Rank these potential GOATs from 1-12

[Tusker]

I'll ask you a counter question: Who of the two is more likely to be a better fielder: Someone who is failing the Yo-Yo Test or someone who is passing, considering all other skills to be the same.

Now let's see you dodge this again to the bitter end lol.

gotta admire your ability to try and bluff people ... here you are refusing to answer me by asking a question in response and then you have the gall to accuse me of dodging ?

So in the interest of time here is my response out of turn ...

From your own reference article you posted in Post#68 above:

All the strength and conditioning coaches agree that age does not normally have much of a bearing on the results of yo-yo tests. Misbah-ul-Haq, Luden says, got to 18:5 without any fuss in his farewell series, at the age of 42. Ashish Nehra, who retired at 39 recently, clocked 18:4 during a yo-yo test earlier this year - reportedly better even than the likes of Virat Kohli at the time. Ravindra Jadeja, India's best fieldsman, reportedly clocked 16:1

Now lets see you try and dodge this bullet and make a fool out of yourself by claiming that Nehra and Misbah are better fielders than Kohli, Jadeja and especially Raina (who failed the test twice BTW) )

Epic comedy gold incoming.

Pieces allowed to move differently? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. So now we are throwing grenades instead of cricket balls and batting with street light poles instead of cricket bats in cricket? God you are even more clueless than what I initially though.

Most lbw's today wouldnt count as an LBW back in the day. Thats direct alteration of playing conditions beyond recognition (And there are more). No such alterarion has happened in Chess. END OF STORY. You can cry all you want and type fake mock posts borne out of indignation but it wont change the fact.

bottom line is : changes in laws, changes in playing conditions, changes in amount of cricket played per day, professional vs amateur considerations all amount to dramatic changes. You can keep pretending otherwise but you aren't going to convince anyone.

Applying TuskerMaths: Mark Waugh = 128 Tests, more than 2x Bradman, so Mark Waugh >> Bradman, since he had tons more longevity than Bradman . Yeah, right.. way to bury your argument once again.

So no response to the Imran vs SRT comparison then ? Running away as usual ehh ?

Nobody compared Waugh to Bradman. That comparison is a non-starter due to factors other than longevity. Stick to Imran vs SRT who actually played against each other.

 

[Proactive_]

gotta admire your ability to try and bluff people ... here you are refusing to answer me by asking a question in response and then you have the gall to accuse me of dodging ?

So in the interest of time here is my response out of turn ...

From your own reference article you posted in Post#68 above:



Now lets see you try and dodge this bullet and make a fool out of yourself by claiming that Nehra and Misbah are better fielders than Kohli, Jadeja and especially Raina (who failed the test twice BTW) )

Epic comedy gold incoming.

Most lbw's today wouldnt count as an LBW back in the day. Thats direct alteration of playing conditions beyond recognition (And there are more). No such alterarion has happened in Chess. END OF STORY. You can cry all you want and type fake mock posts borne out of indignation but it wont change the fact.

bottom line is : changes in laws, changes in playing conditions, changes in amount of cricket played per day, professional vs amateur considerations all amount to dramatic changes. You can keep pretending otherwise but you aren't going to convince anyone.

Funnily, you've conveniently side stepped on the issue of changes in Chess training regimen something which has been substantiated to be of enormous importance by none other than former world champions.

But anyway, even while arguing in the little bubble that you want to put yourself in, what about the introduction of DRS in the 2010s which wasn't there before? Still not a massive change for you? Keep putting yourself in that hole man. I've seen you try to discredit performances as late as 1988 (Richard Hadlee's 10 for in Mumbai), and now you're trying to save the 90s honor. This is hilarious. As if suddenly cricket changed in 2 years from 1988 to 1990

So no response to the Imran vs SRT comparison then ? Running away as usual ehh ?

Nobody compared Waugh to Bradman. That comparison is a non-starter due to factors other than longevity. Stick to Imran vs SRT who actually played against each other.

