ICF All Time Test XI : Openers

[Crookbond]

The guy thinks Underwood - a bowler whom Gavaskar gave almost a chapter in his book' date=' Idols - was a pie chucker. :hysterical:[/quote'] I think first we all need to make everyone understand the TRUE meaning of an "ALL TIME" World XI. You can't ignore players unless you even out the denominators (hypothetically). Obviously, this will be full of subjective decisions (which is clearly reflected in the vote variability on every poll) . However, I can assure you that you can just label a great player in any time as a "no match" for current players unless you have truly evened out the denominators.

[rkt.india]

The guy thinks Underwood - a bowler whom Gavaskar gave almost a chapter in his book' date=' Idols - was a pie chucker. :hysterical:[/quote'] and I did all doodh ka doodh paani ka paani then and if you do not want to accept that it is you problem.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[rkt.india]

I think first we all need to make everyone understand the TRUE meaning of an "ALL TIME" World XI. You can't ignore players unless you even out the denominators (hypothetically). Obviously' date=' this will be full of subjective decisions (which is clearly reflected in the vote variability on every poll) . However, I can assure you that you can just label a great player in any time as a "no match" for current players unless you have truly evened out the denominators.[/quote'] World XIs are hypothetical yes, but you can chose only 11 players out of 100s of great players. Problem what I had talked about earlier is this. We had three players of similar test records, all time greats, Hobbs, Sutcliff, and Hutton all three openers and now tell how should I justify selection of one over the others when I haven't seen much of them and their is nothing to be differentiated in their records.

[The Outsider]

and I did all doodh ka doodh paani ka paani then and if you do not want to accept that it is you problem.

Yeah doodh ka doodh paani ka paani like proving Bedi, Prasanna, Lillee, Holding to be pie chuckers.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

World XIs are hypothetical yes' date=' but you can chose only 11 players out of 100s of great players. Problem what I had talked about earlier is this. We had three players of similar test records, all time greats, Hobbs, Sutcliff, and Hutton all three openers and now tell how should I justify selection of one over the others when I haven't seen much of them and their is nothing to be differentiated in their records.[/quote'] Didn't I reply to that, but as Lurker said you are a "dheeth" - you keep on repeating the same things even when being replied to as if no reply was given to your query.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[rkt.india]

Didn't I reply to that' date=' but as Lurker said you are a "dheeth" - you keep on repeating the same things even when being replied to as if no reply was given to your query.[/quote'] Because that was not a solution.

[The Outsider]

Because that was not a solution.

What was not a solution?

[rkt.india]

Yeah doodh ka doodh paani ka paani like proving Bedi' date=' Prasanna, Lillee, Holding to be pie chuckers.[/quote'] Where did I say Lillee, Prasanna, Holding were pic chuckers. I have seen videos of most why dont try to find the reason why I said Underwood pie chucker or just better than Vettori and Ojha. By pie chucker, I meant he was not as good as was hyped by people. If one reads what experts and ex-players say and then watch those videos, he will have the same opinion. Why do you think Underwood was better than Vettori or Ojha while they have similar records.

[rkt.india]

What was not a solution?

you reply to my query?

[Crookbond]

World XIs are hypothetical yes' date=' but you can chose only 11 players out of 100s of great players. Problem what I had talked about earlier is this. [b']We had three players of similar test records, all time greats, Hobbs, Sutcliff, and Hutton all three openers and now tell how should I justify selection of one over the others when I haven't seen much of them and their is nothing to be differentiated in their records.

It's a subjective call - but I wouldn't question your subjective call and tell that you're a retard who can't see what's going around. I doubt one has ever argued who a person chooses but you keep calling names - pie chucker etc. which may not really be true since you have not evened out the bases on both sides. Your weighing scale is already heavily tilted to one particular side.

[The Outsider]

Where did I say Lillee' date= Prasanna, Holding were pic chuckers. I have seen videos of most why dont try to find the reason why I said Underwood pie chucker or just better than Vettori and Ojha. By pie chucker, I meant he was not as good as was hyped by people. If one reads what experts and ex-players say and then watch those videos, he will have the same opinion.

You don't have to say it - it's a ready inference which can be drawn from the fact that Underwood who averaged better or around the same level as these bowlers playing in the same era was a pie chucker. What's Vettori and Ojha's record against better players of spin bowling? What's Underwood's record against the better players of spin bowling. The guy has one of the best records in India for a spin bowler. From Bevan he became Ojha, and now "just better" than Vettori. I await your next change in stance.

Why do you think Underwood was better than Vettori or Ojha while they have similar records.

They don't have similar records. On the most basic parameter - bowling average - Underwood is much better. And if you consider strike rate to be the most basic parameter you would also agree that Waqar is better than Marshall and McGrath which is frankly laughable.

[The Outsider]

you reply to my query?

What did you understand from it?

[rkt.india]

It's a subjective call - but I wouldn't question your subjective call and tell that you're a retard who can't see what's going around. I doubt one has ever argued who a person chooses but you keep calling names - pie chucker etc. which may not really be true since you have not evened out the bases on both sides. Your weighing scale is already heavily tilted to one particular side.

I would certainly be biased towards whom I have seen and be in awe of them and praise them to the fullest and to whole of my vocab capability and hyperbole like authors have talked about the old players who they have seen. You are right we should see them based on the time and environment they played and I dont say they were not great players but in their eras. Regarding pic chucker term. Yes, I should not have used this term, but seriously believe me, this was the first word came to my mind when I saw the video of Underwood. If Underwood is regarded as one of the greatest spinners to have played, I guess Vettoris, Hoggs, Ojhas, Murli Karthiks deserve that too.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[rkt.india]

You don't have to say it - it's a ready inference which can be drawn from the fact that Underwood who averaged better or around the same level as these bowlers playing in the same era was a pie chucker. What's Vettori and Ojha's record against better players of spin bowling? What's Underwood's record against the better players of spin bowling. The guy has one of the best records in India for a spin bowler. From Bevan he became Ojha, and now "just better" than Vettori. I await your next change in stance. They don't have similar records. On the most basic parameter - bowling average - Underwood is much better. And if you consider strike rate to be the most basic parameter you would also agree that Waqar is better than Marshall and McGrath which is frankly laughable.

I compared the style of Bewan and Underwood not their ability. Regarding Ojha and Vettori comparing, both are average test spinners, one has played more matches but I cannot say he is distinctly superior than Ojha in test cricket. And regarding, SR and average question, no I dont take just one thing as a measure of greatness, it is both the things should come together, not just because both these things affect each other. Most great bowlers in any era who had good average, also had good SR. High SR means, one isn't a real strike bowler.

[Crookbond]

I would certainly be biased towards whom I have seen and be in awe of them and praise them to the fullest and to whole of my vocab capability and hyperbole like authors have talked about the old players who they have seen. You are right we should see them based on the time and environment they played and I dont say they were not great players but in their eras. Regarding pic chucker term. Yes, I should not have used this term, but seriously believe me, this was the first word came to my mind when I saw the video of Underwood. If Underwood is regarded as one of the greatest spinners to have played, I guess Vettoris, Hoggs, Ojhas, Murli Karthiks deserve that too.

That's fair enough - some of us have a different outlook. Is it so hard to accept that I rate Underwood a better spinner than Vettori and Ojha. (Karthik seriously for FFS?)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --