The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Pratters]

I wouldn't go that far.

Why not? It is completely reasonable to think he would struggle against Shakib. Kind of ****y that the greatest sports person of all time can't do batting which isn't real sport and fat ****s can do, no? After all all it requires is swatting 2 out of six balls?

 

[TheJediBrah]

***** was going on about how people assume fat cricketers don't have athletic ability. Give me a ****ing break. This same guy was whining about Ashwin being a fat **** just a few months ago.

***** is right though. Cricket can require a lot of "athletic ability". It's just a different sort of athleticism.

I haven't faced more than 80 balls in an innings for years, I always get too tired, yet I'm a gym junkie and have excellent cardiovascular fitness. I have skinny fat teammates that bat for 60-70 overs without much trouble at all.

No one's saying that fat cricketers are more athletic than most other sportspeople. Just that there is some athleticism involved.

 

[Red]

FFS pages and pages of drivel. What's the argument even?

Is it : "Is Don Bradman the most gifted, strongest, fastest talented athlete of all time who could adapt to multiple sports/athletics and excel over others in them?" The answer to that is "no" (although Bradman continually showed how good he was at multiple sports, as has been pointed out numerous times).

Or is it : "Is Don Bradman the most dominant individual ever in any one given sporting pursuit?" to which the answer is a clear "yes". No one has ever dominated one sport so comprehensively as Bradman did with cricket.

Is there really any need to point out the obvious?

 

[Pratters]

Your point:

A) Bo Jackson is the greatest sports person
B) Cricket batting is ****
C) Then you would presume greatest sports person every could make 3000 now, when Inzamam can make only 300 against Bangladesh?

 

[OverratedSanity]

***** is right though. Cricket can require a lot of "athletic ability". It's just a different sort of athleticism.

I haven't faced more than 80 balls in an innings for years, I always get too tired, yet I'm a gym junkie and have excellent cardiovascular fitness. I have skinny fat teammates that bat for 60-70 overs without much trouble at all.

What supreme athletic ability did Inzamam and Ranatunga have? Glad to listen

 

[Borges]

The emergence of limited overs cricket has resulted in a certain minimum standard of athleticism being demanded of all cricket players.
Players today are way more athletic than those some decades ago. Elevated fielding standards and DRS have almost fully compensated for the increased benignity of wickets.

 

[Starfighter]

Think Starfighter was.

Because it definitely does. Sure Inzy carried a few extra pounds you do need a certain amount of fitness which he obviously had. You don't need explosive power or incredible speed, but it's not like any unfit person could come in and do it.

 

[cnerd123]

I mean, he's got a point. Unfit, unathletic fat ****s can succeed at cricket. Athleticism certainly isn't as important in batting as it is in many sports.

I wouldn't agree that it's less of a "real sport" whatever that means, but it's defnitely a less athletic sport. Your physical attributes are way less important for success in cricket relative to most other popular sports.

Define athleticism.

A weightlifter and a marathon runner are both athletes, but very different athletes.

You absolutely require some degree of athletic ability to be a top level batsman - put aside reflexes and hand/eye coordination, the sheer stamina required to bat for hours on end is not something a powerlifter or sprinter will have. The power required to hit sixes is not something a marathon runner or yogi will have. The dexterity and flexibility to have good footwork and range of movement will not be found in an NFL linebacker.

When you start saying 'more' or 'less' athleticism - you need to now define athleticism within certain parameters and have a concrete way of evaluating it.

When people look at fat guys like Inzy and Ranatunga they think that anyone can pick up a bat and be an elite cricketer. But no one who has seriously attempted to play the game at a high level will agree with you here. It's just that cricket, for the longest time, paid no attention to the athletic requirements, whilst simultaneously appearing to the eye to be an easy laid back sport. It doesn't mean these men weren't athletes. You couldn't get off your couch and accomplish what they did even if we gifted you with the reflexes, hand eye coordination and technique to do it. Just go have a net session and bat for 2 hours and report back to us how you feel.

Similarly, go look up pictures of Roy Nelson, Mark Hunt and Daniel Cormier. And then look at their achievements, and tell me they aren't athletic just because they are fat.

Plenty of athletes in the NFL and MLB are overweight too. But somehow these sports are being held up as being far more athletically demanding than batting in cricket.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Your point:

A) Bo Jackson is the greatest sports person
B) Cricket batting is ****
C) Then you would presume greatest sports person every could make 3000 now, when Inzamam can make only 300 against Bangladesh?

Well maybe not 3000 now, Bo Jackson is 55 after all with dodgy hip.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What supreme athletic ability did Inzamam and Ranatunga have? Glad to listen

Batting endurance for one.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Define athleticism.

A weightlifter and a marathon runner are both athletes, but very different athletes.

You absolutely require some degree of athletic ability to be a top level batsman - put aside reflexes and hand/eye coordination, the sheer stamina required to bat for hours on end is not something a powerlifter or sprinter will have. The power required to hit sixes is not something a marathon runner or yogi will have. The dexterity and flexibility to have good footwork and range of movement will not be found in an NFL linebacker.

When you start saying 'more' or 'less' athleticism - you need to now define athleticism within certain parameters and have a concrete way of evaluating it.