It's a non comparison based on YOUR assumptions as well. Imran's career lasted from 1971-1992. Tendulkar's career lasted from 1989-2013. The span in which either of these two were playing extends a massive 42 years. Tell me how you're planning to conduct a fair analysis by YOUR standards when you've already said that you don't rate anything pre 1990s as evidenced by you disregarding Hadlee's performances in India in as late as 1988

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION]

I see that you completely side stepped the yo-yo Test point ... Gee whatta surprise NOT )

 

[Proactive_]

[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION]

I see that you completely side stepped the yo-yo Test point ... Gee whatta surprise NOT )

It's because I had already said that you would side step on my question and bring everything from the Sun, Moon and the Stars into it.. surprise NOT.

 

[Tusker]

I see you completely dodged the response to yo-yo Test. Whatta surprise NOT )

Funnily, you've conveniently side stepped on the issue of changes in Chess training regimen something which has been substantiated to be of enormous importance by none other than former world champions.


But anyway, even while arguing in the little bubble that you want to put yourself in, what about the introduction of DRS in the 2010s which wasn't there before? Still not a massive change for you? Keep putting yourself in that hole man. I've seen you try to discredit performances as late as 1988 (Richard Hadlee's 10 for in Mumbai), and now you're trying to save the 90s honor. This is hilarious. As if suddenly cricket changed in 2 years from 1988 to 1990

change in Playing conditions and rules completely supersede any training regimen related changes, it makes comparisons meaningless because there is no level playing field to make a rational comparison.

It's a non comparison based on YOUR assumptions as well. Imran's career lasted from 1971-1992. Tendulkar's career lasted from 1989-2013. The span in which either of these two were playing extends a massive 42 years. Tell me how you're planning to conduct a fair analysis by YOUR standards when you've already said that you don't rate anything pre 1990s as evidenced by you disregarding Hadlee's performances in India in as late as 1988

Playing Conditions in Tests haven't changed as dramatically in those 40 yrs as you think. In any case there is fair number of years that covers both players peaks 1980-2000 when playing conditions were same even there Tendulkar outguns Imran and keep in mind that Imran never played against SA which is to his advantage.

 

[Tusker]

It's because I had already said that you would side step on my question and bring everything from the Sun, Moon and the Stars into it.. surprise NOT.

ehh ? Your own article clearly tells that passing a yo-yo test has no bearing on fielding abilities unless in your bizarro world Nehra > Raina in fielding )

Keep in mind that Nehra at age 39 had a better score than Kohli at age 28 )

Thats exactly what you had asked ( Who of the two is more likely to be a better fielder: Someone who is failing the Yo-Yo Test or someone who is passing, )

 

[Proactive_]

change in Playing conditions and rules completely supersede any training regimen related changes, it makes comparisons meaningless because there is no level playing field to make a rational comparison.

Playing Conditions in Tests haven't changed as dramatically in those 40 yrs as you think. In any case there is fair number of years that covers both players peaks 1980-2000 when playing conditions were same even there Tendulkar outguns Imran and keep in mind that Imran never played against SA which is to his advantage.

If they haven't changed as dramatically as I think then why the hell have you been discrediting every single cricketer of the 80s and 70s since the time you signed up to this forum

Hell, as I said you've been discrediting performances upto as late as 1988, and now you're not ready for discrediting performances of the 90s, as if all the magic happened from 1990s onwards.

Oh and btw, I see you conveniently dodge the issue that I raised in the previous post which is D R S No wonder though.

 

[Proactive_]

ehh ? Your own article clearly tells that passing a yo-yo test has no bearing on fielding abilities unless in your bizarro world Nehra > Raina in fielding )

Keep in mind that Nehra at age 39 had a better score than Kohli at age 28 )

Thats exactly what you had asked ( Who of the two is more likely to be a better fielder: Someone who is failing the Yo-Yo Test or someone who is passing, )

I already mentioned that while considering all other skills to be the same, who would you expect to be a better fielder, someone who is failing the Test or someone who is passing. It's as simple as that, and that's obviously gotten under your skin to the point that now you need to bring in absurd X vs Y comparisons to try to save face.

