Who Is The Best English Batsman of All-Time?

[social]

I've said I don't believe it's significant, because I don't see that there's been a change that could be caused by it.
If I see a change, I'll consider it as a possibility.
But neither Flintoff in 2001\02 (funny that a change took 2 whole years - more if you believe some misguided people) nor Harmison in 2004 has actually improved as a bowler, they've just started getting more poor strokes.
So therefore I don't see that it's significant.

Flintoff is a significantly better bowler than he was 24 months ago and it is all down to the length that he is bowling - it is fuller and straighter.

Harmison is mentally fragile. In SA, he is bowling like he did in Aus 2 years ago - all over the shop.

 

[Richard]

Why do you think you know it all Richo? You clearly dont so give it up you plodder.

And you clearly know sod-all about anything, so why don't you stop boring us all with your moronic monotony and just leave?

 

[Richard]

not a question of satisfaction young man and don't try to flame me by suggesting i am running away, i don't find anything remotely satisfying in banging my head against a brick wall

I'm doing nothing of the sort, I'm saying if you just read nought of this thread after that previous post you'd get the idea you've still clearly got about me, and I don't like that, because it's a misleading idea.

...a discussion is a give-and-take of ideas....you consistently do only the giving part and consider even thinking about another's opinion as beneath yourself or something(at least that's the impression you give on this forum)...that is a highly egotistical attitude...refusing to accept that you are imperfect doesn't make you perfect, y'know....

And I've done that where, exactly?
If someone contradicts me I'm going to try and dethrone that contradiction, that's one of the basic rules of humanity... some people might be more humble and modest than me, but you just need to read this forum to see that very few people will take being contradicted without an argument over it.
If someone has more scope than me, I'm invariably more than willing to bow to their superior knowledge - otherwise mine won't increase - but believe it or not I do actually know rather a lot about the game, and I make no apologies for saying more than most. Therefore I do believe that I'm going to be right when I deduce something; if I haven't got sufficient knowledge of something else, I'll listen to what other people have got to say about it and form myself an idea...
It's not rocket-science.
Yet plenty of people struggle to accept that someone as young as me can actually know such a comparatively large amount... it's not actually that unusual, though, this board is mostly made-up of people my age and within a year or two of me, most of whom are every bit as clued-up.

 

[Richard]

Flintoff is a significantly better bowler than he was 24 months ago and it is all down to the length that he is bowling - it is fuller and straighter.

It's nothing of the sort, something you'll see pretty clearly if you look at pitchmaps of Flintoff in 2001\02-2003 and 2003\04-2004\05.
The only difference is that he's getting more poor strokes now than he was 18 months ago.

 

[SJS]

I find this vote very interesting.

1. Only two out of the players listed played in the last four decades.

2. The last of them (Gooch) retired 10n years ago.

3. Only 9 out of 47 votes cast are for players who played their entire cricket after the second world war (that was 57 years ago)

What is it ?

Has England stopped producing really great batsmen ?

Is the hype about more recent players from England much less than their counterparts from , say, down under ?

Are the oldies from England more glamorous even from this distance than the Australian legends from the past ?

There was a similar vote for an Australian batsman (okay it was for the second best after Bradman). I dont remember exactly but I think the names as well as the voting was a bit different as far as the long past and relatively more recent times are concerned.

 

[Richard]

Has England stopped producing really great batsmen ?

Yep, by the looks of things.
Strauss might change that but it will be a surprise if he does, rather than if he doesn't.

 

[marc71178]

Yep - and take notice of the actual evidence of what is coming out of the hand.

So again you claim to know more about him than he does.

 

[marc71178]

In short, they're not allowed to contradict the bowler.
Which, frankly, is ridiculous - what the bowler says goes. Yeah, right.

So how exactly do you know more about him than he himself does then?

 

[marc71178]

The only difference is that he's getting more poor strokes now than he was 18 months ago.

So it's all luck...

 

[Fiery]

Kevin Pietersen. Not for a minute suggesting he should be mentioned in this company yet but has anyone ever had a more incredible start to a career? I doubt it, including Michael Clarke.


ONE-DAY INTERNATIONALS
(including 09/02/2005)
M I NO Runs HS Ave SR 100 50 Ct St
Batting & Fielding 9 8 5 442 108* 147.33 99.54 2 2 6 0

 

[Richard]

So again you claim to know more about him than he does.

No, again you try making it look like you want it to look.
I know as much about what is coming out of his hand as he does - I wonder how many times I'm going to have to say that before you understand it?

 

[Richard]

So how exactly do you know more about him than he himself does then?

So how exactly do I not know as much about what is coming out of the hand as he or anyone else does then?

 

[Richard]

So it's all luck...

Yep.
Plays a big part in cricket, does luck.

 

[Anil]

I'm doing nothing of the sort, I'm saying if you just read nought of this thread after that previous post you'd get the idea you've still clearly got about me, and I don't like that, because it's a misleading idea.

oh...i am reading the thread whenever i get a chance, just that my argument with you was going nowhere...and i didn't see any point in continuing with it...

