Tendulkar/Hobbs vs Marshall/McGrath

[subshakerz]

why would the player quality hike between 1920 and 1950 be higher than the player quality hike between 1950 and 2020, speak up.

That's not the point. The point is reaching a level of confidence we can have that the players were in a minimally professionalised setup comparable to latter eras.

 

[subshakerz]

Oh I assure you there's nothing emotional from my end, I'm informing you of my views on your stance as you seemingly care about it, if you think I'm being too heated, you're welcome to leave the debate here.

Lol we all know your views on this. You have made it abundantly clear.

 

[Johan]

You didn't have any intellectual consistency in interpreting arguments,

I did, That's why the argument fell apart the moment I asked the same standard to be applied to the next 50 years of Cricket and sadly the hypocrisy of your crew was exposed.

, so no, you have to actually justify why you want to be an idiot properly first.

isn't that your kind's job? regardless, I'm not exactly moved considering you just proved my point as you went straight for an Ad Hom, Thank You for making my job easier.

I've made my point already,

Oh dear, I'm sorry that it's been dismantled already, it lasted 5 minutes, great.

you just have to read it without trying to change my words to something else entirely.

and you can't even name that "something else", go back to my point about people who believe this not being able to follow conversations.

 

[Johan]

That's not the point. The point is reaching a level of confidence we can have that the players were in a minimally professionalised setup comparable to latter eras.

That's a wrong point. The game would always keep becoming more professional and keep developing fundamentally, the professionalism difference between 1920 and 1950 would be peanuts compared to 1950 and 2020, so if the professionalism change between 1920 and 1950 can render the prior obsolete in comparison to the latter, than 1950 would be more than obsolete in comparison to today. Simply put, by your logic, Imran Khan and Garfield Sobers would not really get past today's school teams.

 

[Johan]

Lol we all know your views on this. You have made it abundantly clear.

Of Course, I'm not one to hide my views, and frankly I'm ready to debate it anytime, and after this effort from such a loud but such a small minority, I frankly am fully convinced that the evolution argument has even less going for it than flat Earth arguments.

 

[subshakerz]

That's a wrong point. The game would always keep becoming more professional and keep developing fundamentally, the professionalism difference between 1920 and 1950 would be peanuts compared to 1950 and 2020, so if the professionalism change between 1920 and 1950 can render the prior obsolete in comparison to the latter, than 1950 would be more than obsolete in comparison to today. Simply put, by your logic, Imran Khan and Garfield Sobers would not really get past today's school teams.

Really so there was no cutoff point for you, even going to the 1800s and 1700s?

There is. Our cutoff is different. Accept it.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Imo, Crowe was a very underrated hand in Hadlee's greatest triumphs

I don't believe Crowe was there when Nz beat the mighty WI.

 

[Xix2565]

I did, That's why the argument fell apart the moment I asked the same standard to be applied to the next 50 years of Cricket and sadly the hypocrisy of your crew was exposed.


isn't that your kind's job? regardless, I'm not exactly moved considering you just proved my point as you went straight for an Ad Hom, Thank You for making my job easier.


Oh dear, I'm sorry that it's been dismantled already, it lasted 5 minutes, great.


and you can't even name that "something else", go back to my point about people who believe this not being able to follow conversations.

You didn't make an argument, you made up a strawman to beat up. That's not being intelligent, it is being idiotic. Lying about this doesn't erase your earlier posts. You made a huge leap in logic while trying to refute an argument and now you want to be taken seriously? Please.

 

[subshakerz]

Of Course, I'm not one to hide my views, and frankly I'm ready to debate it anytime, and after this effort from such a loud but such a small minority, I frankly am fully convinced that the evolution argument has even less going for it than flat Earth arguments.

Or maybe you just don't really like the argument because you put those early cricketers in a bit of a halo.

 

[Johan]

Really so there was no cutoff point for you, even going to the 1800s and 1700s?

There is. Our cutoff is different. Accept it.

I accept... that your cutoff point is idiotic, illogical and completely falling on itself because you are not willing to commit to your argument at all.

see this is how you commit to this argument, "Viv Richards would not be a test standard Batsmen today and Zak Crawley is better than Viv Richards". Say that as an oath and believe it forever and that would be you being intellectually consistent and commited to your argument.

 

[subshakerz]

I accept... that your cutoff point is idiotic, illogical and completely falling on itself because you are not willing to commit to your argument at all.

see this is how you commit to this argument, "Viv Richards would not be a test standard Batsmen today and Zak Crawley is better than Viv Richards". Say that as an oath and believe it forever and that would be you being intellectually consistent and commited to your argument.

So Testy

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Martindale, Constantine, Francis, Griffith and Larwood all tried that, did not turn out well for them.

Hobbs never faced martidale in tests. I assume you're talking about fc cricket.

