Nice question. Made me think of literature on insect signalling (which is not always cooperative). Maybe worth looking at Ulrich Stegmann’s work on that.

Just looked it up. Odd. Frank assumes "the point of batting is to make runs". Not at all obvious. Batting can be good for many incommensurable things, so there's no unique "best batsman". (Also Frank mis-spells Hobbs in his first line, which rather diminishes his authority on these matters.)

Not sure what Frank has in mind. He discerns a lot more conceptual mistakes than I do. Myself I grew up with Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock and and doubt any batsmen have been greater than them. Maybe Sobers.

Some philosophical arguments are well-known only because they provoke intense debate about which of their flaws is the most important one

"Any beginner in philosophy can manage not to understand, say, Hegel, but I have heard people who were so advanced that they knew how not to understand writers of such limpid clarity as Bertrand Russell or A. J. Ayer."

5-for-51

Except Smith promptly has a yahoo at Markham of all people and here he is trudging back to the pavilion woo hoo