So, Bradman's Invincibles or Waugh's unbeaten team of the early 00s?

[the big bambino]

Can't really understand what you're saying here,

Really? But then you made these comments ...

but I was referring to your earlier post where you said Martyn was never preferred between the two, which is incorrect. In fact when Waugh was dropped his position was taken by Martyn the very next game.

And the reason Waugh was preferred over Martyn for most of their careers is because he was significantly older and more advanced in his career. (EDIT from TBB - Wrong: Their test careers were basically over the same time period) So that argument, even if it was correct, which it absolutely is not, would be completely irrelevant anyway.

... without understanding the premise on which they were based

Hope this helps.

No - no it doesn't. Neither does it help change the fact that Martyn couldn't get into the test side for a long time while at the same time time M Waugh was a regular.

 

[the big bambino]

I did, thoroughly and extensively In the previous post which you quoted & ignored.

Note to yourself: The arrogant and insolent wording being used in your posting in this thread is bad enough without the further embarrassment of being completely wrong and refusing to accept it.

If I were you I'd try and fix both of these errors in character.

I understand the facts. What I find interesting is your refusal to accept them: Or how that is a marker of superior character or argument.

 

[TheJediBrah]

(EDIT from TBB - Wrong: Their test careers were basically over the same time period)

Completely and utterly wrong and irrelevant. At the risk of repeating myself for the 3rd or 4th time, their respective peaks and development were over very different time periods, not to mention age.

No - no it doesn't. Neither does it help change the fact that Martyn couldn't get into the test side for a long time while at the same time time M Waugh was a regular.

I think this is the 4th or 5th time you've made the same completely irrelevant point . . . really cbf going over it yet again

 

[TheJediBrah]

I understand the facts. What I find interesting is your refusal to accept them: Or how that is a marker of superior character or argument.

What facts? I say nothing but facts. If you can point me to one instance here where I've said something not completely and indisbutably correct I'll paypal you &100

 

[vcs]

Well that's true selectors aren't above criticism but I'll get to that in responses below. It is certainly justifiable to quote selectorial preferences though as they are the ones who judge the merits of players. Martyn and Waugh competed for selection in the same era and Waugh was clearly the better candidate in that time and that fact will be verified in selection. I also favour Waugh bcos I believe the bowling he faced in the 90s was better than Martyn's opposition in the early to mid naughties.



What do you offer as an alternative? Your opinion? Which doesn't even come with a fact, stat or argument that would recommend it. Look you are entitled to your opinion. You should care that it is also respected. You have to accept that what you say will be refereed by impartial facts. Martyn struggled to keep his place in FC cricket let alone the test side for a long time while Waugh was a virtual regular. Selectorial decisions can be offered as support for an opinion. They are after all operating within their area of expertise, are experts in their field and their choices not controversial. All contradictory to the qualifications defining an appeal to authority and contained in the 1st sentence of your link: Did you actually read it?



Not throughout the 90s bud. Note to yourself: Must qualify remarks.

I don't even care about this argument as I like both batsmen, but clearly the two are close enough for it to be a contest. From my link

or if the cited authority is stating a contentious or controversial position.

Selectors are humans just like the rest of us FFS. Do you just accept everything they decide at face value? If not, then don't offer them up as an irrefutable authority in support of your position is all I'm saying.

 

[AldoRaine18]

Junior was a fantastic ODI player but he wasn't the same in tests.

 

[the big bambino]

Completely and utterly wrong and irrelevant. At the risk of repeating myself for the 3rd or 4th time, their respective peaks and development were over very different time periods, not to mention age.



I think this is the 4th or 5th time you've made the same completely irrelevant point . . . really cbf going over it yet again

What facts? I say nothing but facts. If you can point me to one instance here where I've said something not completely and indisbutably correct I'll paypal you &100

Oh ffs. I repeat it as many times as fail to grasp it. Their test careers coincided for 10 years mate! Or would hav if Marto was good enough. which is the whole point. In that time Waugh won selection as a regular and martyn struggled to sometimes keep his state spot. Hence waugh was better. But yeah invent some irrelevant dodge to explain why you think the selectors got it wrong all that time but brah knew better. (Jesus, Mary and Joseph preserve me).

 

[the big bambino]

I don't even care about this argument as I like both batsmen, but clearly the two are close enough for it to be a contest. From my link

Selectors are humans just like the rest of us FFS. Do you just accept everything they decide at face value? If not, then don't offer them up as an irrefutable authority in support of your position is all I'm saying.

Your being argumentative. You know citing selectorial opinion is valid and contradicts your claim of appeal to authourity. There was nothing controversial in Martyn's non selection.

