs Imran Khan

[subshakerz]

Visual evidence would be subjectively interpreted all the time, it's very possible that Subs would see Sutcliffe bat and think he's a gully player while I'll find him better on eye test than Sunil Gavaskar, there's no point to there being any.

Do you honestly believe this? That watching a cricketer play has no role in quality assessment?

Would we honestly have thought as highly of Viv if we couldnt see him play and see for ourselves how outrageously audacious he was? Or all the others? And you would like us to select guys as the best or second best ever without any chance for a firsthand quality assessment and rely on peers alone to determine that?

Unless they are a Bradman level outlier, I don't think we can do that.

 

[Coronis]

Do you honestly believe this? That watching a cricketer play has no role in quality assessment?

Would we honestly have thought as highly of Viv if we couldnt see him play and see for ourselves how outrageously audacious he was? Or all the others? And you would like us to select guys as the best or second best ever without any chance for a firsthand quality assessment and rely on peers alone to determine that?

Unless they are a Bradman level outlier, I don't think we can do that.

It has some. Not a very big amount at all. And mostly in regards to things that can’t necessarily be quantified by stats.

 

[subshakerz]

It has some. Not a very big amount at all. And mostly in regards to things that can’t necessarily be quantified by stats.

Things such as what?

And I'm not saying it is a big amount. Record counts most.

 

[Coronis]

Things such as what?

And I'm not saying it is a big amount. Record counts most.

Well technique for one, because a lot of people will rate someone higher with a better technique, whether consciously or subconsciously. Actually experiencing a match changing knock or bowling spell will also standout vastly in someones mind and increase a players rating somewhat.

The part you mentioned about Murali is an example.

You could also use the inverse of a batsman hiding and playing defensive in certain innings against a great bowler and smashing weaker ones.

But in the end these aren’t anything to really tick the meter much if at all for me.

 

[subshakerz]

Well technique for one, because a lot of people will rate someone higher with a better technique, whether consciously or subconsciously. Actually experiencing a match changing knock or bowling spell will also standout vastly in someones mind and increase a players rating somewhat.

The part you mentioned about Murali is an example.

You could also use the inverse of a batsman hiding and playing defensive in certain innings against a great bowler and smashing weaker ones.

But in the end these aren’t anything to really tick the meter much if at all for me.

Well if we are rating someone among the top of the top between cricketers of very close exceptional records, it can matter hence why I would prefer those I have seen between those two

 

[Johan]

Do you honestly believe this? That watching a cricketer play has no role in quality assessment?

Would we honestly have thought as highly of Viv if we couldnt see him play and see for ourselves how outrageously audacious he was? Or all the others? And you would like us to select guys as the best or second best ever without any chance for a firsthand quality assessment and rely on peers alone to determine that?

Unless they are a Bradman level outlier, I don't think we can do that.

I never said that it means nothing, but as you mentioned, Viv to some looks like the greatest Batsmen to ever live and to some he looked like a hack who swung it a mile and didn't have the technique, so there you have another example of what I said.

 

[subshakerz]

I never said that it means nothing, but as you mentioned, Viv to some looks like the greatest Batsmen to ever live and to some he looked like a hack who swung it a mile and didn't have the technique, so there you have another example of what I said.

Just because there isn't 100 percent consensus doesn't mean there isn't value in self assessment especially when comparing cricketers around the same level.

 

[Johan]

Just because there isn't 100 percent consensus doesn't mean there isn't value in self assessment especially when comparing cricketers around the same level.

so...people can have subjective interpretations of footage? agreed. Even if there was intact peak Barnes footage, Kyear would just call him a trundler while I'll go by the wickets he's taking and the amount of movement he generates, therefore calling him a GOAT, so what's the point.

 

[subshakerz]

so...people can have subjective interpretations of footage? agreed. Even if there was intact peak Barnes footage, Kyear would just call him a trundler while I'll go by the wickets he's taking and the amount of movement he generates, therefore calling him a GOAT, so what's the point.

Honestly if the footage presented him like a trundler shouldn't we be hesitant before calling him the greatest who ever lived.

 

[Johan]

Honestly if the footage presented him like a trundler shouldn't we be hesitant before calling him the greatest who ever lived.

I don't think he's the BOAT as you know but I don't think speed has anything to do with brilliance no

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think he's the BOAT as you know but I don't think speed has anything to do with brilliance no

Ok but I would actually like to see footage of him taking wickets to know he was that exceptional and see how bats played him.

 

[Johan]

Ok but I would actually like to see footage of him taking wickets to know he was that exceptional and see how bats played him.

Ok, that's your standard, nobody is forced to rate Barnes or even Viv or even Sachin in some cases (on this site, you can find someone who thinks Sachin would average sub 40 today) for whatever reasons. It's not me who keeps instigating Barnes debates.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok, that's your standard, nobody is forced to rate Barnes or even Viv or even Sachin in some cases (on this site, you can find someone who thinks Sachin would average sub 40 today) for whatever reasons. It's not me who keeps instigating Barnes debates.

Wells that argument is exactly why I think watching them play gives that extra layer to your case for rating them.

 

[Johan]

Wells that argument is exactly why I think watching them play gives that extra layer to your case for rating them.

I really don't think it does.

 

[subshakerz]

I really don't think it does.

I think there is so much context that comes with seeing how they score runs and take wickets that it definitely informs your analysis.

 

[sayon basak]

I think there is so much context that comes with seeing how they score runs and take wickets that it definitely informs your analysis.

Where do you rate Steve Smith?

 

[subshakerz]

Where do you rate Steve Smith?

Around 6/7, ahead of Lara now

 

[Johan]

I think there is so much context that comes with seeing how they score runs and take wickets that it definitely informs your analysis.

I don't think that's really true either

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think that's really true either

We can just disagree then. To me it's a self evident point.

 

[sayon basak]

Around 6/7, ahead of Lara now

Even after watching his footage? He doesn't look better than Aravinda De Silva to me.