Who Is The Best English Batsman of All-Time?

[Richard]

But that doesn't mean you know about Flintoff, you just know his figures.

I know his figures and I know when he's bowled worse than they've suggested.
Hence I know all that matters with regards the situation.
Training and netting routines don't win matches - getting the figures does.

 

[Richard]

you know his figures, you have watched his game...so what? how does that make you know more about him that he himself does? cricket isn't a mindless brawl so dismissing a player's mental status as irrelevant is stupid....

No, it's not stupid - what does it matter what he's thinking? All that matters is what he's bowling.

 

[marc71178]

I named 5 who I said matter.
Who've I supposedly ignored, then?

Oh, so now some people's opinions on here don't matter.

And why is that?

Because you've decided that they're insignificant?

And you only have to search the forums over the past week to see several others.

 

[Richard]

No, Scaly piscine has simply decided, in his typical ignoramuse way, that I have no intelligence, cricketing or otherwise, so his opinion really counts for very little.
You can name as many as you like - if you can get more than 5 who've consistently (rather than I'm-getting-mildly-****ed-off-so-I'm-going-to-make-a-passing-comment-despite-having-never-had-anything-against-him-in-the-past things) you'll have done well.

 

[badgerhair]

And I really do get rather sick of this rubbish that comes from you late-20s-early-30s guys about "inexperience" and "immaturity" and "ah, he'll learn as he gets older".

But you will, Oscar, you will.

I spouted as much dogmatic but ill-informed nonsense as you do when I was your age, which was a few years before you were born. It took me until I was about 35 to realise how little I actually knew about the game, and only then could I begin to reach the understanding I've gradually acquired since.

Something happens to you when you realise that you've watched, as an adult, the entire career of a notable player: you, 18, saw him make his hesitant county debut at 17, rise to stardom and then gradually fade away, so that you're vaguely surprised to see him still hanging around in county cricket playing for a different county than you remembered. And then he's gone, but you're still there.

When you realise that your vivid first-hand memories are the stuff of ancient history to a new generation, you start to realise that the way you yourself pooh-poohed the previous one was really incredibly foolish and that you were quite lucky to be tolerated by people who actually knew what they were talking about. And if they happened to put you up for MCC membership despite it all, then you were fortunate indeed.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Anil]

No, it's not stupid - what does it matter what he's thinking? All that matters is what he's bowling.

because what he is thinking about his game and his bowling has a large part to play in what kind of bowler he is/will become....


i don't think you are stupid enough not to understand that, you're just avoiding agreeing with it because you will lose your argument....

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's basically taking the p*ss out of oneself - something you and Swervy, especially, are wont to do rather a lot in terms of your age.

Ah, I suspect you mean self-deprecation.

& I reckon I'm probably among the oldest 10% of (regular) posters on the forum. I need something to do whilst I wait for the viagra to kick in!!!

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

Ah, I suspect you mean self-deprecation.

& I reckon I'm probably among the oldest 10% of (regular) posters on the forum. I need something to do whilst I wait for the viagra to kick in!!!

...


That's a nice thought....

 

[Richard]

Ah, I suspect you mean self-deprecation.

& I reckon I'm probably among the oldest 10% of (regular) posters on the forum. I need something to do whilst I wait for the viagra to kick in!!!

Self-deprecation has a slightly different meaning - but it'd fit too.

 

[marc71178]

You can name as many as you like - if you can get more than 5 who've consistently (rather than I'm-getting-mildly-****ed-off-so-I'm-going-to-make-a-passing-comment-despite-having-never-had-anything-against-him-in-the-past things) you'll have done well.

Well, you yourself had more than 5 named, and missed several.

Or are they all anomalies?

 

[Richard]

But you will, Oscar, you will.

I spouted as much dogmatic but ill-informed nonsense as you do when I was your age, which was a few years before you were born. It took me until I was about 35 to realise how little I actually knew about the game, and only then could I begin to reach the understanding I've gradually acquired since.

Something happens to you when you realise that you've watched, as an adult, the entire career of a notable player: you, 18, saw him make his hesitant county debut at 17, rise to stardom and then gradually fade away, so that you're vaguely surprised to see him still hanging around in county cricket playing for a different county than you remembered. And then he's gone, but you're still there.

When you realise that your vivid first-hand memories are the stuff of ancient history to a new generation, you start to realise that the way you yourself pooh-poohed the previous one was really incredibly foolish and that you were quite lucky to be tolerated by people who actually knew what they were talking about. And if they happened to put you up for MCC membership despite it all, then you were fortunate indeed.

Cheers,

Mike

A fond-held view by you older fellows - I'll leave you to hold it because I've always thought age and experience don't go anywhere near as hand-in-hand as is usually assumed.

 

[Richard]

Well, you yourself had more than 5 named, and missed several.

Or are they all anomalies?

I named 8, 1 of whom I quite clearly stated means nothing. 2 others of whom I quite clearly stated could not be classed as what you'd like to class them.
If you can subtract, which I'm sure you can, that equals 5.

 

[Richard]

because what he is thinking about his game and his bowling has a large part to play in what kind of bowler he is/will become....

Err, yes, but you don't need to know it because you're judging the product, not the inputs.

 

[marc71178]

I named 8, 1 of whom I quite clearly stated means nothing. 2 others of whom I quite clearly stated could not be classed as what you'd like to class them.

And why are they stated as that, because you've decided so?

Still going to ignore the others then as well?

 

[marc71178]

Err, yes, but you don't need to know it because you're judging the product, not the inputs.

However you do not know what his plan is or anything - so therefore you do not know if he is bowling to it or not, so you do not know how he is bowling.

It is impossible for you to know more about Flintoff's bowling than he himself does - the sooner you accept it, the more likely it is that people will start to give you some respect.

 

[Anil]

Err, yes, but you don't need to know it because you're judging the product, not the inputs.

err... no....you cannot properly judge a product without analyzing the inputs....besides flintoff is not an inanimate object incapable of analyzing himself, he is a human being just like you and is more capable of analyzing the product, himself than you....just like he would have less insight into what went into the making of "first-chance average" richard than you....

 

[Swervy]

A fond-held view by you older fellows - I'll leave you to hold it because I've always thought age and experience don't go anywhere near as hand-in-hand as is usually assumed.

ehhh...

maybe experience is inversly proportional to age...

Richard..you will learn eventually

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well, there it is, an absolutely thumping success for The Master; now officially England’s greatest ever batter! In a strong pre-WW2 showing the good Dr Grace & the comparatively youthful (!) Walter Hammond tie for second.

Ken Barrington & Goochie tie for the best post-WW2 debutant.

Some surprises, Herbert Sutcliffe & Sir Geoffrey I would’ve thought to have more advocates. So:

1st: Sir Jack Hobbs
=2nd: WG Grace
=2nd: Wally Hammond
=4th: Ken Barrington
=4th: Graham Gooch
6th: Sir Len Hutton
7th: Denis Compton
=8th: Ted Dexter
=8th: Douglas Jardine
=8th: Herbert Sutcliffe

Thanks to all who voted & argued the toss.

 

[Swervy]

to be honest I havent really followed this thread that much...but JARDINE?????

 

[BoyBrumby]

to be honest I havent really followed this thread that much...but JARDINE?????

Yeah, what damn fool voted for him?!?!

Er.......