 

[Tusker]

I already mentioned that while considering all other skills to be the same, who would you expect to be a better fielder, someone who is failing the Test or someone who is passing. It's as simple as that, and that's obviously gotten under your skin to the point that now you need to bring in absurd X vs Y comparisons to try to save face.

LMAO more epic comedy .... Ashish Nehra completely smoked Jadeja and Raina on the yo-yo test ( despite the age gap ) and here you are doggedly trying to claim that it helps in being a better fielder under whatever conditions ? )

 

[Tusker]

If they haven't changed as dramatically as I think then why the hell have you been discrediting every single cricketer of the 80s and 70s since the time you signed up to this forum

Hell, as I said you've been discrediting performances upto as late as 1988, and now you're not ready for discrediting performances of the 90s, as if all the magic happened from 1990s onwards.

Oh and btw, I see you conveniently dodge the issue that I raised in the previous post which is D R S No wonder though.

Two different things genius - One is overall cricketing standards based on skills and the other is the playing conditions and rules under which those standards are evaluated.

And I dont have a magic cut off year like you like to pretend. For example Wasim Akram is one of the best bowlers I have seen. Doesnt mean that everyone who played with him was a genius. It doesn't work that way as it takes time for standards to improve visibly. And I can definitely say that there is a Day and night difference between Bradmans time to now.

BTW The discrediting of modern cricketers is done by the old era fanatics .... take a look at [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] thread here for example --> http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...t-how-weak-is-Test-cricket-in-the-current-era

Or any thread started by Harsh Thakor and the posts by usual suspects lamenting the demise of "Real Cricket" in there and going in delirium discussing old cricketers. Go find a similar thread that I have opened where I make disparaging comments about the past players.

So generally what happens is I respond to these bakwas posts by asking them to prove their point using footage and they promptly disappear just like you do. Not one single one of them will engage in a deep technical analysis of old era players.

as an example I asked them to prove how Barry Richards was such a Technically great batsman using footage and explain his technique. IIRC only one poster made an attempt and when I countered he simply walked away. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] - the two biggest proponents of old is gold bakwas -- would never touch that post with a 10 foot pole for very obvious reasons but would continue to produce certificates of excellence signed by ex-cricketers.

My point is very simple - Stand up and prove your point like a man instead of trolling like a spoilt teen.

 

[Last Monetarist]

as an example I asked them to prove how Barry Richards was such a Technically great batsman using footage and explain his technique. IIRC only one poster made an attempt and when I countered he simply walked away. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] - the two biggest proponents of old is gold bakwas -- would never touch that post with a 10 foot pole for very obvious reasons but would continue to produce certificates of excellence signed by ex-cricketers.

I walked away because I felt it was a waste of time trying to convince you, as you were never going to change your mind. I've stated before I agree with you in principle, but there are certain topics on which I think you're just as dogmatic as the old is gold crowd.

 

[Junaids]

Their relative positions in their categories are:

- Don Bradman GOAT Number 3
- Glenn McGrath - not superior to Ambrose, Garner or Van Der Bijl
- Shane Warne GOAT leggie
- Sachin Tendulkar - not superior to Lara, Kallis or Ponting within own career
- Imran Khan - GOAT balanced all-rounder
- Wasim Akram - GOAT left arm quick joint with Davidson.
- Jacques Kallis - second best batting all-rounder behind Sobers. Equal batsman to Lara or Sachin, but with an additional 300 Test wickets too.
- Muttiah Muralitharan - convicted chucker and inferior offie to Jim Laker
- Brian Lara - not superior to Sachin, Ponting or Kallis in own career.
- Gary Sobers - GOAT batting all-rounder and cricketer.
- Malcolm Marshall - GOAT fast bowler
- Viv Richards - GOAT middle-order batsman

The glaring absentee for me is Barry Richards.

So overall I would say:

1. Sir Garfield Sobers
2. Malcolm Marshall
3. Sir Donald Bradman
4. Shane Warne
5. Imran Khan
6. Sir Vivian Richards
7. Wasim Akram
8. Jacques Kallis
9 = Brian Lara
9 = Sachin Tendulkar
11. Glenn McGrath
Not Classified: Muttiah Muralitharan.

