Tendulkar/Hobbs vs Marshall/McGrath

[DrWolverine]

This era debate is always entertaining

It is because there is no correct answer and it depends upon your opinion and belief

 

[Johan]

people don't want to commit to their own beliefs, that's insane.

 

[Xix2565]

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.


Non existent strawman that you still can't point out


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


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


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?


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.


Literally no strawman

You saw a post questioning Hobbs' ability to handle more modern fast bowlers due to developments in the game and went all the way to Root > Sobers has to be true or you all are idiots. Literally a leap in logic. And given the way you're behaving about it with spaghetti posting me is not helping your case. Especially when you don't seem to understand the words I'm posting.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

I'll do it in a bit.

I appreciate you !!

 

[Johan]

You saw a post questioning Hobbs' ability to handle more modern fast bowlers due to developments in the game

No I saw a post talking about game developement and I went to question if the logic will be applied linearly, the answer was no

and went all the way to Root > Sobers has to be true or you all are idiots. Literally a leap in logic.

Not a leap in logic at all, the argument was that the game advanced, so I simply said if Sobers due to playing 30 years after Hobbs was a level above due to advancements, the same applies to Joe Root who played 50 years later, literally just a logical continuation of the argument. and Yes, you all literally are idiots, for more reasons than one.

And given the way you're behaving about it with spaghetti posting me is not helping your case.

The fact Subs left and couldn't refute anymore already helped my case.

Especially when you don't seem to understand the words I'm posting.

I doubt you understand anything you're writing either, you just read a chat about your friend being demolished and then you decided to jump in and ask me to be grateful for some of you having basic education (history), amazing.

 

[Xix2565]

No I saw a post talking about game developement and I went to question if the logic will be applied linearly, the answer was no


Not a leap in logic at all, the argument was that the game advanced, so I simply said if Sobers due to playing 30 years after Hobbs was a level above due to advancements, the same applies to Joe Root who played 50 years later, literally just a logical continuation of the argument. and Yes, you all literally are idiots, for more reasons than one.


The fact Subs left and couldn't refute anymore already helped my case.


I doubt you understand anything you're writing either, you just read a chat about your friend being demolished and then you decided to jump in and ask me to be grateful for some of you having basic education (history), amazing.

It wasn't a logical continuation though. There's always nuance in terms of conditions and level of attacks to consider here.

Subs leaving or not is irrelevant to me, and we disagree on other things quite vigorously. It doesn't mean that you haven't been an idiot here though and now want to lie about it.

 

[Johan]

It wasn't a logical continuation though. There's always nuance in terms of conditions and level of attacks to consider here.

Literally, attacks, conditions were never a part of the argument, the argument was game would develope and due to professionalism, intensity and xyz the players who come later would be better than who came before, IE Sobers would be better than Hobbs, sadly, they bitched out when asked to apply the same logic to their favourites vs modern day Batsmen.

Subs leaving or not is irrelevant to me, and we disagree on other things quite vigorously.

From the ferocity of how you defend him, I thought it might be a strong intimate relationship.

It doesn't mean that you haven't been an idiot here though and now want to lie about it.

I've been objectively correct in every statement I've made, and your motely crew has not been able to preassure even a single assertion sadly

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Subs and Xix being on the same side is very rare

 

[Xix2565]

Literally, attacks, conditions were never a part of the argument, the argument was game would develope and due to professionalism, intensity and xyz the players who come later would be better than who came before, IE Sobers would be better than Hobbs, sadly, they bitched out when asked to apply the same logic to their favourites vs modern day Batsmen.


From the ferocity of how you defend him, I thought it might be a strong intimate relationship.


I've been objectively correct in every statement I've made, and your motely crew has not been able to preassure even a single assertion sadly

I am saying that the development of the game isn't the only thing that matters here and people do consider other factors when rating people like Hobbs lower. That you're fixated on one thing is stupid really. They have no reason to entertain you when you won't meet their points.

You've not been objective or correct all so far. Again, lying when I can literally look up your posts where all you have are strong opinions and braindead comments is not a good look.

 

[Johan]

I am saying that the development of the game isn't the only thing that matters here

that's literally the crux of the conversation, first strike.

people do consider other factors when rating people like Hobbs lower.

Literally wasn't the argument, the argument was that he played in a formulating era and the game was developing therefore his runs are inferior, strike 2.

That you're fixated on one thing is stupid really. .

Literally the discussion is about cutoff points, professionalism, intensity and so forth, actually read for a second.

IThey have no reason to entertain you when you won't meet their points.

Literally all I've done is refute them and play by their rules, keep crying because you couldn't keep up with the conversation.

You've not been objective or correct all so far.

any objective debate, we do the voting, your motely crew would read 10-0

Again, lying

Yeah, that's all you do.

when I can literally look up your posts

I wish you had done that before you started your blowjob to subs

where all you have are strong opinions

Duh, Unlike you guys I can actually commit to my views, foreign concept to you, I know.

braindead comments

Isn't that your entire post history

is not a good look.

Demolishing idiots in arguments is a decent enough look, and that's all I've done in this thread

 

[Xix2565]

that's literally the crux of the conversation, first strike.


