Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[aussie]

Fail to understand how Richards can be in an all time test XI having not playing too many tests. That's the third time you have attacked me on that though. Funny.

And your failing to understand that is pretty much a minority POV & you will struggle to find anyone who picks a SA ATXI that will that will not have Richards. CW posters like yourself have shown clearly in this thread, they don't believe or support the idea of presuming players based on ability can do certain roles in team scenario's via assessing their talents and skill-sets (hence my previous points regarding Sanga & Stewart).

A player thus it seems as the prevailing wisdom here (which is fine) can only be judged by what he is done - which also goes against how many players have actually been chosen in cricket history by selectors.

The general wisdom behind picking Barry is that - people who saw him bat in FC/world series cricket argue he was the greatest opener of the 70s besides Gavaskar & pick him on the belief that had SA not been banned - he would have replicated that greatness in tests similar to most of the lost 70s generation SA players. I buy that POV & if you view otherwise, don't behave as if just because you don't accept it - its not logical.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You're a bad poster, aussie.

 

[aussie]

Worst part of the debating is you don't listen to what others are saying and keep going on about your points. Endlessly, no less. As ***** mentioned, it's as if you will keep speaking andnhaving the last word, some how you think you win. It's not a contest. As ***** said, please stop preaching us.

I can accuse you on others of same thing too, I keep saying I have no battle, contest, last word or whatever terms you will come up next - intentions - with nobody etc & you are not listening to me and saying I am.

I was the one who first posted and said I'm happy to end a particular point of discussion over what I said if there is ideological gridlock & one poster in PEWS got my point & you see what he did, we agree to disagree & that was the end. You on the other hand have done the total opposite.

 

[Pratters]

Haven't even debated any thing with you over the last week or so buddy.

 

[Victor Ian]

... Have majority of AUS tests of glory days & on tape similar to that guy Robelina (although now many have been affected by Fungus...

Fungus thrives on bull crap. Try feeding it less.

 

[Furball]

Old debate & I have never agreed. So we can leave it as that. IMO if Lee bowled as badly as people tended to say way back then, IMO he wouldn't have basically settled into his career best test from immediately after 05 Ashes until WI 2008. That satisfied my belief that he was unlucky in Ashes 05 & was already showing good test bowling signs.

Of course one can also argue, Lee bowled badly in Ashes 05 & simply learnt from his mistakes in that series which aided his improvement from Super test 05 to WI 2008. But I've never been sold to that POV either.

Yeah, a bouncer barrage at a batsman who's hooking you into stands for fun is the sign of a clever, intelligent Test bowler.

 

[cnerd123]

Pro Tip 6: Writing long posts makes you look like you know more about a subject than someone whose posts are short. After all, if you have so much to say, you must know a lot. If the holes in your arguments have been discovered, cover them up with walls of text. Most people won't have the time to read your posts, allowing you to claim morale victory over them.

CBF reading the huge posts Aussie has written. Someone TLDR them for me plz.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, a bouncer barrage at a batsman who's hooking you into stands for fun is the sign of a clever, intelligent Test bowler.

Now what makes you think the good signs of test bowling I was referring to from the 2005 Ashes with Lee was the 2nd innings at the Oval?

 

[aussie]

Fungus thrives on bull crap. Try feeding it less.

Ha good dig, even though you may brought up a good cricket point - just sticking to cricket instead resorting to insults whether small, sly or whatever other crap is certainly not a capable trait of you posters. Yet I'm the one that is accused of being a bad poster #bias continues....I eagerly await *****'s pro tip point for this one.

 

[Furball]

Now what makes you think the good signs of test bowling I was referring to from the 2005 Ashes with Lee was the 2nd innings at the Oval?

I don't really care what you think, to be honest.

 

[aussie]

Pro Tip 6: Writing long posts makes you look like you know more about a subject than someone whose posts are short. After all, if you have so much to say, you must know a lot. If the holes in your arguments have been discovered, cover them up with walls of text. Most people won't have the time to read your posts, allowing you to claim morale victory over them.

CBF reading the huge posts Aussie has written. Someone TLDR them for me plz.

Its about I gave you a pro tip, since you have been so generous and considerate to consistently share you concerns towards me with your tips.

