World wicket keepers, your rankings.

[Top_Cat]

Your view that McGrath and Gillespie are the two best pace bowlers in the world, and Warne is the best spinner.

McGrath yes, Warne yes but I never said that about Gillespie. You think Murali is better, fine. I disagree and it has nothing to do with where Warne is from. Fact of the matter is I find Warne to be quite distasteful in general and would love to watch him fall over but I still say he's a better spin bowler than Murali. Again, nothing to do with any perceived bias and you can't prove it to be so.

Your view that Gillespie is a match for most of the Windies Test bowlers of the 1980s, and would get in nearly all teams in Test history.

The first is not ridiculous but I never said the second. Again, nothing else to prove a bias.

Your view that Gilchrist is the best keeper in the world.

Nothing to do with bias. The fact he's Aussie means nothing to me. He could be a FInnish Dwarf and I'd still think he was the best in world cricket right now. You disagree? You won't catch me caring but calling it bias because I said Gilchrist? Rubbish and again, you have nothing to prove it either way.

Your view that Ponting is as good a Test batsman as Dravid.

As above. Equally good cases can be made for either with neither coming out the clear winner in my opinion. Your mileage my vary but again, not evidence of a bias at all. In fact, I'm puzzled why you would bring this up at all; it's not a ridiculous opinion to hold and is certainly justifiable, as many others have done.

Your view that the 1980s West Indies side are no match for the current Aussie side.

Never said it. I think the current side would just win in a head-to-head but that's after evaluating both sides' strengths and weaknesses, not due to a bias at all.

Deny it all you want, keep hold of that deluded belief all you want, but I and many others have noticed your clear bias many, many times.

Your claims of bias are invalid if you don't get right what I said. Clear bias? Whatever.

I never said that these opinions were all wrong, some may be perfectly correct, but the fact that he holds all those positive views about Australia/Australians is more than mere coincidence and implies a certain level of bias on his part.

How do you know if it's more than mere co-incidence? You haven't a clue, do you? You're GUESSING there is some because I happen to come from the same country as those players you've mentioned. This totally ignores all of the positive stuff I've said about players from other countries and other players I've rated above other Aussies. All you've got is circumstantial evidence and again, invalid if you claim bias on statements I never made or you've gone and exaggerated to make some point.

For the record, when I say I like a player or think they're great etc. it has NOTHING to do with where they're from. This means that when you call me biased you are WRONG and other than pointing out the above co-incidences (a few you managed to pick out from hundreds of other times where I haven't pipped for the Aussie player/team), you have nothing to suggest otherwise.

 

[a massive zebra]

I never said the second. .

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=105276&postcount=74

Lying to get out of trouble won't get you anywhere.

Never said it. I think the current side would just win in a head-to-head but that's after evaluating both sides' strengths and weaknesses, not due to a bias at all.

You did make that statement, if not in exactly the same words, in this thread.

Your claims of bias are invalid if you don't get right what I said. Clear bias? Whatever..

You said them all. These persistent lies are becoming rather tiring.

How do you know if it's more than mere co-incidence? You haven't a clue, do you? You're GUESSING there is some because I happen to come from the same country as those players you've mentioned. This totally ignores all of the positive stuff I've said about players from other countries and other players I've rated above other Aussies. All you've got is circumstantial evidence and again, invalid if you claim bias on statements I never made or you've gone and exaggerated to make some point.

For the record, when I say I like a player or think they're great etc. it has NOTHING to do with where they're from. This means that when you call me biased you are WRONG and other than pointing out the above co-incidences (a few you managed to pick out from hundreds of other times where I haven't pipped for the Aussie player/team), you have nothing to suggest otherwise.