Literally wasn't the argument, the argument was that he played in a formulating era and the game was developing therefore his runs are inferior, strike 2.


Literally the discussion is about cutoff points, professionalism, intensity and so forth, actually read for a second.


Literally all I've done is refute them and play by their rules, keep crying because you couldn't keep up with the conversation.


any objective debate, we do the voting, your motely crew would read 10-0


Yeah, that's all you do.


I wish you had done that before you started your blowjob to subs


Duh, Unlike you guys I can actually commit to my views, foreign concept to you, I know.


Isn't that your entire post history


Demolishing idiots in arguments is a decent enough look, and that's all I've done in this thread

It being the focus point here doesn't mean you have an argument because there are other factors involved in rating players that would have Sobers over Root and such opinions. I'm not sure why you don't care for this. Hobbs may not meet the standards that Sobers does, and there's nothing illogical about that apart from the bitchfit you're having here about someone suggesting the possibility. The fact that you now want keep lying about not being an idiot is just the cherry on top of this ****. You've yet to show anything other than be a big baby about people not rating older players that highly and frankly I'm not sure you deserve the respect of recognizing your opinions as valid.

 

[Xix2565]

Hobbs can suck, and it's okay to say that.

 

[Johan]

It being the focus point here doesn't mean you have an argument because there are other factors involved in rating players

Nope, that's the discussion, the discussion is Hobbs is fossil and thus below guys who came 30 years later regardless of his achievements, my response is simply asking them to use the same logic for everyone, the fact that you can't follow that further proves your intellectual inferiority.

that would have Sobers over Root and such opinions.

again with the stupidity, the argument is that players from a less professional era are inherently less skilled, and therefore I'm simply saying that Everyone from Sobers's era would suck compared to modern players under the line of logic your boyfriend is showing, please keep up.

I'm not sure why you don't care for this.

Because the discussion is about cut off dates, professionlism and how the sports compares in term of evolution, once again, you're bringing topics that were never brought up, if the argument was Sobers played better bowling or whatever I'd disagree but I won't care.

Hobbs may not meet the standards that Sobers does,

YES! and with the same line of thought, Sobers did not meet the same standards as Root, thank you for agreeing with me.

and there's nothing illogical about that apart from the bitchfit you're having here about someone suggesting the possibility.

"bitchfit" didn't you just come to this thread to suck Subz's dick? well frankly speaking, there's no bitchfit, you and your friend are too sensitive and take a little bit of aggressive talk as a fit, it's just the resultant of being coddled and being a soft bitch on your part. Infact, I've never even questioned that maybe Sobers played on a higher level, who knows? then why wouldn't Root play on a higher level than Sobers, the gap between Sobers and Hobbs's debuts are way smaller than the one between Root and Sobers, so the game would develope and therefore...oh yeah, my original points, all old players would be obsolete and not just Hobbs but also Sobers, Viv, Miller, Imran and so forth, Viv being my favourite Cricketer of them all infact. Simple argument, just you going on a rant because I didn't sweettalk your friend.

The fact that you now want keep lying about not being an idiot is just the cherry on top of this ****.

"brO whY arEn't YoU CalLinG yoUrSeLf aN iDiOt" mate this isn't disney world, people aren't gonna concede arguments to someone as unable to keep up with conversations as you. Discussion is about game's evolution and your clown ass is yapping about bowlers and conditions and other clown **** that's not even being discussed.

You've yet to show anything other than be a big baby about people not rating older players that highly

Literally my whole point is that if you don't rate one older player, don't rate others, that's literally my point, stop rating them and be consistent in not rating older players rather than picking and choosing who counts and who doesn't.

frankly I'm not sure you deserve the respect of recognizing your opinions as valid.

Frankly I don't think you're worth even speaking to considering you've shown your mental competence to be in gutter by your inability to keep up with the debate, and obviously your opinions are invalid, a person who can't even keep up with discussions such as yourself is not likely to make complex conclusions.

 

[Johan]

Hobbs can suck, and it's okay to say that.

True! and Sobers can suck, so can Viv, and so can Sunny, and it's okay to say that.

 

[Xix2565]

Nope, that's the discussion, the discussion is Hobbs is fossil and thus below guys who came 30 years later regardless of his achievements, my response is simply asking them to use the same logic for everyone, the fact that you can't follow that further proves your intellectual inferiority.


again with the stupidity, the argument is that players from a less professional era are inherently less skilled, and therefore I'm simply saying that Everyone from Sobers's era would suck compared to modern players under the line of logic your boyfriend is showing, please keep up.


Because the discussion is about cut off dates, professionlism and how the sports compares in term of evolution, once again, you're bringing topics that were never brought up, if the argument was Sobers played better bowling or whatever I'd disagree but I won't care.


YES! and with the same line of thought, Sobers did not meet the same standards as Root, thank you for agreeing with me.


