Some golden oldies...

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Vijay.Sharma

O before you jump up to ridicule me again, my analysis ain't a ranking and I never claimed it to be complete either.

Now, for the last time I am telling you guys to keep it civil and live with the fact that I think differently. If you follow me around and keep poking at me just coz you are incapable of tolerance for people with different opinions, I guess I'll just have to put you fellows in my bozo bin. Keep it civil and we might have some nice conversations and insightful ones too.

Your entire 40 page piece of **** is a ranking, you're deluded mate. And of course the assumption about Bradman is a belief based opinion. "Put you fellows in my bozo bin"? You have no right to assume any ****ing moral high ground here. Your insight is horse****, and I'm pretty sure even you know it.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by Vijay.Sharma

Gee! Why the sudden change in standards here then? You know the guy is about 175% better than the greats of his time as far as stats are concerned. Now what logic caused you to infer his 175% greatness over Hobbs necessarily means he is greater than all comers? Clearly it is a belief based opinion...you will do a great lot by acknowledging that fact instead of yelling out at people who have different opinions than you.

Now, for the last time I am telling you guys to keep it civil and live with the fact that I think differently. If you follow me around and keep poking at me just coz you are incapable of tolerance for people with different opinions, I guess I'll just have to put you fellows in my bozo bin. Keep it civil and we might have some nice conversations and insightful ones too.

I'm happy to read alternative opinions, but if they're rubbish I'm going to call you out on it. Stop being a sensitive moron.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by GotSpin

I'm happy to read alternative opinions, but if they're rubbish I'm going to call you out on it. Stop being a sensitive moron.

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Your entire 40 page piece of **** is a ranking, you're deluded mate. And of course the assumption about Bradman is a belief based opinion. "Put you fellows in my bozo bin"? You have no right to assume any ****ing moral high ground here. Your insight is horse****, and I'm pretty sure even you know it.

If you can't post without resorting to denigrating the poster, then refrain from posting at all.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Yeah exactly, it's all relative. A player like Hobbs had a batting technique which probably wouldn't fair well in the modern game, but given the conditions of the day his performance relative to his contemporaries was nonetheless preeminent. If you accept that his contemporaries shared similar 'unrefined' (for want of a better word) techniques, there are obviously other qualities he must have possessed which seperated him from the rest of the bunch - these are the qualities you can assume would transcend eras (things like concentration, determination to be the best etc.). I'm very much of the opinion that a champion always finds a way to succeed, and because of that I think it is totally plausible to assume a master of one era would have been a master of another. IMO it is impossible to work out to what extent a player would be successful across eras (which is why I think any attempts to compare players across eras are rather pointless, with one exception). That exception is of course Bradman, and for reasons self-evident.

But it shouldn't matter whether his technique would fair well in the modern game or not. His technique has been constructed to combat the conditions of his time, not to please the eyes of viewers 80 years ahead.

And like you so rightly point out, the best batsmen of any era possess certain qualities that are necessary for success - Specifically concentration and hand-to-eye coordination - Which would have allowed them to adapt to the differing challenges that confronted them.

[JBMAC]

This thread unfortunately is heading down the "wet wicket thread" path. Which is a pity in some ways because it had potential.Maybe it should be closed???????

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by GotSpin

But it shouldn't matter whether his technique would fair well in the modern game or not. His technique has been constructed to combat the conditions of his time, not to please the eyes of viewers 80 years ahead.

Yeah no disagreement here.

[L Trumper]

This is a famous excerpt generally used for ignorant people

"You could give Aristotle a tutorial. Not only can you know more than him about the world.
You also can have a deeper understanding of how everything works.
Such is the privilege of living after Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Watson, Crick and their colleagues."
--
"I'm not saying you're more intelligent than Aristotle, or wiser. That's not the point.
The point is only that science is cumulative, and we live later."


It is the analogy any one who wants to compare present with past has to look into first, before denigrating all that was achieved by the likes of hobbs, grace et al..

Of course I may have better batting technique than Victor Trumper : But that doesn't make me an all-time aussie cricketer.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by L Trumper

This is a famous excerpt generally used for ignorant people

"You could give Aristotle a tutorial. Not only can you know more than him about the world.
You also can have a deeper understanding of how everything works.
Such is the privilege of living after Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Watson, Crick and their colleagues."
--
"I'm not saying you're more intelligent than Aristotle, or wiser. That's not the point.
The point is only that science is cumulative, and we live later."


It is the analogy any one who wants to compare present with past has to look into first, before denigrating all that was achieved by the likes of hobbs, grace et al..

Of course I may have better batting technique than Victor Trumper : But that doesn't make me an all-time aussie cricketer.

Post of the year, imho.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Originally Posted by L Trumper

This is a famous excerpt generally used for ignorant people

"You could give Aristotle a tutorial. Not only can you know more than him about the world.
You also can have a deeper understanding of how everything works.
Such is the privilege of living after Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Watson, Crick and their colleagues."
--
"I'm not saying you're more intelligent than Aristotle, or wiser. That's not the point.
The point is only that science is cumulative, and we live later."


It is the analogy any one who wants to compare present with past has to look into first, before denigrating all that was achieved by the likes of hobbs, grace et al..

Of course I may have better batting technique than Victor Trumper : But that doesn't make me an all-time aussie cricketer.

That totally agrees with my philosophy. I use this particular saying of William Wordsworth to pull me dad's leg ever since I learned about it in the 6th grade: the child is the father of the man