Gilly did allright really.... i wouldnt expect him to average anywhere close to 50 against the four-prong....but then agian, i wouldnt bet on it for almost any batsman-Sir Don included.
Oh I agree he may not average 50 (how many players did back then? Not as many as now) but I reckon he'd still be rated amongst the premier players of any era he played in. For mine, he's succeeded in so many conditions against so many great bowlers or different types that it seems inconceiveable that he would fail in almost any era. As much success? I'd say not but as you said, Bradman wouldn't have been as successful either. He even admitted it himself but then, as speaks so much about the man, the conversation he said that went something like this:
"Don; would you have been as successful in the modern era as in yours?"
"Well, when taking into account that pitches in my day were far better for batting and that game tactics have evolved, players are targeted more often, weaknesses are analysed, etc. I would say that no, I would not have averaged what I did had I been playing in the modern era.
HOWEVER, I still would have averaged much more than the guy who came second."
Now THAT'S confidence!
ofcourse...thats the only way to compare...take Player A as he played in HIS career and put him in a different era to see how well he would do.....
whether they would've been any different in the other era etc if they were born in it etc. would be too arbitary and almost meaningless,since it is not just a question of cricketing ability but cricketing philosophy as well.... for eg, if Gilly was born in the 30s, i certainly dont see him batting as fast as he does....vice versa.......
when i compare, i compare as they are......
Well yes that's the only way TO compare for sure but to do so, a couple of big assumptions are made and one of them is that player A as currently represented would be similar to their 80's or 70's version. For mine, that's an assumption that might be reaching a bit far. But yes I take your point that for any meaningful comparison to occur, that assumption has to be made.
As per hayden's ajustment..i doubt it.... he tried to but failed in the early/mid 90s.....
others..i dunno.
And believe me, I was one of the guys who was telling everyone that Hayden sucked, QLD'ers who wanted him in the side wouldn't know what they were talking about, etc. I never EVER believed he had what it took to succeed at the highest level. But then I saw his improvement; suddenly he wasn't just driving all the time, his square of the wicket play was FAR better and his play against the spinners improved 1000%. When I noticed that, I thought he was going to be successful but certainly not to the extent he has. Just getting back into the side was shock enough for me but what he's done, I just was forced to admit that maybe he had a bit about him after all and maybe those annoying QLD'ers were right (for once...........).
WI faced Bedi and Chandra.......Chandra IMO was maybe an inch or so behind Warne in legspin bowling.... Qadir was an excellent spinner too though a bit off Warne's class...
WI didnt do exceedingly well against spin but mostly dogged it out and did pretty well.
Here are two examples where they fell to bits (albeit, on turning decks);
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1984-85/WI_IN_AUS/WI_AUS_T5_30DEC1984-02JAN1985.html
Holland (a 38-year-old mediocre FC leggie) 10-fer.
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1980S/1987-88/WI_IN_IND/WI_IND_T4_11-15JAN1988.html
Hirwani (another mediocre leggie) 16-fer.
They're the only two I can think of off the top of my head. Generally, the WI played off-spin relatively well regardless of conditions but those angled bats of theirs were fodder for even a base-standard Test leggie.