Mate maybe reading more carefully might improve your understanding. You clearly didn't take in anything of what i posted like the fact that i disagree with kyears original statement so its doubtful you even read it based on the slant of your posting.
ICC's all time ratings agree. But then again, it's ICC...
Imran you beauty
Did you even read the article?
Admittedly no. But it's an Anantha Narayanan piece which are almost always tripe. I'm guessing by your reaction that Ponting isn't third. But that's fine, wasn't my point.
Do you have this on Ctrl+V?Imran you beauty
lol, no. But you are giving me ideas
Look I don't think I need lessons on understanding or logic from a bloke who argued that because Sobers had much better wicket taking skill than Ishant Sharma, he should be a part of the world 11 and thought he was making a great point before he was called out on it. yes, hubris is the word.
Ricky Ponting was a run making machine, but he was by no means a complete batsmen the way Tendulkar, Bradman or Hobbs were, he never mastered every facet of the game he was tested against. Again you miss the point regarding contemporaries. Sobers was the greatest batsmen of his generation, against the bowlers he came up against on the pitches he had to bat on, he was better than everyone else, while the same is not true for Ponting. At the end of the day you can never compare across generations with any degree of precision, you can only rate a batsmen on the degree to which they dominated in their era. But we can assume that the quality of bowlers has stayed relatively the same throughout this period of time, and that pitches as a rule were friendlier to bowlers in Sobers day compared to Pontings.
But this isn't even the point i was trying to make, the fact of the matter is that each and every one of us rates players based on a wide range of reasons, and of course we argue about the logic behind these reasons, but the amount of emphasise we place on each of these factors determines how we holistically rate players. Lets just say for arguments sake that i can find 3 reasons why i would hold kyear's statement true and 7 why i would not (of course this happens with a lot less structured thinking). So i would disagree, but i could understand how Kyear could reach a different conclusion if for say he held a couple of factors as much more important than the others. At the end of the day this is all opinion about players who most of us have only ever read about (if that). Now this has been much more analytical that i intended in order to get the point across, but it is pure hubris to label someone illogical, when your opinions are of course highly subjective and therefore illogical.
Something else i want to bring up is that i think the Don is highly over rated by nigh on everyone, hes a clear greatest ever batsmen, but imo he's not heads and shoulders above the rest like its commonly made out. His mental game and desire for runs of course surpasses everyone, but his failures on sticky wickets compared to his contemporaries, flat wickets, lbw laws and biased umpires meaning it was nigh on impossible to get him out lbw, (Similarly to what Pakistani umpires were notorious for, but tbf NZ umpires were fairly decent at it as well) are often over looked in discussion. Imo his average translates into somewhere in low-mid seventies if he were to have played in the Tendulkar era.
What, like randomly posting it on the internet? Am I going to find "Imran you beautylol, no. But you are giving me ideas
" in the comments of "CERN finds the first traces of dark matter"?
Why would Bradman's average drop in the "Tendulkar era"? Would everyone from Bradman's era suffer a lesser avg in the modern era, or just him?
Yes, just did. Kallis is higher than Viv Richards, Mohammad Yousuf higher than Gavaskar. Lillee is closer to Akhtar than he is to Wasim Akram and McGrath. Did I miss anything?
The moment kyear made that statement I just knew this argument of Bradman not being head and shoulders above the rest would come about. In an era where other supposed AG batsmen like Hammond, Hutton, Sutcliffe etc averaged around 50-60, like ALL ATGs EXCEPT BRADMAN do, the Don averaged a 100. Were they all just Suresh Rainas and Aaron Finches? Would they average low 30s in today's era then? If you agree I have no problem with your argument.
Ricky Ponting was a run making machine, but he was by no means a complete batsmen the way Tendulkar, Bradman or Hobbs were, he never mastered every facet of the game he was tested against. Again you miss the point regarding contemporaries. Sobers was the greatest batsmen of his generation, against the bowlers he came up against on the pitches he had to bat on, he was better than everyone else, while the same is not true for Ponting. At the end of the day you can never compare across generations with any degree of precision, you can only rate a batsmen on the degree to which they dominated in their era. But we can assume that the quality of bowlers has stayed relatively the same throughout this period of time, and that pitches as a rule were friendlier to bowlers in Sobers day compared to Pontings.
But this isn't even the point i was trying to make, the fact of the matter is that each and every one of us rates players based on a wide range of reasons, and of course we argue about the logic behind these reasons, but the amount of emphasise we place on each of these factors determines how we holistically rate players. Lets just say for arguments sake that i can find 3 reasons why i would hold kyear's statement true and 7 why i would not (of course this happens with a lot less structured thinking). So i would disagree, but i could understand how Kyear could reach a different conclusion if for say he held a couple of factors as much more important than the others. At the end of the day this is all opinion about players who most of us have only ever read about (if that). Now this has been much more analytical that i intended in order to get the point across, but it is pure hubris to label someone illogical, when your opinions are of course highly subjective and therefore illogical.
Something else i want to bring up is that i think the Don is highly over rated by nigh on everyone, hes a clear greatest ever batsmen, but imo he's not heads and shoulders above the rest like its commonly made out. His mental game and desire for runs of course surpasses everyone, but his failures on sticky wickets compared to his contemporaries, flat wickets, lbw laws and biased umpires meaning it was nigh on impossible to get him out lbw, (Similarly to what Pakistani umpires were notorious for, but tbf NZ umpires were fairly decent at it as well) are often over looked in discussion. Imo his average translates into somewhere in low-mid seventies if he were to have played in the Tendulkar era.
It's a holidayHow can you even bother anymore, OS?
So let me get this straight. You day Sobers is just above Ponting, which is a fair opinion, but then you also said Sobers is closer to Bradman than to Ponting which means you believe Sobers and Bradman to be almost equals as batsmen?
So you are either from Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu, right?
The equation above seems like a neat solution to harmonising the changes in batting strength from decade to decade to me. Admittedly it's not all encompassing, but it DOES send the batsman's average in the right direction. Clem Hill is a case in point - up from 44 to 57, and a subsequent gain of 13 runs per innings
No, you're right. Much better to use those noted bowlers of Viv Richards and Sachin Tendulkar
