• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Greatest batting line up of all-time

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
some people may think I am stupid for saying Flintoff is such and such..or Botham was better than Dev...but this has to be the most idiotic thing I have read on here
Possibly just an exaggeration - but the thinking along those lines, even, is stupid enough.
 

C_C

International Captain
Richard said:
Possibly just an exaggeration - but the thinking along those lines, even, is stupid enough.
an exgaggeration, i agree.
Bradman's invincibles stood out a quantum ahead of the rest and that must be counted.
But i doubt Bradman would've averaged more than 65-75 in the post 60s era and i think almost every one of them would've taken a knock in their stats if fastforwarded 20-30 years or so.... bradman is still the best though, because he was so far ahead that even taking a knock would make him come out the best.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
And you could say exactly the same about all batsmen of the 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s if they were rewound 40 or 50 years... or 60 or 70 even more so.
 

C_C

International Captain
And you could say exactly the same about all batsmen of the 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s if they were rewound 40 or 50 years... or 60 or 70 even more so.
doubt it.
the game had developed more and the skillsets were higher developed IMO...
you could make an argument that if Bradman was born in the modern era, he might've taken a less of a hit or if Hammond was born in the modern era, he might've done comparatively well but if you straight-lift the level of competence, then they all take a hit comming into the professional era.
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
I'd like to see the current day batsmen play Larwood, Voce, O'Reilly and Grimmett on an uncovered, underprepared wicket.

Techniques were still well developed back then (eg a cover drive was basically the same) and crowds were huge, so you can't assume that pressure wasn't the same.

It's not like bowlers were total dross, either.

Just because six-figure incomes weren't at stake doesn't mean it can be assumed that the players didn't try their best.
 
Last edited:

C_C

International Captain
No, it can't - any optical specialist will tell you that.
One told me, for that matter.
And hence I've explained how you can't use a chain theorem.
And i've two opticians in my family who told me otherwise....not to mention the optician i went to for my glasses 2 years back.


I'd like to see the current day batsmen play Larwood, Voce, O'Reilly and Grimmett on an uncovered, underprepared wicket.
I would rather play Larwood, Voce, O'Reiley and Grimmett any day of the week over Marshall,Lillee,Hadlee,Akram,McGrath,Warne,Murali etc.

Techniques were still well developed back then (eg a cover drive was basically the same) and crowdes were huge, so you can't assume that pressure wasn't the same.
crowd doesnt equate to the same level of pressure......a sunday league match has crowd....same pressure ?
they were namby pamby players who flipped out when the heat was turned on. Eng whined when Constantine used bodyline....aussies whined when the english used bodyline...the WI wernt happy with the quality and nagging accuracy of the aussie spinners, etc etc.
And technique was not as developed back then. Not from what i've read.
a cover drive doesnt equate to technique.....else all batsmen have excellent techniques coz everyone can play a cover drive
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
C_C said:
I would rather play Larwood, Voce, O'Reiley and Grimmett any day of the week over Marshall,Lillee,Hadlee,Akram,McGrath,Warne,Murali etc.
Ah, but that lot are spread over three or four different eras. The bowlers previously mentioned are all in one generation, and bloody legendary at that!
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
C_C said:
crowd doesnt equate to the same level of pressure......a sunday league match has crowd....same pressure ?
they were namby pamby players who flipped out when the heat was turned on. Eng whined when Constantine used bodyline....aussies whined when the english used bodyline...the WI wernt happy with the quality and nagging accuracy of the aussie spinners, etc etc.
And technique was not as developed back then. Not from what i've read.

a cover drive doesnt equate to technique.....else all batsmen have excellent techniques coz everyone can play a cover drive
You see teams buckling under pressure in any era you care to mention.
It's very unfair to attribute that to earlier teams alone.

What about the underarm incident in Australia? The domination of the West Indies? The chucking controversy?

I'm thinking that you're equating pressure with money and TV coverage.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No, he just has this crazy idea that almost all players who didn't play at the time when every player was a professional didn't take the game seriously.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
C_C said:
And i've two opticians in my family who told me otherwise....not to mention the optician i went to for my glasses 2 years back.
Lucky you... seems to have given you a bad impression.
Were they all from the subcontinent and cricket fans as well...? Just wondering.
 

ReallyCrazy

Banned
Richard said:
No, he just has this crazy idea that almost all players who didn't play at the time when every player was a professional didn't take the game seriously.
I just want to make a point here. I think C_C has said some valid things. The level of professionalism in the game has increased. Back then, the players were only part timers and on average, did not take the game as seriously as players do now. I don't have the evidence for this but I think this is a good supposition.

