These who ex-players/cricket writers rate higher are some of the most annoying arguments ever. They are biased like everybody else in the sense that they always pick the players that looks good on the eyes. Hell I would rather watch Anderson bowl over Mcgrath. Doesn't mean anything.
Last edited by Inferno; 04-02-2013 at 02:50 PM.
Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
I've always been incredibly sceptical about who the ex players rate. Not only are they likely to rate those they played with higher than those who play now, but just because they perhaps struggled against bowler A more than bowler B, it doesn't mean that bowler A is necessarily better. They could have had technical flaws that were more exposed against certain bowlers.
Inferno probably has much more balanced views than Viv
Reckon everyone agrees with you there. I think Steyn has a chance to challenge for that top spot is all. A very small chance mind
Batsman I tolerate: V. Richards, S. Tendulkar, E. Morgan, N. Hussain. KEVIN O F******* BRIEN
I'm guessing I shouldn't be surprised either that you use the most simplistic possible way of looking at stats to determine records. So do you believe that Marshall was barely half the bowler George Lohmann was or does Viv have something to counter that? In fact would you also mind asking him how Marshall being better to watch from the TV screen got his team wickets at a better rate than his average suggests?
Last edited by Inferno; 04-02-2013 at 05:10 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)