I would insert the following however:

Barry Richards at Number 6 ahead of Viv Richards.

Jim Laker at Number 8 ahead of Jacques Kallis.

Godfrey Evans around Number 8 too as GOAT wicketkeeper.

 

[Tusker]

I walked away because I felt it was a waste of time trying to convince you, as you were never going to change your mind. I've stated before I agree with you in principle, but there are certain topics on which I think you're just as dogmatic as the old is gold crowd.

The only thing that Iam rigid about is facts that can atleast stand some basic scrutiny. Don't expect me to go by anything else. So in this case please prove that Barry Richards Technique is superior to say Virat Kohli or SRT's batting technique using footage and explaining it clearly using well known principles of batting technique why that is so. Can you do that ? If you do I will gladly change my opinion. However you cannot simply proclaim that since you know you are right therefore I must take your word and go with that. Thats not how a meaningful discussion works.

In other words ... raise the bar of discussion from the superficial exchange of subjective opinion to something more meaningful, concrete.

 

[Tusker]

If they haven't changed as dramatically as I think then why the hell have you been discrediting every single cricketer of the 80s and 70s since the time you signed up to this forum

Hell, as I said you've been discrediting performances upto as late as 1988, and now you're not ready for discrediting performances of the 90s, as if all the magic happened from 1990s onwards.

Oh and btw, I see you conveniently dodge the issue that I raised in the previous post which is D R S No wonder though.

The DRS is a red-herring in this discussion on Imran vs SRT because SRT played in just a handlful of Tests where DRS was used. Just because you say something doesnt make it a fact ... you need to learn that lesson quickly.

 

[Last Monetarist]

The only thing that Iam rigid about is facts that can atleast stand some basic scrutiny. Don't expect me to go by anything else. So in this case please prove that Barry Richards Technique is superior to say Virat Kohli or SRT's batting technique using footage and explaining it clearly using well known principles of batting technique why that is so. Can you do that ? If you do I will gladly change my opinion. However you cannot simply proclaim that since you know you are right therefore I must take your word and go with that. Thats not how a meaningful discussion works.

In other words ... raise the bar of discussion from the superficial exchange of subjective opinion to something more meaningful, concrete.

No, I won't do that because I was never foolish enough to make such a claim. My assertion was that Richards' low backlift won't hinder him in the modern era as there are lots of other players that have succeeded using low backlifts. I simply don't think there is a technical problem and unless you're a professional batting coach, my opinion is just as valid as yours.

 

[Tusker]

No, I won't do that because I was never foolish enough to make such a claim. My assertion was that Richards' low backlift won't hinder him in the modern era as there are lots of other players that have succeeded using low backlifts. I simply don't think there is a technical problem and unless you're a professional batting coach, my opinion is just as valid as yours.

I think you missed the context of that discussion ... and as with any discussion involving OLD vs NEW it was to do with how everything was better in the good old days and that those of us who were not around just do not get it.

Therefore I asked an open question to all those who swear by the old ERA cricketers and were drooling over Barry's batting prowess to stand up and tell us noobs what is so great about that batting display and the general quality of cricket in technical terms.

So if you agree that Kohli's technique is superior we have nothing to discuss and if you recall my technical analysis was concentrated on his batting stance with feet so close to each other unlike modern day greats. dont have to be a batting coach to spot that obvious big difference.

here is that thread --> http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?272365-Barry-Richards-The-myth

 

[Proactive_]

The DRS is a red-herring in this discussion on Imran vs SRT because SRT played in just a handlful of Tests where DRS was used. Just because you say something doesnt make it a fact ... you need to learn that lesson quickly.

But DRS is a massive change in Cricket playing conditions nevertheless. So it should render all the cricket before it as redundant based on your line of judgment, right?

 

[Proactive_]

Two different things genius - One is overall cricketing standards based on skills and the other is the playing conditions and rules under which those standards are evaluated.

