Cricketweb poster with the best understanding of the game

[FaaipDeOiad]

empirically that would put them about level with the Saurav Gangulys and Graham Thorpes of the world.

There is nothing "empirical" about your views about the comparitive value of runs in the 30s compared to now. You have an arbirtrarily set period where you think cricket "becomes professional", not based on scholarly research but simply your own opinions. I would consider the 30s to be the beginning of the same period in cricket that you think starts in the 50s. Please explain to me how you used empyrical data to ascertain that cricket was professional in the 50s but not in the 30s.

 

[C_C]

You have an arbirtrarily set period where you think cricket "becomes professional", not based on scholarly research but simply your own opinions.

I have quoted a few scholarly research texts here before.So your quote there at best is miniformed assumption and at worst disingenous and faceteous.
Most scholarly opinion on the matter agree that cricket didnt become a professional sport until sometime in the mid/late 50s.

Please explain to me how you used empyrical data to ascertain that cricket was professional in the 50s but not in the 30s.

you will find a very good answer in ' a social history of English Cricket' by Derek Berley which underlines the complex socio-economic and class structure in the eras alongside the struggles amongst the various factions in the MCC and when cricket actually matured as a professional sport.

 

[marc71178]

I never thought I'd say this, but I think Richard's theories are now only 2nd in the list of bizarre ones.

The Namby Pamby theory has beaten him.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I never thought I'd say this, but I think Richard's theories are now only 2nd in the list of bizarre ones.

The Namby Pamby theory has beaten him.

Nah, McGrath being lucky and so on are more bizarre than the namby pamby theory, primarily because the theory has validity if it's for say, the runs that W.G. Grace scored in 1870s first class cricket in England. Certainly he was great, but the standard was obviously very different to later.

When talking about the 30s however, an era packed with great players all round and half a century after the beginning of test cricket, it's ridiculous.

 

[Tapioca]

That period had one distinct #1 and one distinct #2 - Bradman and Headley respectively....all the rest take a backseat to these two....

Headley was undisputed #2 ? Don't believe the numbers (and CLR James) blindly

Check the series averages of Headley before the war:

1929-30 : 703 at 87.87 v Eng
Bowlers : Voce (20 year old debutant), Nigel Haig, 52 year old Rhodes, Greville Stevens, Jack O'Connor, Ewart Astill, Len Townsend

1933 : 227 at 55 v Eng
Bowlers : George Macaulay, Gubby Allen, Verity, Walter Robins, James Langridge and 'Father' Marriot. When Headley score his only 100 of the series the attack was Nobby Clark, Macaulay, Robins, Verity and Langridge

1934/5 : 485 at 97 v Eng
Bowlers : Jim Smith, Bob Wyatt, Eric Hollies, Some Paine, and Ken Farnes

1939 : 334 at 66 v Eng
Bowlers : Bill Bowes, Bill Copson, Doug Wright, Headley Verity, Tom Goddard, Morris Nichols, Reg PErks

In his 14 test against England, the England first XI bowlers that he faced were Farnes (2 tests), Verity (3) , Allen (1), Wright (3) and Bowes(2) who was past his prime. No wonder he scored heavily.

Australia fielded their full strength side against West Indies. They weren't all that strong themselves beyond Grimmett. O'Reilly did not play in any Test. And Headley scored 336 in 5 tests at 37. This was probably more like his real average.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And Headley scored 336 in 5 tests at 37. This was probably more like his real average.

Not at all fair on Headley in my opinion. I agree that he wasn't the clear number two in his era when he played at the same time as the likes of Hammond, Sutcliffe and so on, but he was obviously a much better player than a 37 average.

It's true that when he scored heavily against England they weren't fielding their best bowling lineups seen in the period, but all of Allen, Bowes and Verity were quality bowlers by any standard, particularly the latter two.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Define professionalism...

 

[a massive zebra]

Displaying methods, character, or standards relating to, engaged in, or suitable for engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Displaying methods, character, or standards relating to, engaged in, or suitable for engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career.

Sounds like 30s test cricket to me.

 

[Tapioca]

Not at all fair on Headley in my opinion.

It is not, and I don't believe it myself. Since Jardine was being called a cry-baby, I thought of going in the other direction, that's all.

 

[psxpro]

psxpro has the best understnading of the game

 

[Pratters]

Some for me:

David Lewis
Dale Brumby
Slow Love
Jono Augustus
Jack McNamara
Neil Pickup
Eddie Sanders

 

[silentstriker]

1. Silentstriker
2. Goughy
3. SJS

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Anyone but me, a lot of you seem to have your facts right.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Neil, Sean Fuller, SJS, Goughy and Jono are probably the most knowledgable in my mind.

 

[adharcric]

Fuller, SJS and Goughy at the moment.

 

[Xuhaib]

Fuller, SJS and Goughy at the moment.

Ditto.

Guys I am not that bad

 

[AussieDominance]

Rodgie

 

[adharcric]

Ditto.

Guys I am not that bad

Don't worry, you're almost at my level but I doubt you'll ever attain the heights of silentstriker.

 

[Xuhaib]

Don't worry, you're almost at my level but I doubt you'll ever attain the heights of silentstriker.

Ofcourse,we are the Chanderpauls of this world and we will never be able to reach his Lara-esque levels.