Writing short posts on pro tips makes you look smart after making a cacophony of illogical cricket points such a Stuart Binny is similar standard all-rounder to Craig White and avoiding general questions & it shows you know more than someone who makes a long post. These short condensed foolish must posts to go with your ducking of questions, clearly shows you have so much knowledge stored up, you just don't want to share with people in the fear you will wow the CW community were your elite intellect.

Or more realistically you know if you open your trap and let go that knowledge it would absolutely rubbished. This you are claiming your moral high more ground and intellect over your useless pro tips that no doubt is clearly giving you a massive testosterone boost that you have claimed victory in your convoluted mind.

Give me some more pro tips man!!

 

[aussie]

I don't really care what you think, to be honest.

The feeling has been mutual since 2008.

 

[Pratters]

If every one is saying regarding your style of posting, maybe it's not that we hate you, just find the style of posting a bit odious?

 

[Pratters]

And your failing to understand that is pretty much a minority POV & you will struggle to find anyone who picks a SA ATXI that will that will not have Richards. CW posters like yourself have shown clearly in this thread, they don't believe or support the idea of presuming players based on ability can do certain roles in team scenario's via assessing their talents and skill-sets (hence my previous points regarding Sanga & Stewart).

A player thus it seems as the prevailing wisdom here (which is fine) can only be judged by what he is done - which also goes against how many players have actually been chosen in cricket history by selectors.

The general wisdom behind picking Barry is that - people who saw him bat in FC/world series cricket argue he was the greatest opener of the 70s besides Gavaskar & pick him on the belief that had SA not been banned - he would have replicated that greatness in tests similar to most of the lost 70s generation SA players. I buy that POV & if you view otherwise, don't behave as if just because you don't accept it - its not logical.

Regardless of what any expert thinks, won't have Richards in my Test XI as he didn't play enough tests. Archie Jackson was said to be better than Bradman according to some before his disease. Rajinder Goel took lots of Ranji wickets. I don't pick either in my all time Australian or Indian XIs either. If I select an all time test XI, it's better to have players who have actually played enough tests.

 

[Pratters]

Would you pick Graeme Hick in your all time England XI had he played few good tests. Or Lawrence Rowe in your all time Windies XI.

 

[Pratters]

Pro tip #498

Rubbish any thing which others think saying cw members lack imagination. Experts believe other wise, so it must be true.

 

[aussie]

Regardless of what any expert thinks, won't have Richards in my Test XI as he didn't play enough tests. Archie Jackson was said to be better than Bradman according to some before his disease. Rajinder Goel took lots of Ranji wickets. I don't pick either in my all time Australian or Indian XIs either. If I select an all time test XI, it's better to have players who have actually played enough tests.

Ha i like that point : "I don't care what the experts think"

Its fine if you prefer not to pick Richards for that reason, my point is be consistent with your criticism cricket POVs that may be outside of the norm. And while the Jackson & Goel situations are technically similar to the Richards scenario - clearly they are enough great batsman AUS produced in their history that had long careers that would not need one to make the leap of faith choice to pick Jackson.

Just as India produced enough legendary spinners for Goel not to be considered at all

However there is strong enough case to suggest that despite playing 4 tests, Richards from all those who saw him that he was greatest SA opener ever.

More people will almost certainly pick Barry in a SA ATXI, I doubt anyone would even think of picking Jackson & Goel in respective AUS & IND teams.

 

[Pratters]

South Africa has also produced many legendary batsmen buddy.

Also you are saying people would pick Richards. I doubt most would. Maybe a portion but put it on poll on cw and you might be surprised. Or maybe we lack imagination. You can't win it both ways.

 

[aussie]

If every one is saying regarding your style of posting, maybe it's not that we hate you, just find the style of posting a bit odious?

We need a independent observer then, because I would say same about some posters here, posted on other cricket online forums and have my cricket discussions with my people other journalist and no one never told me that.

Its no coincidence that since I came back after a 5 year absence around these parts, certain posters went straight to insults for no reasons - people who I forgot existed who clearly have had me in their thoughts and prayers, holding internet grudges for 5 years

 

[Pratters]

Best to ignore such posters. My only point to you is you should make your point, defend it a bit and then move away from it. If you have expressed it in 2-3 posts, surely 100 posts on it aren't necessary most of the times. You don't have to prove any one right or wrong. After you have made your point, you can relax and have a nice ice cream instead.