You did make all these statements and any unbiased sane individual would approach things from a more neutral perspective and have different views on at least some of these issues. If you wish, continue to grasp desperately to the deluded view that everything you say is fair and unbiased - but anyone looking at the issue from a neutral perspective would see otherwise. If you don't want me to call it bias I could call it something else - Australian favouritism perhaps - but its all the same anyway. Do you seriously expect me to believe that if you were English you would still hold all these views - nonsense.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Gillespie is a match for the likes of Roberts and Croft, but probably behind the likes of Holding, Marshall and Garner.

Are you serious? Andy Roberts, the man considered to be one of the most influential bowlers in West Indies history. He was one of the bowlers who inspired what is largely considered the finest pace battery of all-time. Gillespie is a very good bowler, but I don't think he's quite as good, quite as yet.

 

[superkingdave]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=105276&postcount=74

Lying to get out of trouble won't get you anywhere.

actually there, the quote clearly refers to Mcgrath not Gillespie.


But i do think its nigh on impossible to be completely unbaised on a subject where one has an affiliation with a participant.

 

[a massive zebra]

actually there, the quote clearly refers to Mcgrath not Gillespie.
.

Yeah apologies, but there's still loads of other examples that prove my point.

But i do think its nigh on impossible to be completely unbaised on a subject where one has an affiliation with a participant.

Yes true - very few people are totally unbiased and many more so, but it is the denial of this bias that irritates.

 

[sledger]

9. Browne (getting on a bit)

???? im sure hes not that old......

 

[The Baconator]

???? im sure hes not that old......

He's 34.

 

[Somerset]

My rankings:
1.Gilchrist - obviously
2.Sangakkara - established with no pressure from the likes of Kalu
3.McCullum - also established
4.Boucher - getting on, seems to be a little out of favour at the moment
5.Taibu - gritty Zimbabwean deserves to be up there - underated keeper IMO
6.Akmal - not quite established but will eventually work his way up the table
7.Jones - will also work his way up the table with time
8.Browne - decent keeper, unfortunate to be ranked so low
9.Mashud - fairly underated, decent keeper, consistent enough
10. Kartik/Patel/Dhoni - last simply because of India's tendancy to change keepers

 

[a massive zebra]

9.Mashud - fairly underated, decent keeper, consistent enough

Underrated by you also if you think he's worse than Jones and Browne.

 

[a massive zebra]

On keeping ability alone.

1. Taibu
2. Boucher
3. Akmal
4. Gilchrist
5. Mashud
6. McCullum
7. Kartik
8. Sangakarra
9. Browne
10. Jones

With batting ability taken into account.

1. Gilchrist
2. Sangakarra
3. Taibu
4. Boucher
5. McCullum
6. Akmal
7. Kartik
8. Mashud
9. Jones
10. Browne

 

[Somerset]

Underrated by you also if you think he's worse than Jones and Browne.

By stating he was underated, I was giving the impression that he at least deserved better than last place...I don't rate him that highly that he should pass the West Indian and English keepers.

 

[Top_Cat]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/sho...76&postcount=74

Lying to get out of trouble won't get you anywhere.

. As already pointed out, wrong again.

You did make that statement, if not in exactly the same words, in this thread.

Not even close. If you read what I'd said in that thread and came to the conclusion you have, well you may as well use aromatherapy to prove that the sky is pink. Either way, the fact we disagree clearly shows your assertion is at least arguable and at worst, completely false.

You said them all. These persistent lies are becoming rather tiring.

You still haven't shown I'm lying at all. Not even close. The accusation is becoming a little more than tiring, particularly since the examples you've shown are quite simply wrong.

Yeah apologies, but there's still loads of other examples that prove my point.

Really? Well if the above are representative of these 'examples', you're in for a tough time to prove anything.

I'm not saying I'm comepletely unbiased in absolutely everything (though I strive to be) but throwing the accusation at me about Gilchrist without a shred of proof (other than the fact we share our country of birth) and then these others you've posted, well it's rapidly heading towards being quite offensive, let alone completely incorrect.

