Who is England's greatest cricketer?

[trundler]

I actually remembered that 1895 was an exceptionally good year for him because you posted the stats in the born before tests draft thread. Getting someone to correct you is of course the best way of getting accurate information on the internet.

 

[cricketsavant]

Greatest pretty much encompasses all of those things. I know absolutely nothing about boxing but Ali is surely an example of this, don't really get more iconic than him.

I agree, this is why I was intrigued by that other guys response. I have never heard someone say greatest does NOT equal best.

 

[cricketsavant]

I have no interest in boxing, but in pretty much any sport where the standard of play over time can be directly compared using purely objective measures such as recorded times and/or distances, the quality of play has improved since Ali and Robinson's generation and pretty much all the world records have been set in the last 30-40 years. So sure, Ali and Robinson may well be the most influential and iconic boxers ever, but it would go against all the objective evidence we have about the evolution of sport to claim a couple of boxers from 50-80 years ago actually reached the highest standards ever achieved in their sport and would beat every boxer from later generations.

No interest in boxing...picks on a post with boxing in it. I can go over the ins and outs of the sports and why these guys are considered the best and no, not most of the world records in boxing have been set in the last 30-40 years. We can do that on another thread in a separate part of the forum.

I'd like to actually hear from the guy I was quoting.

 

[trundler]

I agree, this is why I was intrigued by that other guys response. I have never heard someone say greatest does NOT equal best.

...
???
This was literally explained to you.

 

[a massive zebra]

No interest in boxing...picks on a post with boxing in it. I can go over the ins and outs of the sports and why these guys are considered the best and no, not most of the world records in boxing have been set in the last 30-40 years. We can do that on another thread in a separate part of the forum.

I'd like to actually hear from the guy I was quoting.

You completely missed my point. In every single major sport in which the quality of play can be directly measured and compared over time using objective measures, standards have improved since Ali and Robinsons day. There is zero reason to believe a highly physical sport like boxing would be the one single exception to this rule and two guys from generations ago would be able to get the better of the best competitors in more modern times. Why didn't this happen in a single one of the dozens of equally physical sports in which standards can be directly quantified using times or distances, such as most athletics events? Are you saying Jessie Owens was not a great athlete? His pbs are mediocre compared to the best sprinters and long jumpers of today.

If you want to talk about why Ali and Robinson are considered the best it is entirely up to you, but your discussion will be based on subjective viewpoints and opinions rather than objective measures. World records in boxing must surely be things like number of wins, number of titles, win %, time at #1, number of rounds taken to knock people out etc, all of which are a product of the quality of opposition, rather than purely a reflection of the skills of the world record holder. In fact, if most boxing world records are decades old, that is actually an indication that the standard of opposition and depth of talent was lower back then, not that the world record holder achieved the best standards ever.

And Pothas wasn't agreeing with you.

 

[ataraxia]

I agree, this is why I was intrigued by that other guys response. I have never heard someone say greatest does NOT equal best.

If you stick around on this forum any amount of time, you'll see two things:
* The best cricketer of all time is likely Steve Smith, but no one cares.
* Greatest is almost universally agreed to be different from best here.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Jofra Archer for ‘creating’ Marnus Labuschagne

 

[Coronis]

Probably Grace. If we’re talking tests, it should’ve been Botham but imo it was Hammond. Interesting how both Grace and Beefy both gained a lotta weight and wasted some of their talent.

 

[trundler]

Probably Grace. If we’re talking tests, it should’ve been Botham but imo it was Hammond. Interesting how both Grace and Beefy both gained a lotta weight and wasted some of their talent.

Botham was not yet 30 when he was past it so he left a lot to be desired. Grace was about a million years old and had ruled for the better part of 3 decades. Yeah, I know it was a different era but I don't think he left anything to be desired. Could say that about Tom Richardson and Albert Trott both of whom put on the pounds and didn't have especially lengthy careers but Grace managed a 100 FC centuries..

