Bill O'Reilly vs Clarrie Grimmett

[archie mac]

What about recorded first hand observations from people who know more about the game than yourself?

I can't fathom the argument, against these sort of obvious facts

 

[archie mac]

^

Words, by their very nature, are one man's interpretation of a situation. And that holds true regardless of whether it's a book written by Hanif Mohammad or a forum post by aussie.

They do have their place - like statistical analysis they provide a basic framework to build upon. Ultimately, though, they (with a few exceptions) are opinions coloured by personal prejudice and not technical dissertations focused on comparative analysis. Knowledge alone does not imply an ability to draw the right conclusions. Somebody like Ian Chappel, for instance, can undoubtedly offer keener insights into the game than I can, however, he still needs to provide evidence backing his analysis - blanket statements issued by him might hold a lot of sway owing to his pedigree but this does not equal objective superiority.

Come on, we are talking the vast majority of players, spectators, reporters and writers, when it comes to someone like SF Barnes

 

[Ikki]

Come on, we are talking the vast majority of players, spectators, reporters and writers, when it comes to someone like SF Barnes

And the vast majority of them couldn't make it clear what he actually bowled.

 

[The Sean]

And the vast majority of them couldn't make it clear what he actually bowled.

Shows how good he was.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Come on chaps, you'll all be doubting the existence of Father Christmas next.

 

[archie mac]

And the vast majority of them couldn't make it clear what he actually bowled.

Not to us, no, but that was the case with a different terminology of those days, with words such as swerve, and break, used in a different manner, we don't really know what Hugh Trumble, Spofforth or Turner bowled either.

But I think the best bowler of his generation, or the best bowler I faced, or the best bowler I ever watched, it pretty bloody clear

 

[The Sean]

It's probably an even stronger case for Barney in that no one actually even liked the miserable bastard. I reckon if they could have found fault they would have!

 

[archie mac]

It's probably an even stronger case for Barney in that no one actually even liked the miserable bastard. I reckon if they could have found fault they would have!

Yes very true

 

[Ikki]

Not to us, no, but that was the case with a different terminology of those days, with words such as swerve, and break, used in a different manner, we don't really know what Hugh Trumble, Spofforth or Turner bowled either.

But I think the best bowler of his generation, or the best bowler I faced, or the best bowler I ever watched, it pretty bloody clear

Well, that's the whole issue. Words and their differing meanings amongst people and generations.

Being the best bowler his contemporaries saw is one thing, how do we know he is the best in the greater form of the question with regards to those that came after him? How do we know the commentators of yesteryear would still regard him the best if they were privy to today's (after their time essentially) bowlers?

Hobbs was the greatest opener of his generation and Hayden the greatest of his. But how do you really compare the two?

 

[archie mac]

Well, that's the whole issue. Words and their differing meanings amongst people and generations.

Being the best bowler his contemporaries saw is one thing, how do we know he is the best in the greater form of the question with regards to those that came after him? How do we know the commentators of yesteryear would still regard him the best if they were privy to today's (after their time essentially) bowlers?

Hobbs is greatest opener of his generation and Hayden the greatest of his. But how do you really compare the two?

You read about them, and watch videos if you can find it, but know one ever knows for sure, I would have thought that obvious

 

[Beleg]

Come on, we are talking the vast majority of players, spectators, reporters and writers, when it comes to someone like SF Barnes

You're going off on a tangent there. The arguement that SF Barnes was a great bowler of his generation is extremely hard to refute - the statistics and the contemporary accounts are fairly consistent in their praise.

However, the issue at hand is a comparative analysis of two bowlers with fairly minimal variance in their records with the effects that they are often seperated based on subjective contemporary judgement which, in my humble opinion, isn't a robust enough matric.

The two situations are not synonymous at all.

 

[pasag]

Well, that's the whole issue. Words and their differing meanings amongst people and generations.

