Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
All Other Sports
GOAT - The eternal debate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Reiser99" data-source="post: 1018770" data-attributes="member: 72977"><p>It's an interesting question because you could have someone with amazing stats who has only played 3 games. It's why most stats usually have a minimum number of games. I think in cricket it might be 10. However, 10 matches compared with 200 matches (and I'm assuming that's matches not tests, so tests would be even higher and innings further still) is like chalk and cheese. Anyone can have a good start to their career, but to still be playing at a high level after 200 is an incredible feat. There was an interesting stat about Jimmy Anderson recently and how he's actually been a better bowler since he turned 30 and would beat most England bowlers in the record lists just since turning 30. </p><p></p><p>If I was to answer this question seriously, I don't think you can because there are far too many variable factors. It's hard enough even within a generation. For example many people might say BOD was the best rugby player of his time, but then you also have Carter and McCaw etc... How would people view BOD if he'd been part of an AB's world cup winning side? Or does the fact that he was so impressive in an Irish side that was so inconsistent that he should be better than 2 players who had a great team around them.</p><p></p><p>Can even do a proper poll as one's in Britain for almost any sport tend to be skewed towards British players and they definitely get the nod over others. Yes there might be your Tendulkars or your Carters, but hell I imagine before recently Farrell would have been in the conversation for most people and I definitely don't think he should have been in the discussion, even before his current form.</p><p></p><p>Simply there are far too many varying factors and even then people have different biases on what is more important.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Reiser99, post: 1018770, member: 72977"] It's an interesting question because you could have someone with amazing stats who has only played 3 games. It's why most stats usually have a minimum number of games. I think in cricket it might be 10. However, 10 matches compared with 200 matches (and I'm assuming that's matches not tests, so tests would be even higher and innings further still) is like chalk and cheese. Anyone can have a good start to their career, but to still be playing at a high level after 200 is an incredible feat. There was an interesting stat about Jimmy Anderson recently and how he's actually been a better bowler since he turned 30 and would beat most England bowlers in the record lists just since turning 30. If I was to answer this question seriously, I don't think you can because there are far too many variable factors. It's hard enough even within a generation. For example many people might say BOD was the best rugby player of his time, but then you also have Carter and McCaw etc... How would people view BOD if he'd been part of an AB's world cup winning side? Or does the fact that he was so impressive in an Irish side that was so inconsistent that he should be better than 2 players who had a great team around them. Can even do a proper poll as one's in Britain for almost any sport tend to be skewed towards British players and they definitely get the nod over others. Yes there might be your Tendulkars or your Carters, but hell I imagine before recently Farrell would have been in the conversation for most people and I definitely don't think he should have been in the discussion, even before his current form. Simply there are far too many varying factors and even then people have different biases on what is more important. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
All Other Sports
GOAT - The eternal debate
Top