 

[Coronis]

Botham was not yet 30 when he was past it so he left a lot to be desired. Grace was about a million years old and had ruled for the better part of 3 decades. Yeah, I know it was a different era but I don't think he left anything to be desired. Could say that about Tom Richardson and Albert Trott both of whom put on the pounds and didn't have especially lengthy careers but Grace managed a 100 FC centuries..

I was under the impression Grace started gaining weight in the late 70’s actually, when he would have been roughly 30.

 

[a massive zebra]

I was under the impression Grace started gaining weight in the late 70’s actually, when he would have been roughly 30.

This is true, but unlike Botham, Grace remained a leading player for another couple of decades after the onset of his weight gain (although admittedly he lost his incredible dominance). Sure, part of the disparity in performance between Grace and Botham after they started to get fat might be explained by the increased professionalism of Botham's era, but that's not really the point. Grace remained completely devoted to and focused on his game. Botham, clearly, had multiple distractions and limited focus.

 

[trundler]

Grace rewrote the coaching manual. Ranji expanded it. Hobbs refined it. Hutton perfected it.

Sounds like a compelling narrative. Somebody fit Hammond in there.

 

[AndrewB]

One surprising (and not particularly well-known) fact about WG is that if you rank all Test cricketers (excluding wicket-keepers) who played 10 or more Tests by "number of catches per innings", WG is in the top 10 (behind some noted fielders like Solkar, Constantine and Simpson, so it's not a completely random list). If he'd retired when he turned 45, he'd have been top (37 catches in 34 innings).

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Grace rewrote the coaching manual. Ranji expanded it. Hobbs refined it. Hutton perfected it.

Sounds like a compelling narrative. Somebody fit Hammond in there.

Grace rewrote the coaching manual. Ranji expanded it. Hobbs refined it. Hammond was quite good. Hutton perfected it.



...I tried.

 

[cricketsavant]

If you stick around on this forum any amount of time, you'll see two things:
* The best cricketer of all time is likely Steve Smith, but no one cares.
* Greatest is almost universally agreed to be different from best here.

From the responses here....doesn't seem like it

 

[cricketsavant]

You completely missed my point. In every single major sport in which the quality of play can be directly measured and compared over time using objective measures, standards have improved since Ali and Robinsons day. There is zero reason to believe a highly physical sport like boxing would be the one single exception to this rule and two guys from generations ago would be able to get the better of the best competitors in more modern times. Why didn't this happen in a single one of the dozens of equally physical sports in which standards can be directly quantified using times or distances, such as most athletics events? Are you saying Jessie Owens was not a great athlete? His pbs are mediocre compared to the best sprinters and long jumpers of today.

Boxing is very different to athletics, for some reason you keep drawing parallels, while stating you don't know boxing. It's clear you do not know it as a sport. My point however, was and still is, the greatest sports people are also the best at that sport. I used boxing to simply state an example. You can say Mayweather, Pacquiao, Hopkins, Wlad etc are the greatest, that would mean they are the best. I have never come across a sporting discussion where great does not equal best.

So I repeat, very simple, greatest = best.

If you want to talk about why Ali and Robinson are considered the best it is entirely up to you, but your discussion will be based on subjective viewpoints and opinions rather than objective measures. World records in boxing must surely be things like number of wins, number of titles, win %, time at #1, number of rounds taken to knock people out etc, all of which are a product of the quality of opposition, rather than purely a reflection of the skills of the world record holder. In fact, if most boxing world records are decades old, that is actually an indication that the standard of opposition and depth of talent was lower back then, not that the world record holder achieved the best standards ever.

And Pothas wasn't agreeing with you.

Read up fella

 

[the big bambino]

Grace rewrote the coaching manual. Ranji expanded it. Hobbs refined it. Hutton perfected it.

Sounds like a compelling narrative. Somebody fit Hammond in there.

Hammond illustrated it.

 

[a massive zebra]

Hammond illustrated it.

 

[Chubb]

Hammond slept with its wife. Allegedly.

 

[a massive zebra]

Read up fella

How ironic to see someone calling themselves cricketsavant is naive enough not to understand the difference between greatest and best, and either dumb or arrogant enough not to accept it even after it has been clearly explained to them.