The REAL allrounders Poll

[Richard]

I'd probably do well to do similar, I somehow always manage to bring the darned thing up again, though...

 

[Richard]

I like that

Can you remember the source?

10th paragraph (or sub-heading) - imagining a sub-heading before the thing starts.

 

[archie mac]

10th paragraph (or sub-heading) - imaginng a sub-heading before the thing starts.

Thanks for that, I will have to peruse the whole thing when i have time, some very good reading

 

[Richard]

Matthew Engel is quality.

 

[silentstriker]

Apart from Botham, I cant find any player to average at any point after 20 Tests, over 40 with the bat and under 20 with the ball

If we are going to talk allrounders lets talk about allround ability and putting it on the field.

If you're only going to take peaks, why take the beginnings only? Imran had an even bigger peak in his last 50 Test matches, no?

 

[C_C]

I have, thats why Im ignoring the fact this time that he rates Kapil over Botham

Im trying to keep this to a minimum

I rate Kapil higher than Botham for the same reason i rate McGrath higher than Waqar - their records are mostly similar and the latter two had much more stunning peaks than the former two- but the former duo did it consistently for a longer time.
I'd rather have someone who consistently gets 30 ave. with bat and 30 ave. with ball for 10 years than someone who has 40 with bat and 20 with ball for three and 25 with bat and 40 with ball for seven.

 

[C_C]

You know perfectly well that I think your tendency is for reasons as said... am not going to accuse you of racism in so many words however, given what happened last time. Racist would inaccurate in this case, anyhow.

And, I might add, plenty of others feel similarly about you and your opinions... of a wide number of things.

As I've also said, I don't believe this to be conscious on your part.

Riight.
Don't project your mentality on to me. Racism or ethnocentrism are the same deal really. And if i were, i'd not be rating Bradman as the best, Miller as joint second best, McGrath as arguably one of the top three ever, etc etc.
Perhaps you are seeing color when color is not an issue. Others might feel that way but i'd consider that as a projection of the western culture while its interpreting other cultures, given western cultures have such a high degree of involvement with racism.

 

[Richard]

All I'd say is I'm not surprised.

Oh, and as to rating Bradman, Miller, McGrath, etc. - no amount of prejudice can blind one to such blatant truths as those.

 

[silentstriker]

All I'd say is I'm not surprised.

Oh, and as to rating Bradman, Miller, McGrath, etc. - no amount of prejudice can blind one to such blatant truths as those.

Considering the very close records of Miller and Imran, how can you say one is a blatant truth while the other isn't?

 

[Richard]

Their closeness suggests that it's a pretty blatant truth that they're pretty equal to me.

 

[C_C]

All I'd say is I'm not surprised.

Nor should you be in light to your own history.

Oh, and as to rating Bradman, Miller, McGrath, etc. - no amount of prejudice can blind one to such blatant truths as those.

Pffft.
I suggest you visit cricket websites that are less multicultural than here and you'll find that the notion of Lara/Tendulkar > Bradman or McGrath = propping his average against batsmen with no technique due to ODI cricket are fairly common.

 

[Richard]

I know.

I repeat what I said - there are some truths so blatant that anyone who has any real understanding about the game of cricket (and I'd certainly not go so far as to exclude you from that category) cannot be blinded to them.

Your own theories about professionalism\amateur-era are exceedingly unusual amongst learned cricket discussors and that is more than enough for me.

 

[Beleg]

C_C,

Really? I have met some pretty fanatical Pakistani (and Indian) cricket fans (some of them considered Afridi the greatest thing since sliced bread) but I have never in my whole life heard anyone call Lara/Tendulkar better than Bradman.*


* - Provided they actually knew who Bradman was and what his achievements were.

 

[C_C]

Your own theories about professionalism\amateur-era are exceedingly unusual amongst learned cricket discussors and that is more than enough for me.

If that is enough for you to discredit my ideas then fine.
But if that is enough for you to suspect ethnocentric reasons then i am afraid you have a race problem.

Note that i don't rate the top Indian players of that era - like C.K.Nayadu, Amar Singh, Nissar, Duleepsinhji, etc. very highly.
The only Indian i rate from that period is Ranji and that is simply because he was averaging near 50 in an era where next-to-nobody was in the 40+ category.

 

[C_C]

C_C,

Really? I have met some pretty fanatical Pakistani (and Indian) cricket fans (some of them considered Afridi the greatest thing since sliced bread) but I have never in my whole life heard anyone call Lara/Tendulkar better than Bradman.*


* - Provided they actually knew who Bradman was and what his achievements were.

