honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
It's dangerous to take someone's opinion seriously if you consider them partial at the first place. If I think Ian Chappell is unnecessarily partial towards aggressive batsmen (I do FTR), I won't attach any importance to his opinion on the 'aggression' aspect fo the game. For example, when he mildly praises a defensive batsman like Kallis, I'll take it as just that - mild praise. A dangerous thing will be to think Kallis should get brownie points because in spite of being a defensive batsman he's got mild praise from Chappell. I used to make this mistake; but I later understood that I shouldn't attach more importance to a specific comment just because of the commentator's known bias. Someone was making the point that when GIMH said 'Sangakkara is a fine player' in the other thread he got more likes than other people who also praised Sanga. It's apparently because GIMH seldom praises Sri Lankan players. If that's true, that's most unfortunate and a dangerous thing to do (attaching more importance to it).
It's the same with kyear's point with Wisden and Viv vs Hammond. You say Wisden is partial to English players. But what if Wisden is also partial to attackign players? What if Wisden attaches extra importance to peer opinion etc.? What if Wisden is partial to players whose colorful personal life can make good stories? All these points can go in Viv's favor.
All good but I think you are confusing Burgey for GIMH...
And they are both gonna hunt you down for it