Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[harsh.ag]

I really think you're missing the point of these nicknames.

Dan hates Vijay like poison. If Dan is Vijay then Ikki is definitely not Milton.

Yeah I finally got it. Edited my post but nnot quickly enough as it happened

 

[aussie]

That's hardly an endorsement of the view, *****. Every idiot who picks Barry in an all time XI has also unfailingly had poor opinions on other topics indicative of a diminished intellect, severe character deficiencies and weakness of moral fibre. Every single one of them.

Nice try ha, except that picking Barry in a SA ATXI is very common and logical thing by most cricket fans, despite whatever issues others have stated here for not wanting to pick him.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, cheap shot. It was funny, so drawn into temptation. It could have used a smiley at the end, but you seem to have understood.

So what are going to do now? Going back to attempting a civil discussion about the point you raise or end it here on ideological gridlock grounds?

 

[Pratters]

Just struck me aussie.. why not have Basil D' Oliviera in the All time South African XI as well? He didn't play much tests for SA but by what people say, was terrific during his prime.

 

[cnerd123]

Probably decided to end the discussion on "you are not someone worth discussing with" grounds.

 

[aussie]

Just struck me aussie.. why not have Basil D' Oliviera in the All time South African XI as well? He didn't play much tests for SA but by what people say, was terrific during his prime.

Ha, clearly because like KP, Trott, Greig, Lamb, Robin Smith he already made a career playing for England..

 

[Pratters]

Barry Richards didn't make a career playing for SA either. Basil was as South African as you would get and a fair few people rank him alongside Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock in his prime. If you can't accept Basil in an All time SA XI, I don't see how you can accept Richards. It's inconsistent.

Basil and Richards are quite similar actually, just at other ends of the spectrum. Both wanted to play for SA and scored lots of runs at cricket where people were in awe of them and regarded them as crazy good. Sadly, both could not play for SA. Both because of apartheid.

 

[Pratters]

This is a major fallacy in my mind. You believe x based on certain principles. However you believe y which is based on the opposite of those principles. It's as if you have decided on some thing and then the logics can work their way in after that rather than the other way around.

- Stewart can be in an All time England XI but he can't in an All time World XI.
- Stewart can keep in an All time England XI but Dinesh Karthik cannot keep in an All time England XI
- Stewart making runs while keeping at a high average is feasible and disagreeing means we are not using our imagination but it's not possible to use one's imagination for points you disagree with. I can use any point you make with a counter that you are not using your imagination. Courtney Walsh is greater than Bradman as a batsman. You disagree? Maybe you are not using your imagination!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Gilchrist.

 

[aussie]

Barry Richards didn't make a career playing for SA either. Basil was as South African as you would get and a fair few people rank him alongside Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock in his prime. If you can't accept Basil in an All time SA XI, I don't see how you can accept Richards. It's inconsistent.

Basil and Richards are quite similar actually, just at other ends of the spectrum. Both wanted to play for SA and scored lots of runs at cricket where people were in awe of them and regarded them as crazy good. Sadly, both could not play for SA. Both because of apartheid.

Haha no offence and take it lightly but this is a lot of nonsense.

Basil, Greig, Lamb, Smith, Robin Jackman, Bob Woolmer situations are totally incomparable with Richards. They ruled them self out of SA selection because they choose to play for ENG.

So what now are you going to consider Grimmett, Caddick & potential Ben Stokes for a New Zealand All-time XI because were kiwis even though they played for AUS/ENG or consider Ranji or Duleep for India ATXI although they played for ENG despite being born in India?

Basil or whoever else would have had to do like Keepler Wessels and come back & play for SA.

The same experts who you noted before, you don't "care what they think" in reference yor POVs/fallacies had that discussion about Basil's situation in the context of SA ATXI years ago & he wasn't picked - http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/438620.html

 

[aussie]

This is a major fallacy in my mind. You believe x based on certain principles. However you believe y which is based on the opposite of those principles. It's as if you have decided on some thing and then the logics can work their way in after that rather than the other way around.

- Stewart can be in an All time England XI but he can't in an All time World XI.
- Stewart can keep in an All time England XI but Dinesh Karthik cannot keep in an All time England XI
- Stewart making runs while keeping at a high average is feasible and disagreeing means we are not using our imagination but it's not possible to use one's imagination for points you disagree with. I can use any point you make with a counter that you are not using your imagination. Courtney Walsh is greater than Bradman as a batsman. You disagree? Maybe you are not using your imagination!

Haha I like how you inserted Dinesh Karthik in there. Your obsession with him in this discussion is ridiculous and poignant. Wasn't it you who suggested to me a few pages ago, to drop a discussion point after arguing it 2-3 times? I done say what I had to say about Stewart at least 10-15 pages ago & done - so what your point of this post now? Is it actually you like others who accusing me of wanting to have last word & engaging in post war to prove my point of view is right/boost ego etc BS - doing exactly what your accusing me of & against your own advice ?

Oh how the tables have turned

Your are very unusual poster at the best of times based on memory on CW, don't recall every agreeing with you on much. I can & have spoken to many cricket fans of various levels of their understanding of the sport and their theories and imagination principles I can live it. So I can also use any point you make and counter that given that amount of strange POVs you throw out, Karthik thing for eg & now your tirade with Basil D'Oliviera - I'm glad I'm not using my imagination the same way you do.

