• 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

twctopcat

International Regular
Richard said:
Tyson bruised people through their pads, something no-one has ever done before or since.
That's quite enough for me.
Now that is a bit of a random one, unless you are some sort of universal team doctor how can you know this to be true?
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
ReallyCrazy said:
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.
Players have always received payment for playing, and there have always been full-timers aplenty, ever since the middle of the 19th-century.
Nor is it valid to suggest that not being full-time means people took it less seriously.
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.
Hmm... and players get injured a hell of a lot more today.
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.
I think that if anyone timetravelled they'd struggle for quite a while, and if they only played a handful of matches they'd be hammered every time.
Because there are all sorts of things that take lots of adaptation to, and while the ability is worth the same thing, all players would need to adapt if they weren't brought-up into it.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Tyson bruised people through their pads, something no-one has ever done before or since.
That's quite enough for me.
So you're assuming pad technology hasn't improved since then?
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
marc71178 said:
So you're assuming pad technology hasn't improved since then?
Exactly. There was an interesting article recently by Gideon Haigh I think about the evolution in pad technology throughout last century...
 

C_C

International Captain
Tyson bruised people through their pads, something no-one has ever done before or since.
That's quite enough for me.
and any sports dealer will tell you that pads sold in the last 20 years are a quantum ahead in terms of quality to the ones in use in the 50s.
Poor criteria.

Lucky you... seems to have given you a bad impression.
Were they all from the subcontinent and cricket fans as well...? Just wondering.
Whats that supposed to mean ? You are questioning the competence of subcontinental doctors ? FYI, one of my cousins (who is an optician) got his degree from England.
And my family doc is just about as caucasian as you get.
 

C_C

International Captain
Players have always received payment for playing, and there have always been full-timers aplenty, ever since the middle of the 19th-century.
Nor is it valid to suggest that not being full-time means people took it less seriously.
it is a very valid suggestion and you are free to check with a psychologist.
A few would play because of the pure joy they get from playing the game but for MOST human beings, incentive is a big factor for excellence.
And up until the 50s/60s, MOST players didnt make a total living out of cricket and you do not approach a part time job with the same level of intensity as full time ones.
And the fact that MOST players in the circuit back then were amatuers, it puts their commitment to question. A professional one amogst them is like a wolf amongst sheep or sampras playing the best damn weekend warrior.
Ie, overly inflated statistics, which is why in MOST sports you see mindboggling statistics early on in the game's evolution ( Sid Barnes, Bradman, Babe Ruth,Dyan Chand, Maurice Richard, Bill Tillden, Juan Manuel Fangio, etc etc).

Hmm... and players get injured a hell of a lot more today.
yeah. when you throw your body around, you do get injured a lot. When you travel so much,your immune system is compromised and broken down.
The players would be a lot fitter if they just stood there and waited for some spectator to toss the ball back from the boundary or took cozy boat rides.

I think that if anyone timetravelled they'd struggle for quite a while, and if they only played a handful of matches they'd be hammered every time.
Because there are all sorts of things that take lots of adaptation to, and while the ability is worth the same thing, all players would need to adapt if they weren't brought-up into it.
The average scientist today would put people like Newton to shame. A good international cricketer supplanted into the 1950s would make bradman's FC stats look ordinary.
The sport has developed a lot and the players posess a far tougher training regimen-mentally and physically these days than 100 years ago.
Its like taking a navy seal and putting him in alexander's army.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
twctopcat said:
Now that is a bit of a random one, unless you are some sort of universal team doctor how can you know this to be true?
No-one would have made a fuss about it if it wasn't unusual.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
So you're assuming pad technology hasn't improved since then?
Dasa said:
Exactly. There was an interesting article recently by Gideon Haigh I think about the evolution in pad technology throughout last century...
C_C said:
and any sports dealer will tell you that pads sold in the last 20 years are a quantum ahead in terms of quality to the ones in use in the 50s.
Poor criteria.
So how come no-one ever got bruised through these old, supposedly incompetant, pads?
Whats that supposed to mean ? You are questioning the competence of subcontinental doctors ? FYI, one of my cousins (who is an optician) got his degree from England.
And my family doc is just about as caucasian as you get.
No, I'm suggesting that they're just as open to thinking that'll level the playing-field with regards to former cricketers.
Doesn't matter where they got their stuff from, what matters is what they think about cricket.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
C_C said:
it is a very valid suggestion and you are free to check with a psychologist.
A few would play because of the pure joy they get from playing the game but for MOST human beings, incentive is a big factor for excellence.
And up until the 50s/60s, MOST players didnt make a total living out of cricket and you do not approach a part time job with the same level of intensity as full time ones.
And the fact that MOST players in the circuit back then were amatuers, it puts their commitment to question. A professional one amogst them is like a wolf amongst sheep or sampras playing the best damn weekend warrior.
Ie, overly inflated statistics, which is why in MOST sports you see mindboggling statistics early on in the game's evolution ( Sid Barnes, Bradman, Babe Ruth,Dyan Chand, Maurice Richard, Bill Tillden, Juan Manuel Fangio, etc etc).
Nope, most players were pros from the 1900s onwards.
If you look at ACTUAL CASE-STUDIES, rather than generalise based on what sports-psychologists 100 years down the line think, you might realise that plenty and plenty of amateurs took the game, and their success, far more seriously than you seem to have gained the impression.
And as I've told you, the 20th-century is very much late in the game of cricket's development.
yeah. when you throw your body around, you do get injured a lot. When you travel so much,your immune system is compromised and broken down.
The players would be a lot fitter if they just stood there and waited for some spectator to toss the ball back from the boundary or took cozy boat rides.
There are many factors affecting it - one, so far as I can see, is the wrong sort of training.
The average scientist today would put people like Newton to shame. A good international cricketer supplanted into the 1950s would make bradman's FC stats look ordinary.
The sport has developed a lot and the players posess a far tougher training regimen-mentally and physically these days than 100 years ago.
Its like taking a navy seal and putting him in alexander's army.
And equally Newton would put scientists of today to shame if he had been brought-up today. For all we know he could have been another Einstein.
Be interested to hear how someone who was so far ahead of the fold such as him could have occurred in such an advanced stage of the human-race.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
twctopcat said:
Huh? The bruises off tyson or you're suggestion? What are you referring to?
The bruises Tyson gave, IIRR, Neil Harvey in 1954\55, were something that you did not get with any other bowler, regardless of how poor the pad-technology was.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I am kinda in between on this issue. One has got to agree that in order to survive in any profession today, one has to be multi skilled. The reason is simple: More people, same number of jobs, therefore you always need to be one step ahead of your competitor. I know that because I am about to get into the software industry this may. So, it is a reasonable point to say that the professionalism and intensity that is being displayed today is a lot more than in the 50s, for example.


But, having said that, I am one of those guys who believes that the greats from any era would have fared equally well in another era. Just because Bradman didn't dive around or bowl in his era, does not mean that he could not have done that in this era (had he been playing in this era). I think the truly great players would have adapted themselves to any era and excelled in that era. So, if we were to suppose that Bradman were to play today, I am pretty sure that he would be one of the safest fielders around and a decent off break bowler, apart from being the best batter.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
So how come no-one ever got bruised through these old, supposedly incompetant, pads?

Or how come it wasn't reported (since as already proven to you standards of reporting have changed significantly)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
So why was it reported this time, and why was it said (by Richie Benaud when I heard it) that "Hutton knew he was onto something special when Neil Harvey took off his pad and rubbed where he'd been hit by Tyson"?
Because it was unheard of, that's why.
 

Top