Scyld Berry 30 greatest test fast bowlers

[Johan]

Compton>Barrington as Barrington himself would tell you, and Barrington would beat Barry

 

[Thala_0710]

Compton>Barrington as Barrington himself would tell you

Almost no one ever would say that they are better than their predecessor, even if they're better.

 

[Thala_0710]

Ashwin looked up to Prasanna growing up, and still says he didn't get near Prasanna's level, it doesn't make it true.

 

[kyear2]

It's amazing to me how you still can't see how hilariously biased you are on this. You will shout from the rooftops about every player that rates Richards higher or every XI that includes Richards, but somehow any player/XI that includes Gavaskar is either biased or "rubbish" or not contemporary or wasn't made between January 1969 and may 1975 hence it doesnt count etc.

Biased about what?

Placing numbers into context?

Should we just go according to no of votes then, because then Sobers, Viv and Sunny are ahead of and way better than Bradman? Actually Sunny has three times as many votes as Hutton and, oh wow four times as many as Hobbs. Well this would be revealing.

@peterhrt did a very detailed breakdown of the constituencies of who voted for these lists. For lists primarily made up "who I played with and against" it obviously explains why people like Bradman isn't at the top of the list where he should be.

With regards to yes, some of the teams being highly "nonsense" in the framing as all time XI's , yes

Kirmani's team had seven men from the sub-continent, three West Indians and one from England.
Gavaskar, Greenidge, Viv Richards, Gower, Javed Miandad, Imran Khan*, Kapil Dev, Kirmani+, Holding, Bedi, Chandrasekhar.

Is this one that should be held up alongside efforts from Crowe and others?

The below post so very clearly explains the disparity, is this also biased?

Gavaskar's vote count is impressive. Obviously a lot more of the judges saw him than they did Barry Richards, especially in the sub-continent and Caribbean. Only Prasanna from the 31 sub-continental judges picked Richards and he never saw him play, and only Lawrence Rowe from the Caribbean chose him. Gavaskar received 25 votes from the sub-continent and 15 from West Indians. Outside those regions he has 19 votes to Richards' 16.

Of those who chose both in their team, Bird, Bland, Gooch, Thomson and Procter said Richards was the superior bat. So did Martin Crowe but he changed his mind a few years later. Rowe preferred Gavaskar. Richards himself picked Gavaskar to open with Greenidge, his old Hampshire partner.

And these aren't opinions, they're just facts. So yes, one tried to discern the credible from the, let's say less so.

Some of you try to turn everything into a slight. Sunny is one of the greatest openers of all time, period.
Was Barry more highly rated by the cricketing community that saw them both, without doubt. There's a list of cricketers, pundits and others who rates Barry as the best batsman they've ever seen, period.

Does Sunny have a greater far reaching legacy that extends to today, being from India, and having a hyper visible profile which he ensures is in the spotlight as often as humanly possible? Yes.

To apply context isn't biased, and you are better than this petty ****. Or maybe not, I don't know anymore.

 

[Johan]

Almost no one ever would say that they are better than their predecessor, even if they're better.

everyone who saw them would also say Compton was better

 

[Thala_0710]

everyone who saw them would also say Compton was better

No they all wouldn't. Many would probably true. And that's a lot of aesthetic bias.

 

[Johan]

No they all wouldn't. Many would probably true. And that's a lot of aesthetic bias.

100:1 type of ratio, and Nah it's about quality, Compton was rated among Hutton, Hobbs and Hammond albeit at 4, Barrington...not so much

 

[Thala_0710]

100:1 type of ratio, and Nah it's about quality, Compton was rated among Hutton, Hobbs and Hammond albeit at 4, Barrington...not so much

A lot of aesthetic bias.

 

[Johan]

100:1 type of ratio, and Nah it's about quality

 

[Johan]

also, don't you glaze Barry Richards, who is also all peer reputation, and could just be argued that peer reputation spawns from the aesthetic and destructiveness of his batting style, same way you're doing with Compton? I guess Barry fan Hypocrisy is contagious

 

[kyear2]

Barry Richards did not get even one vote.

Which he shouldn't as one of the 5 greatest cricketers of all time.

If we did a honest to God vote for the 5 greatest players of all time, or if the voters did a honest list of top 5 players of all time, how many of the guys on the list should have been there?

How the hell does Frank Worrell get there?

But Benaud got 5 votes, guess that's more than Marshall, and one less than Sachin. Guess we need to re-valuate our ranking systems?

Bruce Mitchell got a vote as one of the 5 greatest players of all time. Please remember that this wasn't a top 50 rankings list, people selected 5 names, and people submitted such luminaries as Gibbs, Tate, Bland, Border, Chandra as one of the top 5 players of all time.

This list was created for the purpose of selecting a top 5, it did that.

But realistically the undisputable ultimate conclusion that can be taken from it is that Bradman and Sobers tower above the rest.

The rest is equally undisputable nationalistic nonsense.

 

[kyear2]

For the sake of argument, let's accept this. It's still an anomaly compared to the vast numbers of cricketers selected for primary skills.

Literally no one is comparing it to a primary skill.

No one.

 

[Thala_0710]

also, don't you glaze Barry Richards, who is also all peer reputation, and could just be argued that peer reputation spawns from the aesthetic and destructiveness of his batting style, same way you're doing with Compton? I guess Barry fan Hypocrisy is contagious

I'm not even a Barry Richards fan. Where did you get all of this?

 

[Johan]

I'm not even a Barry Richards fan. Where did you get all of this?

You are, you've voted him over Geoffrey and Graeme Pollock which can only be done via peer reputation, which in turn entails you're subscribing into peer reputation but now you're handwaving it as aesthetics, when the same can be done with Richards, both, as well.

 

[Johan]

@Thala_0710 so when I win the bet, do you think Luffy has the personality to pull off a Final Boss Rock profile pic?

 

[capt_Luffy]

@Thala_0710 so when I win the bet, do you think Luffy has the personality to pull off a Final Boss Rock profile pic?

What the **** is a "Final Boss Rock" pic??

 

[Thala_0710]

@Thala_0710 so when I win the bet, do you think Luffy has the personality to pull off a Final Boss Rock profile pic?

Of course not

 

[Thala_0710]

Hornswoggle might be more appropriate

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hornswoggle might be more appropriate

And now wtf is a "hornswoggle"?? Sounds like an Irish mythical creature, like a distant cousin of the leprechaun, or a parody for a German car company.

 

[Johan]

What the **** is a "Final Boss Rock" pic??

Can you pull off this Rock character as pfp?