Players who overcame prolonged poor starts to be rated really highly during their playing careers.

[smash84]

I just generally think Imran would be rated higher overseas had it not been for the accusations thrown toward his way, do you think I'm incorrect in that viewpoint? if so, why?

This is a separate issue.

My point was that your claims of him being "widely" seen as a cheat are misleading and sound a lot like historical revisionism. To most observers, that would sound like the majority of the cricketing world saw him as a cheat at the time, which is simply not true.

Wolverine also pointed out how untrue that was regarding India.

 

[Johan]

This is a separate issue.

My point was that your claims of him being "widely" seen as a cheat are misleading and sound a lot like historical revisionism. To most observers, that would sound like the majority of the cricketing world saw him as a cheat at the time, which is simply not true.

Wolverine also pointed out how untrue that was regarding India.

That wasn't the intent of my comment though, What I was trying to say is Imran was rated lower than he should be (in my opinion) because of accusations, if you interpret it as everyone thinking he was a cheat then you're being pedantic rather than discussing the general message of the post.

 

[smash84]

That wasn't the intent of my comment though, What I was trying to say is Imran was rated lower than he should be (in my opinion) because of accusations, if you interpret it as everyone thinking he was a cheat then you're being pedantic rather than discussing the general message of the post.

So just admit that the words that you used were misleading. Why is that so hard to admit?

I can answer your question once we at least settle the first.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Gavaskar made it an issue after threatening to stop a Cricketing match over a bad decision.

Called for.

 

[Johan]

So just admit that the words that you used were misleading. Why is that so hard to admit?

I can answer your question once we at least settle the first.

You being misled was not my intention so I am not going to admit anything, if you're up for it, we can write it off as a misunderstanding

 

[Johan]

Called for.

How so?

 

[smash84]

You being misled was not my intention so I am not going to admit anything, if you're up for it, we can write it off as a misunderstanding

Of course it wasn't your intention to mislead, you were just using words thinking they meant something in general which they did not.

And of course I am being pedantic because your statement that he was widely seen as a cheat sound ridiculous

 

[Johan]

Of course it wasn't your intention to mislead, you were just using words thinking they meant something in general which they did not.

Pedantism.

 

[smash84]

Pedantism.

And of course I am being pedantic because your statement that he was widely seen as a cheat sounds ridiculous

 

[capt_Luffy]

How so?

Wasn't an isolated event. Was a pretty common thing away to every team. That incident causes widespread talk over the issue and was an important milestone towards neutral umpires. And literally nothing bad happened for it

 

[Johan]

And of course I am being pedantic because your statement that he was widely seen as a cheat sounds ridiculous

depends on how one defines "widely" really, I would use that word if I think it had meaningful impact on one's reputation.

 

[Johan]

Wasn't an isolated event. Was a pretty common thing away to every team. That incident causes widespread talk over the issue and was an important milestone towards neutral umpires.

Okay, I guess we should've quit the Ashes in 1958-59 and all the subsequent tours from 1954 to West Indies or Pakistan in the name of pivoting toward neutral umpiring.

 

[smash84]

depends on how one defines "widely" really, I would use that word if I think it had meaningful impact on one's reputation.

In a general setting, if you start defining the meaning of the words that are generally understood to mean something else, you are bound to create misunderstandings and mislead people.

That was my point.

 

[Johan]

In a general setting, if you start defining the meaning of the words that are generally understood to mean something else, you are bound to create misunderstandings and mislead people.

That was my point.

Pedantism.

 

[smash84]

Pedantism.

No.

 

[Johan]

No.

Shrug

 

[smash84]

Shrug

Sigh

 

[sayon basak]

Botham.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Okay, I guess we should've quit the Ashes in 1958-59 and all the subsequent tours from 1954 to West Indies or Pakistan in the name of pivoting toward neutral umpiring.

1. He just walked off, for like 5 minutes and nothing happened off of it. We didn't abandoned the tour and came Home. It led to a 5 minutes delay and talk on corrupt home umpiring. Also, it is generally remembered fondly in India as one the first instances when we stood up to them in the Anglo-sphere. Maybe Hutton have walked off for 2 minutes once.

2. Do you know the Sudhir Naik case?

 

[Johan]

1. He just walked off, for like 5 minutes and nothing happened off of it. We didn't abandoned the tour and came Home. It led to a 5 minutes delay and talk on corrupt home umpiring. Also, it is generally remembered fondly in India as one the first instances when we stood up to them in the Anglo-sphere. Maybe Hutton have walked off for 2 minutes once.

2. Do you know the Sudhir Naik case?

1. I don't particularly care how it is remembered in India, Being given a bad decision is no reason to almost forfeit a test match, If it were almost every Test match in New Zealand, Asia and West Indies should have been threatened by forfeit before neutral umpiring. Also, Sachin didn't react that way in 1999, neither did Imran in West Indies in 1988 (I think), so No, nobody had issues with Gavaskar before he decided to make issues with Australia for his personal reaction toward a bad decision.

2. No, you're welcome to explain though