 

[Pratters]

Haha no offence and take it lightly but this is a lot of nonsense.

Basil, Greig, Lamb, Smith, Robin Jackman, Bob Woolmer situations are totally incomparable with Richards. They ruled them self out of SA selection because they choose to play for ENG.

Basil wanted to play for South Africa, played domestic cricket, did well, people considered him great, couldn't play for SA in his prime
Richards wanted to play for South Africa, did well, people considered him great, couldn't play for SA in his prime

 

[Pratters]

Haha I like how you inserted Dinesh Karthik in there. Your obsession with him in this discussion is ridiculous and poignant. Wasn't it you who suggested to me a few pages ago, to drop a discussion point after arguing it 2-3 times? I done say what I had to say about Stewart at least 10-15 pages ago & done - so what your point of this post now? Is it actually you like others who accusing me of wanting to have last word & engaging in post war to prove my point of view is right/boost ego etc BS - doing exactly what your accusing me of & against your own advice ?

Oh how the tables have turned

Your are very unusual poster at the best of times based on memory on CW, don't recall every agreeing with you on much. I can & have spoken to many cricket fans of various levels of their understanding of the sport and their theories and imagination principles I can live it. So I can also use any point you make and counter that given that amount of strange POVs you throw out, Karthik thing for eg & now your tirade with Basil D'Oliviera - I'm glad I'm not using my imagination the same way you do.

Welcome to how cw sees you. I do feel you took my advice sportingly and followed it quite well, ftr. Made for better reading over last 3-4 days.

 

[Pratters]

BTW not talking about Stewart at all. Just used it as an example. Was more talking about:

This is a major fallacy in my mind. You believe x based on certain principles. However you believe y which is based on the opposite of those principles. It's as if you have decided on some thing and then the logics can work their way in after that rather than the other way around.

 

[aussie]

Basil wanted to play for South Africa, played domestic cricket, did well, people considered him great, couldn't play for SA in his prime
Richards wanted to play for South Africa, did well, people considered him great, couldn't play for SA in his prime

What part of simple fact that uncle Basil played for England ruled him out of being considered for S Africa ATXI in any hypothetical scenario are you struggling to grasp?

Welcome to how cw sees you. I do feel you took my advice sportingly and followed it quite well, ftr. Made for better reading over last 3-4 days.

Always aware of that to some respects - although since I came back here in recent weeks most of members I know I used to agree with a lot aren't around so that would distort that statement somewhat

This is a major fallacy in my mind. You believe x based on certain principles. However you believe y which is based on the opposite of those principles. It's as if you have decided on some thing and then the logics can work their way in after that rather than the other way around.

And I don't know where you get that from based on any post I've made, thus as usual I question your interpretation skills. I am open minded regarding most things regarding any cricket discussion or the sport in general. We all may have our strong base view and preferences on certain things regarding players, teams etc - but their is hardly anything I'm overly rigid or ideological about.

 

[Pratters]

What part of simple fact that uncle Basil played for England ruled him out of being considered for S Africa ATXI in any hypothetical scenario are you struggling to grasp?

Barry Richards also couldn't play for South Africa except handful of games even though he wanted to. Don't see why Dolly should be inelligible. He played for England only at the age of 35. All his prime cricketing career he would have loved to represent South Africa.

 

[Victor Ian]

Barry Richards also couldn't play for South Africa except handful of games even though he wanted to. Don't see why Dolly should be inelligible. He played for England only at the age of 35. All his prime cricketing career he would have loved to represent South Africa.

I kind of have to agree with you here, and like your reasoning. After all, the stats nerds normally hover around a sample size of 20 to say that one's test record is based on a useful sample. So what is the difference between a sample of 4 test and 0? By my reckoning, both numbers are open to being highly misleading as to the batsmen's worth. This being the case, people are likely, and do, in the case of Richards, to base their case on first class record. As an all rounder, it seems Basil might have a good case here, though I think in his case Kallis or Pollock would take his spot depending on what type of all rounder Basil was classified as.

 

[Camo999]

Basil did play for and captain South Africa (referred to as 'South Africa Non-Europeans' on cricketarchive) which was as far as he was allowed to progress and played against the likes of Kenya etc. If Richards can get into an all-time team for SA I'd definitely consider Basil too. I vaguely remember reading somewhere his actual birthdate is a couple of years older than that listed - possibly 1929??- which makes his later career even more remarkable.

 

[Pratters]

Your are very unusual poster at the best of times based on memory on CW, don't recall every agreeing with you on much.

Always aware of that to some respects - although since I came back here in recent weeks most of members I know I used to agree with a lot aren't around so that would distort that statement somewhat

Funny how agreeableness is associated with some thing. That's how I remember people used to think when we started debating on the internet. Like Seinfeld characters, you have remained the same some how over the years. I disagree with a lot of people on the forum but I don't use that as a criteria for any thing.

 

[Coronis]

How did this topic change to D'Oliveira? Why is this thread still going anyway, there has been no meaningful discussion since (maybe) the first few pages