And I dont have a magic cut off year like you like to pretend. For example Wasim Akram is one of the best bowlers I have seen. Doesnt mean that everyone who played with him was a genius. It doesn't work that way as it takes time for standards to improve visibly. And I can definitely say that there is a Day and night difference between Bradmans time to now.

So you will twist your own criteria as and when it suits you? Convenient. Give me a proper methodology on how you determine that Cricket at what times is worth rating to you because I find it hilarious that someone who doesn't rate performances taking place on as late as 1988 suddenly has no problem taking full cognizance of performances post 1990. That's hilarious.

BTW The discrediting of modern cricketers is done by the old era fanatics .... take a look at [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] thread here for example --> http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...t-how-weak-is-Test-cricket-in-the-current-era

Or any thread started by Harsh Thakor and the posts by usual suspects lamenting the demise of "Real Cricket" in there and going in delirium discussing old cricketers. Go find a similar thread that I have opened where I make disparaging comments about the past players.

So generally what happens is I respond to these bakwas posts by asking them to prove their point using footage and they promptly disappear just like you do. Not one single one of them will engage in a deep technical analysis of old era players.

as an example I asked them to prove how Barry Richards was such a Technically great batsman using footage and explain his technique. IIRC only one poster made an attempt and when I countered he simply walked away. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] - the two biggest proponents of old is gold bakwas -- would never touch that post with a 10 foot pole for very obvious reasons but would continue to produce certificates of excellence signed by ex-cricketers.

My point is very simple - Stand up and prove your point like a man instead of trolling like a spoilt teen.

Except that two wrongs don't actually make a right. You are just as responsible as people you accuse of disregarding players based on the eras they played in. You have no right to claim any high ground whatsoever.

 

[Tusker]

So you will twist your own criteria as and when it suits you? Convenient. Give me a proper methodology on how you determine that Cricket at what times is worth rating to you because I find it hilarious that someone who doesn't rate performances taking place on as late as 1988 suddenly has no problem taking full cognizance of performances post 1990. That's hilarious.

Except I haven't as this is not something new Iam saying. I have said this before and i will say it again - There is no magic cut-off date when things suddenly changed. If you think thats how it works then you are way more cuckoo than I thought.

However watching footage from the 1920s it stands out like a sore thumb due to the enormity of the change from then to now. Not so much from Imran's peak years to now.

Except that two wrongs don't actually make a right. You are just as responsible as people you accuse of disregarding players based on the eras they played in. You have no right to claim any high ground whatsoever.

Who is claiming high ground ? If anything its the old school proponents who constantly make these accusations and claim to be holier than thou ... I just step in and stop them dead in their tracks. However I don't see you lecturing these people for some reason .


Now that you acknowledge they are wrong lets see if you can bring yourself to similarly lecture these usual suspects. You will find almost all of them on the "Barry Richards - The Myth" thread shamelessly ignoring the obvious problem in their narrative of OLD is GOLD.

Go on lets see if you can bring yourself to lecture these guys heres your Golden chance to prove that you are impartial in that regard as you like to paint yourselves.

 

[Tusker]

But DRS is a massive change in Cricket playing conditions nevertheless. So it should render all the cricket before it as redundant based on your line of judgment, right?

Prove that it is a massive change with some deep statistical and logical analysis and I will agree with you.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION]

As usual I see you are quietly evading the main question I asked about yo-yo Test and its relationship to fielding Ditto with the points I made about Imran vs SRT w.r.t longevity . I take it that you concede

And that post has got what to do with fielding abilities and its relationship to yo-yo test ? Let me make it simpler for you : Does having a higher score on the yo-yo Test automatically make someone a better fielder ? Simple yes/no ( And there is a reason I wrote the word fielder in RED. Concentrate on that for now. We will get to batting and bowling later.)

 

[jadaja]

Imran was never an all rounder in strict sense, His last three hundreds came after 1987 when he was no longer that lethal bowler.