 

[Johan]

You didn't make an argument,

Yes I did, once again, you simply are not capable of keeping up with conversations, it happens.

you made up a strawman to beat up.

if there was a strawman you should be ashamed of yourself and your slightly-awkward partner in crime in Subs, because you can't even preassure that, but as always, in reality there was no strawman, you just made it up.

That's not being intelligent, it is being idiotic. Lying about this doesn't erase your earlier posts.

and once again you revert to Ad Hominem, it's rather sad how low the debating standard in this subforum is.

You made a huge leap in logic while trying to refute an argument

And once again, you fail to name that leap in logic, are you trying to contribute in this conversation or just yap Because you felt left out?

and now you want to be taken seriously? Please.

The fact you're responding is already a sign that you're taking it seriously little brother, breathe, don't let your rage control your keyboard.

 

[Johan]

So Testy

I don't hear the oath subs, don't you want to be an intellectually consistent poster with actual arguments? if So, take the oath and commit to it, otherwise live with being a hypocrite.

 

[Johan]

Or maybe you just don't really like the argument because you put those early cricketers in a bit of a halo.

I'm willing to accept the argument if we commit to Steven Smith and Joe Root being the two greatest batsmen of all time, it's sadly you who puts old Crickets in a halo, and thus you're unwilling to commit to your arguments, classic.

 

[Xix2565]

Yes I did, once again, you simply are not capable of keeping up with conversations, it happens.


if there was a strawman you should be ashamed of yourself and your slightly-awkward partner in crime in Subs, because you can't even preassure that, but as always, in reality there was no strawman, you just made it up.


and once again you revert to Ad Hominem, it's rather sad how low the debating standard in this subforum is.


And once again, you fail to name that leap in logic, are you trying to contribute in this conversation or just yap Because you felt left out?


The fact you're responding is already a sign that you're taking it seriously little brother, breathe, don't let your rage control your keyboard.

No you didn't. You made up a strawman to argue against and then dismissed all further responses. Not exactly debating standard, but hey, if you want to cry about it go ahead. No one is arguing about having modern players over older ones as a law of physics, unlike what you seem to believe. However, it's perfectly fine to not value older cricketers who haven't faced similar challenges as the newer ones and generally played at a time when the game hadn't developed as much. For you to hold on to the strawman and be dismissive of what people are saying is stupid, to say the least.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

I'll do this for you

Allan Donald
11 matches, 658 runs @ 32.90, 2 hundreds and 2 fifties in 20 innings.

Glenn McGrath
9 matches, 662 runs @ 36.77, 2 hundreds and 5 fifties in 18 innings.

Wasim Akram
7 matches, 395 runs @32.91, 1 hundred and 2 fifties in 12 innings

Curtly Ambrose
3 matches, 289 runs @ 57.80, no hundreds and 3 fifties in 6 innings.

Dale Steyn
8 matches, 675 runs @ 56.25, 4 hundreds and 1 fifty in 14 innings.

Shaun Pollock
12 matches, 834 runs @ 39.71, 2 hundreds and 3 fifties in 23 innings.

Waqar Younis
4 matches, 278 runs @ 39.71, 1 hundred and 1 fifty in 7 innings.

Courtney Walsh
7 matches, 595 runs @ 66.11, 1 hundred and 4 fifties in 10 innings.

James Anderson
14 matches, 804 runs @ 32.16, 1 hundred and 5 fifties in 26 innings.

all the great pacers I can think of, thought about Including in someone like Shoaib or Bond, decided against it.

By any chance, can you do a similar breakdown using Brian Lara (including vs Shane Bond).

 

[PlayerComparisons]

This era debate is always entertaining

 

[Johan]

No you didn't.

Yes I did, because once again, you cannot point out what the leap in logic is, you cannot m
point out what the strawman is, you're not even a factor in this discussion.

You made up a strawman to argue against

Non existent strawman that you still can't point out

then dismissed all further responses.

Literally didn't happen, I responded to everything Subs wrote, once again showing you can't follow a conversation.

Not exactly debating standard, but hey, if you want to cry about it go ahead.

considering you're not even contributing anything but crying about it, it's kind of funny you project about it.

No one is arguing about having modern players over older ones as a law of physics, unlike what you seem to believe.

Literally not my argument, jesus christ, you did not read at all did you? just saw a comment that you vaguely agreed with, and then started white knighting for it?

However, it's perfectly fine to not value older cricketers who haven't faced similar challenges as the newer ones and generally played at a time when the game hadn't developed as much.

And that's it, you exposed yourself here, my argument is if the game changed that's a fine argument, but you need intellectual consistency, you can't go on saying one fossil (Hobbs) sucks in comparison to another fossil (Sobers) because their is a 30 year gap between the fossils and then pretend the other fossil (Sobers) is gonna be relevant to modern day Cricketers, I hate the nonsense of rating one fossil and not the other, simple.

For you to hold on to the strawman and be dismissive of what people are saying is stupid, to say the least.

Literally no strawman

 

[Johan]

By any chance, can you do a similar breakdown using Brian Lara (including vs Shane Bond).

I'll do it in a bit.