Being the best bowler his contemporaries saw is one thing, how do we know he is the best in the greater form of the question with regards to those that came after him? How do we know the commentators of yesteryear would still regard him the best if they were privy to today's (after their time essentially) bowlers?

Hobbs was the greatest opener of his generation and Hayden the greatest of his. But how do you really compare the two?

All part of the fun really.

 

[archie mac]

You're going off on a tangent there. The arguement that SF Barnes was a great bowler of his generation is extremely hard to refute - the statistics and the contemporary accounts are fairly consistent in their praise.

However, the issue at hand is a comparative analysis of two bowlers with fairly minimal variance in their records with the effects that they are often seperated based on subjective contemporary judgement which, in my humble opinion, isn't a robust enough matric.

The two situations are not synonymous at all.

If the vast majority of contemporaries think that Tiger was better (including Bradman), then why would you looking at some stats 75 years later, doubt their opinion?

Am I the only one who think this is obvious?????????????????

 

[pasag]

I think people tend to take these sorts of things too seriously. Yes comparing throughout the ages is flawed, so what? No one is calling it an exact science. It's fun hypothesising, comparing and being subjective. There's no need to stay away from it just because you haven't seen copious amounts of footage.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, the stats at least suggest they were equal, or else that O'Reilly was superior. Really don't get what Beleg is trying to argue here. If we had the option of watching the two of them bowl live, or watch a lot of film of the two of them, that's one thing, but we don't so you do what all historical researchers do and hit the accounts of the people that were there. It's not a difficult concept - it takes some care to reaching definitive, accurate, conclusions, but it can often be done.

 

[Beleg]

If the vast majority of contemporaries think that Tiger was better (including Bradman), then why would you looking at some stats 75 years later, doubt their opinion?

Am I the only one who think this is obvious?????????????????

It is a matter of how they back their opinions.

 

[Ikki]

You read about them, and watch videos if you can find it, but know one ever knows for sure, I would have thought that obvious

It should be also quite obvious that you're making your subjective analysis on somebody else's subjective analysis. In this case, I am not really bothered (O'Reilly v Grimmett) but when you compare them to other players from other eras, etc, that is when you really can't rely too much on what you read. You can get an idea but nothing conclusive.

All part of the fun really.

I guess. I am just saying, some people think not guessing when comparing pays a greater respect to the players.

If the vast majority of contemporaries think that Tiger was better (including Bradman), then why would you looking at some stats 75 years later, doubt their opinion?

Am I the only one who think this is obvious?????????????????

Bradman thought Tiger was better than Barnes too.

 

[Beleg]

Yeah, the stats at least suggest they were equal, or else that O'Reilly was superior. Really don't get what Beleg is trying to argue here. If we had the option of watching the two of them bowl live, or watch a lot of film of the two of them, that's one thing, but we don't so you do what all historical researchers do and hit the accounts of the people that were there. It's not a difficult concept - it takes some care to reaching definitive, accurate, conclusions, but it can often be done.

I don't believe you can reach 'definitive, accurate, conclusions' based on textual evidence for a vast majority of cases where the cricketers in question were fairly comparable in their quality.

YMMV.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

All part of the fun really.

If you want fun go and form the Cricket Web Glee Club and leave us miserable gits alone.

 

[archie mac]

It should be also quite obvious that you're making your subjective analysis on somebody else's subjective analysis. In this case, I am not really bothered (O'Reilly v Grimmett) but when you compare them to other players from other eras, etc, that is when you really can't rely too much on what you read. You can get an idea but nothing conclusive.



I guess. I am just saying, some people think not guessing when comparing pays a greater respect to the players.



Bradman thought Tiger was better than Barnes too.

I would have to look it up, but I think he said players he had watched or batted against, but as he had not watched Barnes he was unsure, but as Barnes did not have the wrong-un. he would put Tiger first

Still I would be happy with Bradman rating Tiger No.1, his choice