I recommend indiancricketfans.com and caribbeancricket.com
You will find that the LPA (Lara Protection Agency- a bunch of hardcore Lara supporters) will argue you to death if you dispute the idea that Lara is the best batsman ever.
Same goes with some posters at icf and really, it is no different in pakpassion (mind you i am very rare at all these sites and PP i havnt been for years) where they'd argue to death that Miandad was a much superior batsman to Richards and Imran is a much better allrounder than Sobers or that Imran was as good as Gavaskar as a batsman once you look at 'a mature Imran', ie the last 10-11 years of his career.

Point i was trying to make is that those who are biassed really have no limit.

 

[Richard]

If that is enough for you to discredit my ideas then fine.
But if that is enough for you to suspect ethnocentric reasons then i am afraid you have a race problem.

Note that i don't rate the top Indian players of that era - like C.K.Nayadu, Amar Singh, Nissar, Duleepsinhji, etc. very highly.
The only Indian i rate from that period is Ranji and that is simply because he was averaging near 50 in an era where next-to-nobody was in the 40+ category.

It'd be rather too obvious if you rated every single Indian while virtually no English\Australians.

Your ludicrous view of the Close\Edrich-Roberts\Holding incident pretty much sealed the deal as far as I'm concerned - there are enough things in this cricket World which can be perfectly logically argued to oneself as a result of an underlying, subconscious, prejudice.

I've not read 1\100th of your views on other walks of life but I remember someone telling me that you regarded 11\9\01 as a Govt. conspiracy?

 

[Beleg]

Same goes with some posters at icf and really, it is no different in pakpassion (mind you i am very rare at all these sites and PP i havnt been for years) where they'd argue to death that Miandad was a much superior batsman to Richards and Imran is a much better allrounder than Sobers or that Imran was as good as Gavaskar as a batsman once you look at 'a mature Imran', ie the last 10-11 years of his career.

Point i was trying to make is that those who are biassed really have no limit.

Ah, I have never been to ICF or CBC. PP does have its fair share of fanatics but they usually get shouted down pretty quickly from what I have witnessed. (albiet spordically)
I was talking more about people in real-life.

 

[Pratters]

Also Miller made his FC debut in 1938 but then lost 7 years to the war, a huge slice of his career. It is a pity that Miller was not a chaser of records, I think for talent he may have been just as good as Sobers, but often did not try unless he thought it was worth his time

That is very true of Miller actually. It is actually bemoaned a lot that Miller should have taken his cricket much more seriously like you did there. It is also part of the whole Miller charisma, stardom. What a star Miller was! Didn't he give others chance if it wasn't as important a game?

However, Sobers was very carefree in his attitude as well (though he doesn't have tales of charitable kindness like Miller has). In his autobiagraphy, he mentions several times that he had whiskey all night, then went to the game and achieved this feat or took so many wickets or scored a double century.

I do not think Miller would have matched Sobers but he certainly could have been much better..

 

[C_C]

Your ludicrous view of the Close\Edrich-Roberts\Holding incident pretty much sealed the deal as far as I'm concerned

I incidentally have the same view about India's capitulation at Sabina Park against yet another Holding onslaught.
So what now ?
Close was utterly humiliated and so was the rest of India team at Sabina park. Barely surviving with your life and ending up looking like you were 'it' in dodgeball when you are supposed to whack the ball with the stick in your hand *IS* humiliation. Whatever the reason for that humiliation may be ( age/lack of proficiency, etc etc)

I've not read 1\100th of your views on other walks of life but I remember someone telling me that you regarded 11\9\01 as a Govt. conspiracy?

Partially. As in ' we'll let this happen and add the special effects just to give a better shock value'.
And you'll find that the # of people who think its a government conspiracy tend to be..hmm..how should i put it...melanin deficient ?
Or atleast, thats the case where i live.
Again, as i said, if you are basing it on such flimsly grounds, then the race problem is in your head, not mine. Do make a better argument really.
I suppose the fact that i rate only 1 brown dude from pre-WWII era shows my bias, eh ?


For a better explanation in why you are forming that view, look no further than your own cultural history really. Race is far more in western conciousness than in Indian.

 

[Richard]

So because racism was more prominent in Britain than the subcontinent that means I have to be more likely to be a racist than you?

Wrong.