Cricket Web All Time World XI

[Zinzan]

So do you deny the fact that the umpiring and the game was overwhelmingly pro-white until much after the WWII ? Or are you simply unable/unwilling to admit so as you perceive it as a slight to you ?

No, I simply acknowledge that home umpiring seemed to favour the hometeam almost everywhere in the world before neutral umpires came into play, with the possible exception of English Umpires post 1970 (ie Dickie Bird was very fair IMO).

Why do your Posts ALWAYS come back to racism C_C?? Are you really that insecure??

 

[C_C]

I'm not saying that wouldn't go the other way when teams toured the sub-continent and/or WI.

Why wouldnt it ?
India was still a british colony back then, british umpires took the field and the general prevailing viewpoint amongst the upper middle class and beyond ( in Britain) was that of racial superiority based on skin color.
West Indies was a british colony as well and the WICB back then insisted on picking a white captain with some white ( and utterly incompetent) players were put into the team at the expense of much better cricketers ( Sew Sewnarine is one i think-though i may've got the name wrong). Given that, how much 'neutrality' do we really expect from the umpires ?

The unprofessional era has way too many uncertainties and inconsistencies to be considered a direct comparison to the professional/modern era and that is why i consider the extraordinarily exceptional players from that era ( such as Bradman, Grimmett, etc) to be equal to or greater than the greats of the professional era.
How much fairplay is one expecting from the WICB of that era, given that a heavyweight such as Learie Constantine was barred from entering the Barbados Cricket Club lounge ? ( the mecca of WI cricket back then and till much later)

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Barry Richards IMO.

 

[C_C]

No, I simply acknowledge that home umpiring seemed to favour the hometeam almost everywhere in the world before neutral umpires came into play, with the possible exception of English Umpires post 1970 (ie Dickie Bird was very fair IMO).

Why do your Posts ALWAYS come back to racism C_C?? Are you really that insecure??

So speaking the truth is insecure ?
And does the notion of ' home umpiring favouring the home team' strike you as blatantly ludicrous, given that those so-called 'home nations' were colonies of Britain, in an era where the British populace was rabidly racist for the most part, Britain controlled the WICB, the Indian cricket board(whatever it was called back then), put either white umpires or known bootlickers in charge and the 'home team' insisted on having a white captain due to the pressure from mother Britain?
Yes, while the rest of Britain was caught up in a huge debate whether to join the Nazis or oppose them, the areas they controlled and repressed were magically represented by fair and neutral umpiring ( and yes, it was a big debate along very finely balanced lines, not the clearcut 'we shall oppose the nazis' claptrap that is spoonfed to the populace- read about the House of Commons perspective on the brownshirts, the house of Lords perspective on brownshirts and the motivations of Churchill to wage war on Nazi Germany, which had very little to do with the so-called humanitarian situation and far more to do with simple profit-loss scenarios and hyperventilations from the incredibly powerful Rothchilds family)
Just how thin do you wish to strech the credibility factor of your claims here ?

Right.

PS: I address racism simply because it is rampant in the world- mostly in the west and middle east, despite the cover of political correctness. Progress has been made, but we are far from a truly non-racist society, even if we deal with the majority.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

The unprofessional era has way too many uncertainties and inconsistencies to be considered a direct comparison to the professional/modern era and that is why i consider the extraordinarily exceptional players from that era ( such as Bradman, Grimmett, etc) to be equal to or greater than the greats of the professional era.

So why the problem with Sutcliffe?

 

[Dasa]

Out of interest, any history buffs no when the White Australia Policy officially ended? I don't agree with CC's point, but one point of his is interesting. When the government themselves promotes bigotry, umpiring back then against non-anglo nations would have been a bit suspect one would think. I'm not saying that wouldn't go the other way when teams toured the sub-continent and/or WI.

The dismantling of the policy was begun in 1966 and it was finally removed in '73 under Whitlam.
My mother came to Australia while elements of WAP were still around...which makes it all the more amazing that she actually got in.

 

[Tony Blade]

Yes ...and umpiring in the sub continent was always fair in the early days of test cricket wasn't it

Thats why Javed Miandad was so often given out LBW in Pakistan in all those matches aye CC

Thats neither here, nor there. Gilchrist is lbw much less often at home..