If someone contradicts me I'm going to try and dethrone that contradiction, that's one of the basic rules of humanity... some people might be more humble and modest than me, but you just need to read this forum to see that very few people will take being contradicted without an argument over it.
If someone has more scope than me, I'm invariably more than willing to bow to their superior knowledge - otherwise mine won't increase - but believe it or not I do actually know rather a lot about the game, and I make no apologies for saying more than most. Therefore I do believe that I'm going to be right when I deduce something; if I haven't got sufficient knowledge of something else, I'll listen to what other people have got to say about it and form myself an idea...
It's not rocket-science.

so "dethroning" anyone that contradicts you is one of the basic rules of humanity, is it? highly arguable, but that would lead into a whole different area and as it is we are hugely off-topic, once again i am not extolling the virtues of humility and modesty here and if i have a strong opinion about something, i would argue it as well and carry the argument as far as i can go with it...the difference is that if i am proved wrong, i admit it, it's not humility or modesty that makes me do it, just basic honesty...i understand that you study the game very minutely, but even taking that into account i have seen quite a few people on this forum whose cricketing knowledge and analytical prowess are significantly superior to yours...obvious examples would be sjs, top_cat, slow love, boybrumby etc...from your posts that i have read(i can't claim to have read all of it), i haven't seen you "bowing" to anyone's superior knowledge(if i see an example of that, i will gladly retract my statement and apologize)....i totally agree that it's not rocket science, although sometimes your logic gets so convoluted and twisted that the impression one gets is that you are trying to make it look like rocket science...

Yet plenty of people struggle to accept that someone as young as me can actually know such a comparatively large amount... it's not actually that unusual, though, this board is mostly made-up of people my age and within a year or two of me, most of whom are every bit as clued-up.

not really, i don't think there is always a direct correlation between knowledge, wisdom and age, but we can't say they are mutually exclusive either...it really depends on the individual...

 

[Richard]

so "dethroning" anyone that contradicts you is one of the basic rules of humanity, is it? highly arguable, but that would lead into a whole different area and as it is we are hugely off-topic, once again i am not extolling the virtues of humility and modesty here and if i have a strong opinion about something, i would argue it as well and carry the argument as far as i can go with it...the difference is that if i am proved wrong, i admit it, it's not humility or modesty that makes me do it, just basic honesty...

And it's the same here - I don't believe I'm conclusively proven wrong on too many occasions. If I am, I do admit it. I also never shirk from the "it's possible to see this in several ways" (if you were to read some of my tec arguments - and I'd fully forgive you for not wanting to - you'd see that), which is rather key in cricket - because there is actually very little that can be proven either way.

i understand that you study the game very minutely, but even taking that into account i have seen quite a few people on this forum whose cricketing knowledge and analytical prowess are significantly superior to yours...obvious examples would be sjs, top_cat, slow love, boybrumby etc...from your posts that i have read(i can't claim to have read all of it), i haven't seen you "bowing" to anyone's superior knowledge(if i see an example of that, i will gladly retract my statement and apologize)....i totally agree that it's not rocket science, although sometimes your logic gets so convoluted and twisted that the impression one gets is that you are trying to make it look like rocket science...

I'd not dream of saying I've superior prowess in cricketing knowledge and analysis to SJS or Corey - not had many discussions with Jesse but beyond doubt he knows what he's on - and as for DB, I certainly respect him a hell of a lot and I can't think that I've had too many disagreements with him beyond the customaries (first-chance bat-records, the merits of statistics in bowling analysis) and of course the "English-qualified" thing.

 

[Anil]

And it's the same here - I don't believe I'm conclusively proven wrong on too many occasions. If I am, I do admit it. I also never shirk from the "it's possible to see this in several ways" (if you were to read some of my tec arguments - and I'd fully forgive you for not wanting to - you'd see that), which is rather key in cricket - because there is actually very little that can be proven either way.

others might differ on whether/when you have been proved wrong.....and as for the rest of it, that is an admirable attitude, if you insist that you are like that, i will take you at your word, you might need to work a little to convince people of this...it's not always apparent, y'know...and you are absolutely right, i for one wouldn't want to get too deep into the richard-tec saga...

I'd not dream of saying I've superior prowess in cricketing knowledge and analysis to SJS or Corey - not had many discussions with Jesse but beyond doubt he knows what he's on - and as for DB, I certainly respect him a hell of a lot and I can't think that I've had too many disagreements with him beyond the customaries (first-chance bat-records, the merits of statistics in bowling analysis) and of course the "English-qualified" thing.

you did not reply to my post, did you? what you have posted here is some diplomatic feel-good stuff....and anyway these were only a few examples, i can think of a few other names on here as well....anyway enough of this...let's end this here and get back to discussing and arguing about cricket...

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'm not trying to suggest that Freddy hasn't improved, but in a way it is luck - but not because he's getting more poor strokes. I remember him having a few dropped catches a while ago - lately they've stuck. He has improved, though, no doubt.

 

[Richard]

others might differ on whether/when you have been proved wrong.....

I know that - the best explanation I can offer of that is that I regularly put myself across as so certain of myself that people simply love to try and make me look wrong so often jump at any perceived opportunity - even if it's not actually an opportunity at all.
A good example is the Harmison saga - if anyone, in June 2004, would have thought I hadn't been proven wrong there I'd have been rather surprised. However, I stuck to my guns, and lo-and-behold... I might, just, have been right after all.

 

[Richard]

I'm not trying to suggest that Freddy hasn't improved, but in a way it is luck - but not because he's getting more poor strokes. I remember him having a few dropped catches a while ago - lately they've stuck. He has improved, though, no doubt.

He's getting more poor strokes, too.
Even if all or most of the catches of 2002 and 2003 had stuck, his average still wouldn't have been as flash as it has for the last 14 months.

 

[tooextracool]

I know that - the best explanation I can offer of that is that I regularly put myself across as so certain of myself that people simply love to try and make me look wrong so often jump at any perceived opportunity - even if it's not actually an opportunity at all.
A good example is the Harmison saga - if anyone, in June 2004, would have thought I hadn't been proven wrong there I'd have been rather surprised. However, I stuck to my guns, and lo-and-behold... I might, just, have been right after all.

yes even though harmison bowled with nowhere near the same accuracy that he did during the summer.
you really are a genius.
especially considering how long ago it was that you suggested that katich and martyn werent especially good players of spin, or even worse when you said that clarke was just as poor a player of spin as ponting.