Greatest left hand bat since Sobers - AB or BCL?

PearlJ wrote:

JKLever wrote:

PearlJ wrote:I have a pro-Aussie bias where as you quite early have an anti-Aussie bias.

So not thinking every Aussie in world cricket deserves to have a wankfest about him = anti-aussie bias?

Righto

If you want to think that then go ahead. But I never said that.

But you said we clearly have an anti-Aussie bias. On what basis then?

JKLever wrote:

PearlJ wrote:

JKLever wrote:

PearlJ wrote:I have a pro-Aussie bias where as you quite early have an anti-Aussie bias.

So not thinking every Aussie in world cricket deserves to have a wankfest about him = anti-aussie bias?

Righto

If you want to think that then go ahead. But I never said that.

But you said we clearly have an anti-Aussie bias. On what basis then?

On the same basis that you call me one-eyed all the time.

But you are one-eyed all the time.

PearlJ wrote:

Unlike you..... 'Viv? Shits all over Border'..

That was me. And I think he did in comparison with each other. Accepted their stats are very similar.

Never said Border was not from the very top drawer though.

JKLever wrote:

PearlJ wrote:

Unlike you..... 'Viv? Shits all over Border'..

That was me. And I think he did in comparison with each other. Accepted their stats are very similar.

Never said Border was not from the very top drawer though.

Don't be so harsh on yourself..... that was BM.....

Maybe I was just thinking it then?

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:But you are one-eyed all the time.

Eye, more one eyed than a trouser snake.

PearlJ wrote:
OK, if we can just get over the fact that I am a wankstain......

I never said AB was miles better than Viv. Obviously they are very close.

Unlike you..... 'Viv? Shits all over Border'.... now if that were true surely it would be reflected in Viv having much better stats than Border.... which he doesn't. That was all I meant when I pointed out that AB's average was better.

And the rest sir. But yeah, my comment was risable.

Doesn't make my comment any better or worse than posting some weirdo dross.

As peterg highlighted, it is quite moot - AB had to stick around and Viv didn't necessarily. Hence the 5-6 RPI difference between the two, when taking out their *'s.

Why is it that if an 'Aussie' prefers AB over Viv they are immediately denounced as being 'one eyed' and parochial?

Why can't they have an opinion like everyone else?

Screaming 'bias' and '' when someone says something you don't agree with is pretty pathetic, IMHO.

Of course I'm just bias and .

Invader Zim wrote:Why is it that if an 'Aussie' prefers AB over Viv they are immediately denounced as being 'one eyed' and parochial?

Why can't they have an opinion like everyone else?

Screaming 'bias' and '' when someone says something you don't agree with is pretty pathetic, IMHO.

Of course I'm just bias and .

No, having an opinion is perfectly fine Zimmy.

No ones saying Aussies are one eyed because they think Border was better. It's the use of stats to mock one player and then not take them into account when a counter argument takes place in another example - that is incredibly

And we're not calling PJ because he's an aussie, it's because he's a

JKLever wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:Why is it that if an 'Aussie' prefers AB over Viv they are immediately denounced as being 'one eyed' and parochial?

Why can't they have an opinion like everyone else?

Screaming 'bias' and '' when someone says something you don't agree with is pretty pathetic, IMHO.

Of course I'm just bias and .

No, having an opinion is perfectly fine Zimmy.

No ones saying Aussies are one eyed because they think Border was better. It's the use of stats to mock one player and then not take them into account when a counter argument takes place in another example - that is incredibly

And we're not calling PJ because he's an aussie, it's because he's a

Yes, fair enough. Doesn't make my points any less valid though.

JKLever wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:

Now if you had worded it like that in the first place...

I didn't word it any way. I hadn't expressed a view at all, yet you lot had all assumed I'd go for AB cos I was an Aussie.

I was just factoring in that it seemed that way, and was nothing more than -dness because people who used to say the same thing about Kallis compared to Punter were now saying the counter argument against Border wasn't valid.

But fair enough, you weren't one of them...

FWIW - I was one who has had a go at Kallis in comparo to Ponting but I never contradicted that reasoning in saying that AB was better than Viv. I take the Zim view of the world on the AB v Viv.

Some points everyone might agree with.

Viv was a considerably better ODI batsman than AB. But then he was better than every other batsman who'd ever played ODI's.

AB was a very fine fieldsman but Viv, especially in his youth, was still better.

Neither was a great natural captain. Each improved in the job. AB had the harder task initially, by far.

Each was a useful "spin" bowler, but Border perhaps a little more so.

peterg makes a good point about ODIs. Much of the Viv legend has been based on his JAMODI exploits - limited over cricket being a game that could have been invented with Viv in mind. ABs legend is almost solely based on what he did in Tests.

It is possible to compare apples and oranges. Oranges taste better.

I would happily agree with various people that Viv was a better attacking player, and had more natural talent than AB. I also think Viv was one of the greatest ODI bats ever, and would probably own the no. 3 spot in an all time ODI XI, while AB wouldn't be within light years of the discussion.