"bitchfit" didn't you just come to this thread to suck Subz's wood? well frankly speaking, there's no bitchfit, you and your friend are too sensitive and take a little bit of aggressive talk as a fit, it's just the resultant of being coddled and being a soft bitch on your part. Infact, I've never even questioned that maybe Sobers played on a higher level, who knows? then why wouldn't Root play on a higher level than Sobers, the gap between Sobers and Hobbs's debuts are way smaller than the one between Root and Sobers, so the game would develope and therefore...oh yeah, my original points, all old players would be obsolete and not just Hobbs but also Sobers, Viv, Miller, Imran and so forth, Viv being my favourite Cricketer of them all infact. Simple argument, just you going on a rant because I didn't sweettalk your friend.


"brO whY arEn't YoU CalLinG yoUrSeLf aN iDiOt" mate this isn't disney world, people aren't gonna concede arguments to someone as unable to keep up with conversations as you. Discussion is about game's evolution and your clown ass is yapping about bowlers and conditions and other clown **** that's not even being discussed.


Literally my whole point is that if you don't rate one older player, don't rate others, that's literally my point, stop rating them and be consistent in not rating older players rather than picking and choosing who counts and who doesn't.


Frankly I don't think you're worth even speaking to considering you've shown your mental competence to be in gutter by your inability to keep up with the debate, and obviously your opinions are unvalid, a person who can't even keep up with discussions such as yourself is not likely to make complex conclusions.

His achievements are going to be taken in context though, and that context matters differently to different people. That I don't want to engage with your strawman about ignoring context to hyperfocus on one point is what normal people do when faced with idiocy combined with mild homophobia. You keep going on and on about how modern players have had to have played at a higher level because of the original point which is ****ing stupid because it just doesn't consider relative gaps between peers/competition or limited experiences/prowess due to circumstances within their careers. It all matters as part of the game's evolution. That some older players get rated higher than others due to this is natural, and completely fine within the logic used.

When you're done with sinking to the level of bacterial intelligence, you can let the rest of us know though. Hopefully it'll be sometime within the next century.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

All many Kph slower than Marshall, smaller than McGrath, with inferior techniques.

Every other sport has changed, except ancient cricket batsmen are timeless, I guess.

Marshall wasn’t any quicker than Larwood. Forget many Kmph he wasn’t quicker than Larwood at all.

 

[Johan]

His achievements are going to be taken in context though, and that context matters differently to different people. That I don't want to engage with your strawman about ignoring context to hyperfocus on one point is what normal people do when faced with idiocy combined with mild homophobia. You keep going on and on about how modern players have had to have played at a higher level because of the original point which is ****ing stupid because it just doesn't consider relative gaps between peers/competition or limited experiences/prowess due to circumstances within their careers. It all matters as part of the game's evolution. That some older players get rated higher than others due to this is natural, and completely fine within the logic used.

When you're done with sinking to the level of bacterial intelligence, you can let the rest of us know though. Hopefully it'll be sometime within the next century.

the "context" of this discussion is the claim that those who came later are naturally more skilled and physically better, that's the entire discussion. No, what you want to do is pull points out of your ass that have no logic behind them and shove it into a discussion purely revolving around sports discussion, the thing I'm focusing on isn't a point but what I'm focusing on is the main point and the entire point of the debate, sports evolution and the affect of it on cricket, that's the whole conversation. You are, infact, the one who brought in your own points and are now trying to lie that they were a part of the original discussion and pathetically failing in doing so. You're going for homophobia allegations, well for reference I'm bisexual, and secondly me calling you a ****sucker is not me being homophobic but that's a language we use for stooges who suck up to others like you've done for you know who in this thread.

"relative gaps between peers and competition." not a part of the original debate, dismissed.

"limited experience/prowess" Yes, the prowess was discussed to be limited because of the belief that those who came before are gonna be inferior.

Peer comparision? You shoved that into the debate.

experience? you shoved that into the debate.

and No, it's not fine, infact... it's braindead if I'm blunt about it, the argument is basically

1920----->1960 = Cricket changed, it got solved, therefore Sobers played a much more intense, professional and competitive game therefore he's better

1960---->2020 = actually, in twice the timeframe of the first, Cricket didn't develope at all! bigger bats, better fitness, better health care?? didn't mean **** at all!

that's literally the point I made the whole time, If you believe it naturally became far better to the point that yesterday greats are incomparable to modern ones in effectively 30 years, the literal development of the sport from the second world war would dwarf the development before, the fact that you and your motely crew wants to ignore the developement of last 60 years and exaggerate the developement of the sport in two war interrupted periods jusr shows how biased and pathetic your mindset is.

All in all, apologise to your mother for being such a numbskull and actually grow a brain so you can contribute to discussions rather than being dogwalked every debate you're in.

 

[Xix2565]

SNIP

Again, when you're ready to speak like a human being, let us know. So far this is just a bunch of babbling because you got mad about nothing.

 

[Johan]

GLURP GLURP GLURP

let us know when you're done with your session with Subs and can converse like a normal human being and keep up with topics, Thank You.

 

[Xix2565]

let us know when you're done with your session with Subs and can converse like a normal human being and keep up with topics, Thank You.

You've not said anything that suggests you can discuss a topic so far though. Please try harder. It's a bit disappointing that you haven't learnt to do so after 3 years.