its all very subjective, most of the people on here seem to be basing their opinion on whos watched more cricket, or who can talk more about what happened 25 years ago. IMO its not whos watched more, its whos watched more closely. people with good understanding of the game should be people who are capable of analysing performances by looking at technique,skill,temperament etc rather than just looking at averages and statistics or people who can just say that so and so player came up with so and so performance on a flat wicket. of course anyone whos watched that would be able to deduce that for himself, certainly it doesnt tell you anything about their knowledge of the game. its almost like a comparison between boycott and cozier. while cozier knows more about cricketing history, and about WI cricket, boycott is much better at analysing players and deciding on his own whether they are good or not. personally i do not respect comments from people who look at stats solely, anyone could do that. equally i dislike people who look at other peoples opinions, so called experts of the game, to decide whether someone is good enough or not. of course its fine to back your opinion occasionally with stats to prove your point, but certainly you've got to base your opinion largely on having watched the game or the player.
using these characteristics, i think i can narrow this list down quite a bit. of course i dont mean for any disrespect for those not on the list, certain mods for example i have hardly heard any off to decided whether they know anything or not. from what ive seen so far
swervy seems to fit the categories mentioned above fairly well, in that he bases his analysis of players on watching rather than statistics. luckyeddie, on the rare occasion that he is on topic, has certainly shown that he is capable of analysing player performance based on the situation and conditions. richard occasionally shows that he can evaluate player based on the above characteristics. of course his occasional ridiculous ideas such as mcgrath/pollock getting lucky wickets, richardson struggling on seamer friendly ones, his entire theory about pressure are just annoying. however his theory about first chance averages is one that i like the most, makes plenty of sense to carry it out if it can be done accurately enough. not to forget of course an often forgotten member of the forum anzac, who despite his extremely long posts, usually posts some of the best analysis of batsmen technique and bowlers skill. badgehair, who hasnt been on here for a while, again posts quality information about players that is worth reading. that i think sums it up for my list. again for those not on the list, i do not mean any disrespect, i might just have forgotten to put your name on the list