 

[DuckMaster]

My ranking of the lot (perception based):

01. Don Bradman
02. Viv Richards
03. Gary Sobers
04 Muttiah Muralitharan
05 Shane Warne
06 Malcolm Marshall
07 Glenn McGrath
08 Brian Lara
09 Jacques Kallis
10 Sachin Tendulkar
11 Imran Khan
12 Wasim Akram

 

[Proactive_]

Except I haven't as this is not something new Iam saying. I have said this before and i will say it again - There is no magic cut-off date when things suddenly changed. If you think thats how it works then you are way more cuckoo than I thought.

However watching footage from the 1920s it stands out like a sore thumb due to the enormity of the change from then to now. Not so much from Imran's peak years to now.[/QUOTE]

Well then why have you been discrediting performances until as late as 1988 as I mentioned earlier. What's your explanation for that? Besides, it's funny that you're asking for "statistical and logical analysis" later in your piece when you can't provide one for how performances in 1988 are not worth rating but performances in 1990 are lol.

Who is claiming high ground ? If anything its the old school proponents who constantly make these accusations and claim to be holier than thou ... I just step in and stop them dead in their tracks. However I don't see you lecturing these people for some reason .


Now that you acknowledge they are wrong lets see if you can bring yourself to similarly lecture these usual suspects. You will find almost all of them on the "Barry Richards - The Myth" thread shamelessly ignoring the obvious problem in their narrative of OLD is GOLD.

Go on lets see if you can bring yourself to lecture these guys heres your Golden chance to prove that you are impartial in that regard as you like to paint yourselves.

Why do you want me to fight your battles for you? You're sounding pretty desperate at this point.

 

[Proactive_]

[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION]

As usual I see you are quietly evading the main question I asked about yo-yo Test and its relationship to fielding Ditto with the points I made about Imran vs SRT w.r.t longevity . I take it that you concede

There's nothing to evade. I mean what should I tell to a guy who can't see the obvious correlation between stamina, endurance and it's effect on fielding standards. I never said that Yo-Yo test is the be all end all of fielding, I'm just saying that players not satisfying the minimum criteria for fitness won't make the team today, even if they might be the best batsmen in the team, such was not the case in the past. That's a big change in itself, which obviously you'll deny (again) to the bitter end.

 

[Minnowbasher]

Virat Kohli at number 1

 

[Tusker]

There's nothing to evade. I mean what should I tell to a guy who can't see the obvious correlation between stamina, endurance and it's effect on fielding standards. I never said that Yo-Yo test is the be all end all of fielding, I'm just saying that players not satisfying the minimum criteria for fitness won't make the team today, even if they might be the best batsmen in the team, such was not the case in the past. That's a big change in itself, which obviously you'll deny (again) to the bitter end.

Your own article clearly states that it has very little to do with improving actual skills. What it does help is in recovery time( which I doubt given Nehras pathetic track record.The guy rarely managed to play a full test series and gave up on Tests a long time ago )

Nehraji can further improve his yo-yo score but he ain't going to be diving around even if it was to dodge a bullet heading at him. Where as Raina who failed the test twice and finally cleared it did not suddenly become any better or worse at fielding. I can guarantee you that Jonty at age 45 was a better fielder than Nehra at 25 and spotless yo-yo score lol

 

[Tusker]

However watching footage from the 1920s it stands out like a sore thumb due to the enormity of the change from then to now. Not so much from Imran's peak years to now.

Well then why have you been discrediting performances until as late as 1988 as I mentioned earlier. What's your explanation for that? Besides, it's funny that you're asking for "statistical and logical analysis" later in your piece when you can't provide one for how performances in 1988 are not worth rating but performances in 1990 are lol.





Why do you want me to fight your battles for you? You're sounding pretty desperate at this point.

Fell right into the trap didn't you? Did you really think I expected you of all people who makes highly disparaging comments about modern mega greats such as SRT and Kohli to go ahead and start defending these players? ... hell might have to freeze over twice before there is even a possibility of that happening But yeah keep your holier than thou nonsense where the sun doesn't shine. Two wrongs dont make a right my butt ... do you even have the capacity to distinguish right from wrong ? )