When people look at fat guys like Inzy and Ranatunga they think that anyone can pick up a bat and be an elite cricketer. But no one who has seriously attempted to play the game at a high level will agree with you here. It's just that cricket, for the longest time, paid no attention to the athletic requirements, whilst simultaneously appearing to the eye to be an easy laid back sport. It doesn't mean these men weren't athletes. You couldn't get off your couch and accomplish what they did even if we gifted you with the reflexes, hand eye coordination and technique to do it. Just go have a net session and bat for 2 hours and report back to us how you feel.

Similarly, go look up pictures of Roy Nelson, Mark Hunt and Daniel Cormier. And then look at their achievements, and tell me they aren't athletic just because they are fat.

Plenty of athletes in the NFL and MLB are overweight too. But somehow these sports are being held up as being far more athletically demanding than batting in cricket.

Sure, power and strength guys can sacrifice endurance. If cricket's not endurance, why does it go 5 days? If it is endurance, why are there so many chubs?

 

[Pratters]

Well maybe not 3000 now, Bo Jackson is 55 after all with dodgy hip.

He wouldn't even make 100 dude. He couldn't play Shakib. That defeats your entire argument about Bradman.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Batting endurance for one.

Self sealing, but a nice self sealing, props

 

[stephen]

Of course Bo Jackson would beat Bradman in any sport out there. But we all have to remember that Bradman is dead now and that makes it hard to compete.

And if having a tummy disqualifies a sport for being athletic enough then NFL is in no way athletic. It had the highest proportion of fat blokes of any sport out there.

Still, Bradman dominated cricket more than any other player in history. Only 44 guys in the history of the sport have a career batting average over 50. Bradman averaged just shy of 100, just under double that of most of these blokes. He's 5 standard deviations ahead of the mean which statisticians basically count as impossible or an error. But the sample size was great enough that the error bars on his average are quite low.

I mean Tendulkar, who many regard as the second best ever has 240% of Bradman's runs but took 400% more tests/ innings to get there.

So Bradman dominated his sport. He also played tennis and squash recreationally and was easily at international level in both, should he have chosen to play in those events.

Bo Jackson was good at two events which are played by a single nation, and showed unrealized promise in a third. He was an absolute freak and he may have reached Bradman- like heights if he'd focused on a single sport. But he didn't so he goes down as a freak but not the most dominant ever.

 

[Starfighter]

I wouldn't go that far.

But I'm sure Don Bradman wouldn't rush 91m for a touchdown nor run the 100m under 10.5seconds (beyond the world record in his day too I possibly imagine)

And Bo Jackson wouldn't bat 0.300

 

[Pratters]

Of course Bo Jackson would beat Bradman in any sport out there. But we all have to remember that Bradman is dead now and that makes it hard to compete.

And if having a tummy disqualifies a sport for being athletic enough then NFL is in no way athletic. It had the highest proportion of fat blokes of any sport out there.

Still, Bradman dominated cricket more than any other player in history. Only 44 guys in the history of the sport have a career batting average over 50. Bradman averaged just shy of 100, just under double that of most of these blokes. He's 5 standard deviations ahead of the mean which statisticians basically count as impossible or an error. But the sample size was great enough that the error bars on his average are quite low.

I mean Tendulkar, who many regard as the second best ever has 240% of Bradman's runs but took 400% more tests/ innings to get there.

So Bradman dominated his sport. He also played tennis and squash recreationally and was easily at international level in both, should he have chosen to play in those events.

Bo Jackson was good at two events which are played by a single nation, and showed unrealized promise in a third. He was an absolute freak and he may have reached Bradman- like heights if he'd focused on a single sport. But he didn't so he goes down as a freak but not the most dominant ever.

He is not even the greatest NFL player or baseball player, let alone the greatest sports person.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

He wouldn't even make 100 dude. He couldn't play Shakib. That defeats your entire argument about Bradman.

No it really doesn't.

Bo Jackson smashed 100mph fast balls with a tiny bat fora living. He threw the ball in on the full from further than any cricket boundary. He ran the 100m in Olympic medal time at high school. He was the superstar of teh Raiders in the NFL running in long range touchdowns.

For me, there is no contest. For you, you prefer Bradman, That's your choice. I think it's an odd one, but you can go with dominance if you like. Someone else may go with Phiul Taylor for all his championships dominance.

I prefer the multi skilled multi faceted freak that is Bo.

 

[Starfighter]

He is not even the greatest NFL player or baseball player, let alone the greatest sports person.

He wasn't even the best at either during his career.

 

[cnerd123]

Sure, power and strength guys can sacrifice endurance. If cricket's not endurance, why does it go 5 days? If it is endurance, why are there so many chubs?

Fat consumes less oxygen than muscle. Surely you knew this? There is a reason the best edurance athletes are all skinny fat. More muscle = less endurance. The three guys I mentioned are all fat as **** but also have the best endurance the the heavyweight division (not just MMA - wrestling and kickboxing too).

The muscular explosive guys gas out quickly - Andre Russel isn't built to bat long innings, he's built for short explosive ones.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

He is not even the greatest NFL player or baseball player, let alone the greatest sports person.

Yeah he is the latter. Neither of the former.

https://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2013/03/bo_jackson_named_greatest_athl.html