Last edited by Ruckus; 03-03-2014 at 07:08 PM.
This debate is absurdity. Why anyone should try and force people's wholly subjective opinions to be the same as theirs is mind boggling in itself. There is no right and wrong here for crying out loud. If I want to rate Mike Garnham as the best, then damn the lot of you.
Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation Society
Supporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
Adam Wheater - Another batsman off the Essex production line
Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.
Vimes tells it how it is:
Not getting a debate on semantics here. The argument you raised about Garnham is indeed of a different kind to the debate in this thread (not sure why it was brought up). The argument I've been making is essentially saying that there is a lack of good evidence to make a judgement about the skills of players from eras with different standards. I'm not saying someone like prince ews is wrong for suggesting Mynn etc. is an ATG, I'm saying he is wrong for assuming he can even make that call in the first place. There isn't substantial enough evidence to make that judgement. Just like there isn't enough good evidence for me to make a judgement about a top club cricketer being a top test cricketer.
There's definitely a point to be made in the fact that throughout the history of the game, the greats have always averaged a similar amount - unless we're suggesting that batting and bowling have improved at an almost identical rate. I mean, while a lot of batsmen have overlapping careers, so to do a lot of bowlers and it's not exactly as though everybody always fared better against the greats of the 'previous generation' than they did of their own.
There's a point in here somewhere but I'm too tired to coherently make it.
Code:Jack Hobbs 1908 1930 56.94 Wally Hammond 1927 1947 58.45 Don Bradman 1928 1948 99.94 Len Hutton 1937 1955 56.67 Everton Weekes 1948 1958 58.61 Garry Sobers 1954 1974 57.78 Graeme Pollock 1963 1970 60.97 Greg Chappell 1970 1984 53.86 Allan Border 1978 1994 50.56 SR Tendulkar 1989 2013 53.78 Jacques Kallis 1995 2013 55.37 Michael Claarke 2004 - 51.82 Che Pujara 2010 - 58.92
Last edited by Ruckus; 03-03-2014 at 07:58 PM.
Not all opinions are created equal either.This debate is absurdity. Why anyone should try and force people's wholly subjective opinions to be the same as theirs is mind boggling in itself. There is no right and wrong here for crying out loud. If I want to rate Mike Garnham as the best, then damn the lot of you.
Sorry to take a dig at you, but this is too much. First, commercial interests and interests of the majority fans should bow to your traditionalist stance ( you declared you don't give a whit about market principles and basic consumer dynamics), now, every opinion is created equal. I've never come across such conceit or delusions of self-grandeur in my life.
Your thought pattern leads directly to the God-complex delusional conclusion of 'I know i exist, but i don't know for sure if you all exist or are just a fantasy created by my dream in an alternate plane of existence'.
Show me anything where I've said what you've said above. You're simply a bully who wants to force others to believe their own subjective views. That's what this all boils down to. I don't believe one member has the right to batter others on here with fatuous ideology and I don't believe that someone should be verbally attacked for expressing an opinion that you disagree with.
As for my examples above, I thought it was clear that I'd gone to an extreme in terms of taking Ruckus' example about Lawn Bowls as being the equivalent to a comparison with someone with an involvement of the game we're debating. Absurdity begat absurdity, so to speak.
I can dig up that thread if you wish.
In anycase, apologies for failing to see your satirical comment for what it was, perhaps an indication of lack of utter seriousness, as conveyed by some emoticons would help out the evil capitalists like me !
Play the post, not the poster. The BCCI, market principles and whether or not Heef likes capitalism have nothing to do with the discussion being had. We want debate here, not attacks in which the political ideology of a poster somehow discredits their opinion on Mike Garnham.
So yeah, that's enough of that. 8 points for the next poster to mention political ideology in this thread.
I voted twice in the last election.
The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)