Also the level of skillset, strength, stamina and fitness has increased in the sport today. Players spend a lot of time looking at videos of both themselves and the opposition. They want to sort out their technique and find loopholes in the opposition. There is also a full time coach travelling with the team. Back then, this was not done. Hence, I'd say the skills of players today (on average) is much higher than the guys of yesteryear.

Today players go to the gym regularly and use state-of-the-art equipment. Both cardio and weight training is done. This equates to both higher stamina and strength. A ball can be bowled faster, fielding is more athletic, etc.

In any sport, records are always meant to be broken. Id you look at running or swimming..you get an idea of how records are broken. Same with cricket.

Bradman's invincibles were no doubt good for their time. Bradman was no doubt great. But I don't think his team or himself would fare that well if a good from today timetravelled. However, if Bradman was born in this era, then I'm sure, he'd have made use of all the available technology and equipment and become the best batsman of today.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
ReallyCrazy said:
In any sport, records are always meant to be broken. Id you look at running or swimming..you get an idea of how records are broken. Same with cricket.
This is simply untrue because cricket is not purely a contest of physical ability. You can assume that in time with changes in technology, advances in training methods and increased levels of overall professionalism that things like stamina, speed, strength etc will rise. This is why in pure athletic contests performance levels increase over time, and while a truly great athlete may be well ahead of the pack in their own time and increase the time gap before their records are finally broken, it is basically inevitable that they will be eventually surpassed.

Cricket however involves other things than simply athletic ability. Take other Olympic sports which take more things into account... like say archery. There is no reason at all to assume automatically that someone who is an Olympic archer today is significantly better than their predeccessors. The physical requirements of archery are reasonably limited and being stronger or putting more time in at the gym will have a minimal effect on your performance. It is a sport of hand-eye coordination and concentration, and if someone was a brilliant archer 100 years ago they would be just as good today, and if they absolutely dominated archery and were miles ahead of the competition 100 years ago they would most likely also be today.

There are more purely physical elements involved in cricket of course, but given that a) it is a game which involves cerebral, non-physical elements and b) it is a direct contest between individuals and teams and not simply a contest against the clock, increased levels of professionalism, training and fitness would have a minimal impact on the overall playing ability compared to sports like athletics and swimming.

Some elements of the game may well have changed. Fielding is probably sharper and greater efforts are made in that area, express bowlers might be a little quicker... and players are paid more and therefore might dedicate more time to improving their game. However, there is absolutely no reason to think that a batsman's concentration or hand-eye coordination would be better today than in Bradman's era, nor would one automatically assume that your average pace bowler would know more about how to swing the ball or get it to move off the seam than say Larwood or Davidson. Why would a slip fielder automatically have better reflexes today than in say the 50s? What leads you to believe that your everyday leg spinner knows more about how to decieve the batsman than they did when Grimmett was bowling? It's just ludicrous to suggest that every skill in cricket can be so clearly measured and improved over time. Some things are based on inherent ability and dedication to your craft, and those things are based on individuals and how they play and not on training regimen or big paychecks.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
I think if a player was good in his generation then he would be good in another generation. If guys like Bradman, Hobbs, G Headley and others were playing cricket now they probably still dominent the game like they did in their generations. The technical side of the game hasn't changed over the years, just the physical side. As players in this generation have gotten used to this change i'm sure the order generation would too. Also i doubt bowler were that slower back then either, their were guys like Spofforth, Tyson, harwood and others who were as fast as the current bowlers, if not faster.
 

Swervy

International Captain
chaminda_00 said:
I think if a player was good in his generation then he would be good in another generation. If guys like Bradman, Hobbs, G Headley and others were playing cricket now they probably still dominent the game like they did in their generations. The technical side of the game hasn't changed over the years, just the physical side. As players in this generation have gotten used to this change i'm sure the order generation would too. Also i doubt bowler were that slower back then either, their were guys like Spofforth, Tyson, harwood and others who were as fast as the current bowlers, if not faster.
Spoffoth was apparently not that quick
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Tyson bruised people through their pads, something no-one has ever done before or since.
That's quite enough for me.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
chaminda_00 said:
Also i doubt bowler were that slower back then either, their were guys like Spofforth, Tyson, harwood and others who were as fast as the current bowlers, if not faster.
There's absolutely no reason why people should have faster arms now than they used to have.
 

Top