You did make all these statements and any unbiased sane individual would approach things from a more neutral perspective and have different views on at least some of these issues. If you wish, continue to grasp desperately to the deluded view that everything you say is fair and unbiased - but anyone looking at the issue from a neutral perspective would see otherwise. If you don't want me to call it bias I could call it something else - Australian favouritism perhaps - but its all the same anyway. Do you seriously expect me to believe that if you were English you would still hold all these views - nonsense.

I must point out that several others from other countries have agreed with me on Gilchrist and on the other points (just read the threads in question). So actually, it's pretty clear that those views have little to do with country of origin. Perhaps people rate him higher because he deserves to be rated as such?

And on Gilchrist, it is YOU who are in the minority as far as rating him lower than those you've put before. If anything it's YOU who is holding the less popular and justifiable view on this one. So unless you justify your selection, well maybe I should come to the conclusion you're biased against Aussies? Why not? That view has about as much proof as yours that I'm biased because I rate Gilchrist higher than you.

See how rididulous the situation gets when you throw around unsubstantiated accusations?

 

[dro87]

My rankings:
1.Gilchrist - explosive batsman and an really good wk
2.Sangakkara - could play as a specialist batsman and is the best with spin...
3.McCullum - Good in btoh
4.Boucher - Getting out of form... Not that good standing up
5.Kartik - Great batsman... just needs a break in the international arena, Decent wk
6.Akmal - Had a couple of good knocks and is good at wk...
7.Jones - Middle order batsman, but poor wk
8.Taibu - Highly overated... He's lucky he comes from Zim... wouldn't play for many countries...
9.Browne - Mushud - No Idea... LOL

 

[marc71178]

Why can't Geraint Jones be consigned to the "Thanks, but no thanks" pile?

 

[Dydl]

1) Gilchrist
2) The rest

And that's ignoring Gilly's batting.

I think that way too.

 

[chaminda_00]

Why can't Geraint Jones be consigned to the "Thanks, but no thanks" pile?

Probably soemething to do with the balance of the side and the fact that they are looking for a long term replacement of Alec Stewart. Geraint Jones is probably a closer match to the role that Alec Stewart played in the side then Chris Read. Also adding Chris Read would give England a pretty average lower order (Read, Giles, Hoggard, Jones, Harmison). They would go from having one of the best top 8s, to having a weak lower order, a strength to a weakness. Also how many games have England lossed in Test Cricket while he is playing? He isn't a major factor yet to their victories, but the balance he add to the side is.

 

[chaminda_00]

I think that way too.

So both you and TC and Dydl are going to tell us that he is clearly a better keeper then Akmal. I would agree with you that he is a better keeper then the rest but only slightly to Taibu and Boucher, but not to Akmal. Akmal is atleast on par with him if not better.

 

[Top_Cat]

So both you and TC and Dydl are going to tell us that he is clearly a better keeper then Akmal. I would agree with you that he is a better keeper then the rest but only slightly to Taibu and Boucher, but not to Akmal. Akmal is atleast on par with him if not better.

Good on you! I disagree but hey, this is what discussions are all about.

As I said before, I think Akmal looks fantastic (as a 'keeper and a batsman) but it's far too early to put him anywhere near Gilchrist yet.

 

[chaminda_00]

Good on you! I disagree but hey, this is what discussions are all about.

As I said before, I think Akmal looks fantastic (as a 'keeper and a batsman) but it's far too early to put him anywhere near Gilchrist yet.

I start off with this, i don't think your baised, you just have an opinion.

Back to the Topic; talking keeping alone what makes Gilchirst clearly better then Akmal.

1. They are both as good keeping to quicks, when standing back, which is Gilly strength
2. Akmal is slightly better keeper to spinners.
3. The closest thing to a medo that Akmal has stood up to is Afridi and he looks pretty good doing that. But cus he hasn't really stood up to a medo that the only thing that i would have Gilly in front on.

 

[Blaze]

I think A Massive Zebra has a valid case regarding Top Cat's bias