That one player scores faster than another is relevant, but not necessarily a clincher. Some have said that Viv didn't care about averages; you could equally well say AB cared more about the team and fought to preserve his wicket for the cause, which surely goes into assessments of who was the greater player. People have said Viv didn't have to defend; could he have? If the team had been weak, could Viv have found (even to the extent Lara did) the character to knuckle down for the cause? Or would he have dashed his wicket away earlier due to less support, and his record have been significantly worse?

An obvious comparison comes to mind: Chris Gayle has more talent in his little finger than Mike Atherton had in his whole body, scores faster, dominates where Athers defended, has more shots... but how many England fans bigging up Viv over AB would pick Gayle over Athers in tests if they could have only one of them? Honestly?

What JGK said.

I think much of the Viv mythos, regarding his 'swagger' and ability to 'destroy' the opposition comes from what he did to various teams in the shorter form of the game. His test achievements are far less remarkable.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

JGK wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:


I was pretty spot on with my 65-70 guess for Viv! Whoo!

Is no-one interested in this list? :|


Took me bloody ages to find it.

Here is z-score's list:


http://www.sportstats.com.au/hotscore.html

I thought Compton would be on the list, near the top. He's not even on it and it stops at 50. When Pietersen was emerging as a Viv-like player, Boycott was in the media saying he was just like Denis Compton. Strange.

Sign of the era I guess. Compton was quick by the standards of the time. The really surprising ones are Sobers and Hammond.

Ian Bell is the 81st fastest scorer in test cricket of all time. Cool...

JKLever wrote:Ian Bell is the 81st fastest scorer in test cricket of all time. Cool...

That means he's better than Hobbs.

JKLever wrote:Ian Bell is the 81st fastest scorer in test cricket of all time. Cool...

On the cusp of speed.

An obvious comparison comes to mind: Chris Gayle has more talent in his little finger than Mike Atherton had in his whole body, scores faster, dominates where Athers defended, has more shots... but how many England fans bigging up Viv over AB would pick Gayle over Athers in tests if they could have only one of them? Honestly?

How many Australian fans bigging up Border over Viv would take Dravid or Kallis over Ponting? Honestly?

None. That's how many.

Leo wrote:It is possible to compare apples and oranges. Oranges taste better.

F*ck off, apples are the daddy and clearly taste better.

Leo wrote:I would happily agree with various people that Viv was a better attacking player, and had more natural talent than AB. I also think Viv was one of the greatest ODI bats ever, and would probably own the no. 3 spot in an all time ODI XI, while AB wouldn't be within light years of the discussion.

Not even debatable, yeah.

Leo wrote:
That one player scores faster than another is relevant, but not necessarily a clincher. Some have said that Viv didn't care about averages; you could equally well say AB cared more about the team and fought to preserve his wicket for the cause, which surely goes into assessments of who was the greater player. People have said Viv didn't have to defend; could he have? If the team had been weak, could Viv have found (even to the extent Lara did) the character to knuckle down for the cause? Or would he have dashed his wicket away earlier due to less support, and his record have been significantly worse?

I'm not sure scoring faster alludes to a better player, as such. It alludes to one who looks after his wicket less. Hence, someone with relative averages who scores at a lesser pace possibly did it because he was a less talented batsman - or as mentioned because he had to dig in. Viv wasn't a failure at scoring quick and therefore, it seems to me that had he had to, he'd have been able to grind it out. For me, he obviously rarely felt the need to - or had the luxury not to. I genuinely think he could've averaged a good deal more if he was forced to by abject teammates.

Leo wrote:
An obvious comparison comes to mind: Chris Gayle has more talent in his little finger than Mike Atherton had in his whole body, scores faster, dominates where Athers defended, has more shots... but how many England fans bigging up Viv over AB would pick Gayle over Athers in tests if they could have only one of them? Honestly?

I'm not really going to get into this one. The era's they spanned are a stark contrast to each other. So, to me it clearly isn't an obvious comparison. Mike Atherton was incredibly unfortunate to have 4-7 bowlers with the physics and talent to exploit(IMO) his only real weakness - the tendency to push at one rising outside of off stump. One spanned their eras and the only other one I can think of is Steve Harmison, which is to an extent pretty moot - due to GBH's erratic form as well as the fact he and Athers are English. He was much more worth his (relatively) pitiful average. To be outlandish and surmise, I'd say he'd be around the 47 mark in this era.

As for the "could Viv defend question", from his cricinfo profile:

His power was awesome, he hooked devastatingly and never wore a helmet, rocking back from his front-foot base to take the ball from his eyeline in front of square. Occasionally, for no apparent reason, he would block an over in immaculate fashion, seemingly in defensive position before the ball had left the bowler's hand. Then, refreshed, off he would go again.

As an outsider, it is Viv for me, every time.

taipan wrote:As an outsider, it is Viv for me, every time.

Viv or Barry?