I have criticised selectors such as Hilditch. Especially in his treatment of Warner. Just bcos you don't always back selectors doesn't mean you cant rely on their opinion when you havent heard a better alternative. Just as you havent provided one to counter their non selection of Martyn.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Oh ffs. I repeat it as many times as fail to grasp it. Their test careers coincided for 10 years mate! In that time Waugh won selection as a regular and martyn struggled to sometimes keep his state spot. Hence waugh was better. But yeah invent some irrelevant dodge to explain why you think the selectors got it wrong all that time by brah knew better. (Jesus, Mary and Joseph preserve me).

This is utterly brainless logic.

I really hope you're trolling mate.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Your being argumentative. You know citing selectorial opinion is valid and contradicts your claim of appeal to authourity. There was nothing controversial in Martyn's non selection.

I have criticised selectors such as Hilditch. Especially in his treatment of Warner. Just bcos you don't always back selectors doesn't mean you cant rely on their opinion when you havent heard a better alternative. Just as you havent provided one to counter their non selection of Martyn.

This is true and obvious. Martyn's non-selection was appropriate because he wasn't good enough when he was younger.

Not even sure why selection was brought up in the first place, mind-blowingly obviously irrelevant.

 

[viriya]

I also favour Waugh bcos I believe the bowling he faced in the 90s was better than Martyn's opposition in the early to mid naughties.

I just showed you the numbers that show Martyn did as well if not better than Mark during the 90s. That "better bowling in the 90s" argument doesn't really hold if Waugh has the 10th highest average of Aussies during that period.

 

[viriya]

This is true and obvious. Martyn's non-selection was appropriate because he wasn't good enough when he was younger.

Not even sure why selection was brought up in the first place, mind-blowingly obviously irrelevant.

Yea I've never seen the whims of selectors brought up as a defense of a player before.

 

[vcs]

Well, forgive me for not being aware of the intricacies of Australian domestic cricket in the '90s. BTW, wasn't Gilchrist also overlooked for a couple of years in favour of a declining Healy? Would you use that to say that since Healy was mostly preferred in a straight choice between the two, he was a superior WK/batsman?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well, forgive me for not being aware of the intricacies of Australian domestic cricket in the '90s. BTW, wasn't Gilchrist also overlooked for a couple of years in favour of a declining Healy? Would you use that to say that since Healy was mostly preferred in a straight choice between the two, he was a superior WK/batsman?

You're not entirely wrong, selectors are often wrong. I don't think many people will disagree that Gilchrist was superior to Healy for a while before Healy retired.

And you're also right that a selectors choice is not definitive proof that the selected player is better.

 

[the big bambino]

This is utterly brainless logic.

I really hope you're trolling mate.

This is true and obvious. Martyn's non-selection was appropriate because he wasn't good enough when he was younger.

Not even sure why selection was brought up in the first place, mind-blowingly obviously irrelevant.

^ Admits Martyn was not good enough. Still thinks he's better. Calls someone else brainless and troll.

 

[TheJediBrah]

^ Admits Martyn was not good enough. Still thinks he's better. Calls someone else brainless and troll.

This is ridiculous. You must be trolling because no one is that thick.

Martyn was not good enough at that time. One player being better than another at a certain time does not mean that player is a definitively "better" player forever.

This is honestly some of the worst posting I have ever seen. You need to stop before embarassing yourself further.

 

[the big bambino]

I just showed you the numbers that show Martyn did as well if not better than Mark during the 90s. That "better bowling in the 90s" argument doesn't really hold if Waugh has the 10th highest average of Aussies during that period.

Marto played 7 tests in the 90s. Waugh about 90. So waugh was exposed to the stress of that bowling about 10 times as often. Brett Lee averaged 11 with the ball in the 90s. Better than McGrath. So I agree with your point. You point was to be wary of statisical distortions wasn't it?

 

[the big bambino]

This is ridiculous. You must be trolling because no one is that thick.

Martyn was not good enough at that time. One player being better than another at a certain time does not mean that player is a definitively "better" player forever.

This is honestly some of the worst posting I have ever seen. You need to stop before embarassing yourself further.

^Admits Martyn not good enough. Still thinks he's better. Yet searches around elsewhere for the worst posting he's ever seen.

 

[TheJediBrah]

^Admits Martyn not good enough. Still thinks he's better. Yet searches around elsewhere for the worst posting he's ever seen.

Should have taken my advice about stopping before embarrassing yourself further

 

[the big bambino]

Should have taken my advice about stopping before embarrassing yourself further

Look I usually accelerate the down arrow when I see your name. Thats the advice I should have stuck to.