 

[cameeel]

Gavaskar

 

[C_C]

I just dont think playing in the unprofessional era,where quality of the opposition varied wildly- nowhere as much allround quality in the opposition as now, coupled with amatuer attitude about the sport, playing against far mediocre bowlers is enough to make up a mere 8-9 pts difference in averages from professionals playing the game at a far more mentally taxing level, against bowlers who are a few orders of magnitude better, in a level that is far more evolved than 50-60 years ago.

its a bit like Alekhein being an equal to Kasparov in Chess or Horatio Nelson being an effective match to Erwin Rommel.
This I find hard to believe, given that the respective disciplines evolve and what was considered 'cutting edge' in Nelson/Alekhein/Sutcliffe's time is 'tried, tested and much improved upon' by the time Rommel, Kasparov,Boycott etc. plied their trade.
I think every single player back in the amatuer era would struggle to keep their record intact if transplanted to the modern era,simply due to the fact that the professional era sees the game being played at a far more cerebral level, with a far fitter crew in charge.
Players with extraordinary records like Bradman, Grimmett etc. may manage to still remain in the vicinity of the cream of the crop from the professional era ( in case of Bradman, he was so far ahead that despite a drop in performance due to more challenging conditions, he still would've been the best) but players who were in the same ballpark statistically ( Sutcliffe, Hammond, Viv, Tendy,Lara, Gavaskar, etc.) would most likely be left in the dust by their professional counterparts. This is the logical extrapolation i've come upon.

 

[SJS]

What I meant to ask is whether Gavaskar's adjusted average is still the highest of any batsman against that West Indian attack... It seems to me that any player who had success against the Windies -- Gooch, Boycott, Chappell, Viswanath, Vengsarkar, Border and Lamb -- receives a career bump of either the Packer years or series where one or more of the West Indian quartet didn't play.

My vote is for Sutcliffe.

It would be interesting to see how other top batsmen of the era fared against Windies, yes.

 

[Deja moo]

Gavaskar. Which bowlers did Sutcliffe face ?

 

[marc71178]

But no other teams except England toured Aust in the 1920s and only SA and the Windies once in the 1930s and India once in the 1940s as Bradman, Grimmett and O'Reilly were playing I don't think poor umpiring would come into it

Minor point, there's clear evidence that throughout all those 3 decades the touring sides who weren't Australia were clearly racially biased against!

 

[marc71178]

So do you deny the fact that the umpiring and the game was overwhelmingly pro-white until much after the WWII ?

When England are only playing Australia and South Africa, any mistake is going to be pro-white

 

[Jono]

Gavaskar. Which bowlers did Sutcliffe face ?

EXACTLY!

All this "Oh my God Gavaskar didn't average 60+ against Marhall, Holding etc., he's just a myth".

Who did Sutcliffe face? Did he face anywhere near the quality that Marshall and Holding was? Or are we just going on numbers again?

 

[cricketboy29]

Ill go for Gavaskar

 

[honestbharani]

I don't Gavaskar that highly, but I still don't think there has been a better opener than him. I am tempted to pick Barry Richards, but then again, even though it is not his fault, he never played enough test cricket.

 

[Dissector]

Gavaskar

His feats against the Windies may have been exaggerated but averaging 40 odd as an opener against the best pace attack of all time is still amazing. How many great fast bowlers did Hobbs and Sutcliffe have to face?

The bottom line is that Gavaskar has probably faced more great fast bowlers than any other opener in history. He didn't always make runs against them but he made enough to average more than 50 in his long career. That is an amazing achievement.

 

[Jamee999]

Gavaskar.

 

[shankar]

Gavaskar

 

[C_C]

When England are only playing Australia and South Africa, any mistake is going to be pro-white

First, South Africa wasnt really considered 'white' . Stop trying to twist history and read what actually went on. The british had a concept of 'blue blood' ( look it up !!) until WWII and the general opinion was that the British are superior to everybody else, including fellow Europeans. ( Look up British Israelism and how prevalent it was in pre WWII days).
As such, Saffies being mostly Dutch descendants were considered inferior(openly stated a few times by high ranking British parlamentarians).

And IND/WI have played the game from 1920s/30s.
Very much in the blatantly racist period which you seem to imply didnt happen.