I made a direct exception for passionate fans and independent writers, I was speaking largely on media and how their opinions are influenced by things that are not really Cricket, and it's not just Cricket, it's true for most facets of life. I don't really diffrentiate between scoring rates, and why I believe some of the older times might be underrated because of more orthodox Cricket is simply a view I hold, and I don't force it on anyone. I'm simply exhausted of people taking a personal offense to me saying I don't promote a Cricketer for general tempo, for range perhaps, but not for general tempo. I've explained my views on why I believe some may like Sutcliffe or Kallis may not be so hyped by the media, nobody is obligated to agree.
Eh, Compton also had a really good batting era for a large chunk of his career, until the 1950 summer or so, If I've time tomorrow, I'll try to go through Charlie Davis's database and calculate his strike rate before the extremely bowling friendly era began from 1950/51 Ashes forward.
Much of the media were extraordinarily patronising about professional cricketers in general----described as being "of loyal yeoman stock" and as"a faithful journeyman cricketer" etc so long as they showed due respect to their betters.And if such as Parkin and Parker expressed a view contrary to the establishment view they were referred to as bolsheviks.
The cricketing grandees were open about their (sometimes extreme) political idealogy in which "the benefit of the moral and manly game of cricket" was of primary importance.This was at the heart of MCC taking such a sycophantic and obsequious attitude to South Africa in the 60s,wanting to keep the cricket family intact---never mind the vast majority of the South African population being disenfranchised! "Politics and sport shouldn't mix" claimed those wanting to continue playing the creators of Apartheid when,ironically,this was exactly what Vorster and co had done.
Which is a long and rambling way ,Johan,of saying that much of the media will have followed MCC assumed codes of morals ,values and opinions but evaluation of batters based on their size-of-gate-marketability was not one of them,viz---I clearly recall that during the fifties and afterwards,whilst Compton was considered the dazzling batting cavalier and an improvising genius,Hutton,the roundhead,the technical master,was considered the greater player;until his great comeback in 1966,Tom Graveney,the beautiful strokeplayer,was dismissed by much of the media as a very pretty adornment but not to be trusted in serious situations, and,perhaps,most prejudicial of all,everyone recognised that Colin Milburn was mega box-office but the selectors and the media didn't think he was sound enough to be a "real" Test batter.The only great English strokemaker recognised as a great batter was an amateur,Ted Dexter.
Of course,no-one should suffer personal abuse in relation to matters as trivial,in real terms,as the evaluation of cricketers!
I disagree with your disregard of strike-rates as a relevant factor in assessing the meritocracy of batters and to its importance in the context of a match but I can't budge you on this and the friendly arguments you put forward have utterly failed to give me any reason to change my stance.Of course that doesn’t mean we should resort to personal abuse!
I've been lucky.Having been on this forum for some six months,with one exception,I've not personally come across anything that could be construed as personally offensive although I've sometimes been the victim of funny banter having a friendly laugh at my expense!----And I know where to find you!!
Occasionally though some of the correspondence between others does seem to get a little personalised and veering on to abuse and,obviously,we should all seek to avoid this.
,
Not that I'm complaining.
