SS "Most overrated batsmen of all time: All of them"

cover drive man · 21-05-2008, 10:26 AM

ITSTL care to explain please?

Richard · 21-05-2008, 10:27 AM

He (ss) doesn't like batsmen. Take the glory away from the seam-bowlers, see? And their job, compared to that of a seam-bowler, is extremely easy.

It's a tongue-in-cheek comment, though, unlike the Muralitharan and Warne one in the same sig.

cover drive man · 21-05-2008, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

He (ss) doesn't like batsmen. Take the glory away from the seam-bowlers, see? And their job, compared to that of a seam-bowler, is extremely easy.

It's a tongue-in-cheek comment, though, unlike the Muralitharan and Warne one in the same sig.

How can you say Warne and Muralitharan are overrated? They're the two biggest wicket takers of all time.

Richard · 21-05-2008, 10:37 AM

Because the fact that they're the two biggest wicket-takers of all-time obscures people to the fact that there are others who have also bowled for extremely long careers (not as long as those two, but I'd say 90 Tests and 130 Tests are both long enough to show endurance and longevity and someone who was more effective over 90 than someone else was over 130 is very definately the better bowler for my money) who have actually had far more going for them as bowlers.

The fact that so many people are willing to suggest Warne and Murali are better than the best 20 or so seamers of all-time is madness, IMO. And suggesting they're better than all bar 2 or 3 seamers as so many do is serious, serious madness, and makes them the two most overrated bowlers of all-time.

cover drive man · 21-05-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

Because the fact that they're the two biggest wicket-takers of all-time obscures people to the fact that there are others who have also bowled for extremely long careers (not as long as those two, but I'd say 90 Tests and 130 Tests are both long enough to show endurance and longevity and someone who was more effective) who have actually had far more going for them as bowlers.

The fact that so many people are willing to suggest Warne and Murali are better than the best 20 or so seamers of all-time is madness, IMO. And suggesting they're better than all bar 2 or 3 seamers as so many do is serious, serious madness, and makes them the two most overrated bowlers of all-time.

You win.

Richard · 21-05-2008, 10:42 AM

silentstriker · 21-05-2008, 12:02 PM

Ah, you know me too well.

social · 21-05-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

Because the fact that they're the two biggest wicket-takers of all-time obscures people to the fact that there are others who have also bowled for extremely long careers (not as long as those two, but I'd say 90 Tests and 130 Tests are both long enough to show endurance and longevity and someone who was more effective over 90 than someone else was over 130 is very definately the better bowler for my money) who have actually had far more going for them as bowlers.

The fact that so many people are willing to suggest Warne and Murali are better than the best 20 or so seamers of all-time is madness, IMO. And suggesting they're better than all bar 2 or 3 seamers as so many do is serious, serious madness, and makes them the two most overrated bowlers of all-time.

The sentiments of someone that is absolutely clueless when it comes to the skill involved in getting a ball from end of the pitch to the other

silentstriker · 21-05-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by social

The sentiments of someone that is absolutely clueless when it comes to the skill involved in getting a ball from end of the pitch to the other

Haha, what? I am not arguing that (for example) leg spin requires more mastery than fast bowling. I am arguing that fast bowling will win you more matches than spin bowling will. Also, please don't start with insults. If you disagree with something, just say what you disagree with and why - there is no reason to call people names. You're starting the whole discussion off on the wrong foot (it actually prohibits mature discussion).

SJS · 21-05-2008, 07:14 PM

Me .......by myself

vic_orthdox · 21-05-2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by social

The sentiments of someone that is absolutely clueless when it comes to the skill involved in getting a ball from end of the pitch to the other

Quote:

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Also, please don't start with insults. If you disagree with something, just say what you disagree with and why - there is no reason to call people names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

And suggesting they're better than all bar 2 or 3 seamers as so many do is serious, serious madness, and makes them the two most overrated bowlers of all-time.

??

roseboy64 · 21-05-2008, 07:24 PM

Spinners and seamers are both important IMO. Batsmen too.

Jono · 21-05-2008, 07:29 PM

Don't give SS the attention he wants!

Its just him being stupid.

silentstriker · 21-05-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jono

Don't give SS the attention he wants!

Its just him being stupid.

Haha, that's true.

silentstriker · 21-05-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

??

That too. Should have quoted both.

21-05-2008, 10:26 AM	#1 (permalink)
cover drive man International Captain Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Liverpool, England Posts: 7,049	SS "Most overrated batsmen of all time: All of them" ITSTL care to explain please? __________________ Everyone wants to change the world, noone wants to change himself. -Tolstoy

21-05-2008, 10:37 AM	#4 (permalink)
Richard Cricket Web Staff Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: 2005 Posts: 80,407	Because the fact that they're the two biggest wicket-takers of all-time obscures people to the fact that there are others who have also bowled for extremely long careers (not as long as those two, but I'd say 90 Tests and 130 Tests are both long enough to show endurance and longevity and someone who was more effective over 90 than someone else was over 130 is very definately the better bowler for my money) who have actually had far more going for them as bowlers. The fact that so many people are willing to suggest Warne and Murali are better than the best 20 or so seamers of all-time is madness, IMO. And suggesting they're better than all bar 2 or 3 seamers as so many do is serious, serious madness, and makes them the two most overrated bowlers of all-time. Last edited by Richard; 21-05-2008 at 11:45 AM.

21-05-2008, 07:24 PM	#12 (permalink)
roseboy64 Cricket Web Content Updater Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Jamaica Posts: 18,549	Spinners and seamers are both important IMO. Batsmen too. __________________ Sir Alexander Chapman Ferguson = Greatest Ever Manager "One from ten leaves zero." - Eric Williams, former T&T PM Member of Cricket Web Green Member of Northside Power R.I.P Fardin Qayyumi

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
English Batsmen - Why don't they score "big" hundreds?	GIMH	Cricket Chat	50	02-04-2008 05:29 PM
Josh's "Make More Time" Advice	Josh	Off Topic	58	22-10-2007 03:24 AM
Time to stop insulting Zim, Bang & the associates. There have always been "minnows"	Triple Crown	Cricket Chat	82	11-02-2005 12:31 AM
Is there something "different", "unique", "for the first time" and &qu	yaju	Off Topic	15	22-08-2004 05:10 PM
Olonga's "life in danger" - Time for Zimbabwe to be banned	Neil Pickup	World Cup 2003	17	19-03-2003 07:51 AM

21-05-2008, 10:42 AM	#6 (permalink)
Richard Cricket Web Staff Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: 2005 Posts: 80,407

21-05-2008, 07:14 PM	#10 (permalink)
SJS Hall of Fame Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Mumbai India Posts: 19,170	Me .......by myself

21-05-2008, 07:29 PM	#13 (permalink)
Jono Request Your Custom Title Now! Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Virat Kohli Posts: 47,514	Don't give SS the attention he wants! Its just him being stupid.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)