• 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.

Comparing different eras

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
What are your opinions on the various eras of cricket.

Also, changes the game has went through (like lobs have been banned for instance).

More than that I am looking at statistical analysis and perspectives on the eras.

I have thought on them and am researching from pre test periods though I would even be happy if 1876 onward discussion is done.

This post by SJS - http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=435326&postcount=152 can be a good start on the discussion..

SJS said:
In have done something like that for the batsmen's eras.

Grace Era
Hobbs Era
Bradman Era
Sobers Era
Richards Era
Tendulkar Era

These virtually cover the entire test cricket period with negligible overlap.

It may be better, as well as convenient to have.
19th century
1900-!st WW
Between Wars
2nd WW to Packer Era
Packer Era to date.

I think the late division is better in a few respects.

1. The wars always brought a massive change in all stats. Batting boomed after both wards. I think it is because the top bowlers of the world aged during the five odd years the WW's lasted. Batsmen with longer career spans survived and made merry with weaker bowling. This is particularly true for the faster bowlers who have even shorter career peaks.

Secondly, I think, the wickets may have become better with no use for so long and may have been better prepared. This needs verification though.

Thirdly, there are naturally fewer bowlers than batsmen in cricket so there was greater "bench strength" as it were amongst batsmen.

2. It divides careers a bit better and many players like George Headley for example, should really be judged on his career between the wars rather than what he played after the war. West Indies played only in 1946 and then in 1948. Thus virtually no cricket for a decade. The performance of an ageing Headley after the war in these few tests do no credit to the collassus that he was before the war. For someone who played only 20 tests in all, these few tests unnecessarily bring down his figures which are still magnificient , by the way.

3. It removes the individualist slant given to eras by naming them after cricketers and , of course, there may be some disputes (why Tendulkar) for more recent eras

I have figures for these eras and could share them if anyone wants.
 
Last edited:

archie mac

International Coach
Pratyush said:
What are your opinions on the various eras of cricket.

Also, changes the game has went through (like lobs have been banned for instance).

More than that I am looking at statistical analysis and perspectives on the eras.

I have thought on them and am researching from pre test periods though I would even be happy if 1876 onward discussion is done.

This post by SJS - http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=435326&postcount=152 can be a good start on the discussion..

In have done something like that for the batsmen's eras.

Grace Era
Hobbs Era
Bradman Era
Sobers Era
Richards Era
Tendulkar Era

These virtually cover the entire test cricket period with negligible overlap.

It may be better, as well as convenient to have.
19th century
1900-!st WW
Between Wars
2nd WW to Packer Era
Packer Era to date.

I think the late division is better in a few respects.

1. The wars always brought a massive change in all stats. Batting boomed after both wards. I think it is because the top bowlers of the world aged during the five odd years the WW's lasted. Batsmen with longer career spans survived and made merry with weaker bowling. This is particularly true for the faster bowlers who have even shorter career peaks.

Secondly, I think, the wickets may have become better with no use for so long and may have been better prepared. This needs verification though.

Thirdly, there are naturally fewer bowlers than batsmen in cricket so there was greater "bench strength" as it were amongst batsmen.

2. It divides careers a bit better and many players like George Headley for example, should really be judged on his career between the wars rather than what he played after the war. West Indies played only in 1946 and then in 1948. Thus virtually no cricket for a decade. The performance of an ageing Headley after the war in these few tests do no credit to the collassus that he was before the war. For someone who played only 20 tests in all, these few tests unnecessarily bring down his figures which are still magnificient , by the way.

3. It removes the individualist slant given to eras by naming them after cricketers and , of course, there may be some disputes (why Tendulkar) for more recent eras

I have figures for these eras and could share them if anyone wants.
A good book to read is The Best of The Best by Charles Davis.

Not sure about your theory re-stronger batting, in 1921 Aust swept past England on the back of fast bowling and this happened again in 1948. I think it fair to say England took longer to recover after the wars than Aust. :)
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Pratyush said:
The wars always brought a massive change in all stats. Batting boomed after both wards. I think it is because the top bowlers of the world aged during the five odd years the WW's lasted. Batsmen with longer career spans survived and made merry with weaker bowling. This is particularly true for the faster bowlers who have even shorter career peaks.

Secondly, I think, the wickets may have become better with no use for so long and may have been better prepared. This needs verification though.
Well, at the time it was felt that the improving wickets were bad for the game - they wanted a return to the 19th Century ropey wickets!
 

swede

School Boy/Girl Captain
Tom Halsey said:
Well, at the time it was felt that the improving wickets were bad for the game - they wanted a return to the 19th Century ropey wickets!
And who can blame them!

What I think they didnt want was batsmen feeling so confident that they would just block all day long instead of being forced to score as fast as possible before they get out.

Batsmen playing slow turning cricket into wars of attrition has blighted all eras since the first world war in my opinion until the ashes 2005.
That series had probably an all-time high run rate and probably also the shortest average match duration for nearly 100 years. Too little has been made from these very significant stats.

Its the greatest cricket there is, when batters go for shots in matches of unlimited overs.

I think they had it too in the era before 1914 where the wickets had become good enough for good batting but still "poor" enough for batters not being able to confidently block for days
 

Robertinho

Cricketer Of The Year
Hmm, good idea. I'd look very closely at the sort of pitches around certain eras. ie; uncovered pitches. The pitches these days are relatively flat (not all), so there could be a bit of an advantage to batsmen and so on.

Looking at big events at the time, like wars and the like,would also help to compare them.
 

jamesicus

School Boy/Girl Captain
It is very difficult to make such comparisons for there are so many variables involved. I hold that the truly great players would have been just as great in other eras -- and stood out from the crowd just as much.

It is hard to take the measure of a player when age has taken its inevitable toll. The Don Bradman I watched in 1948 was still a really great batsman, but he was not the awe inspiring run machine I saw at Headingley in 1938.

A more striking example was the George Headley of 1938 versus the Headley of 1950. I saw him bat in exactly the same level of competition in both years -- as a club professional in the Lancashire League -- Haslingden in 1938 and Bacup (filling in for Everton Weekes who was on sabbatical playing test cricket for WI) in 1950.

In 1938 Headley was at the height of his power -- lightning footwork and a dazzling array of strokes -- one of my personal trilogy of the most wonderful of all batsmen (Bradman, Weekes and Headley) -- and a superb athlete. The Headley of 1950 was still a great batsman to watch, but he had lost his swiftness afoot and his stroke play had lost much of its sparkle. In truth -- to me -- he was but a shadow of the Headley of 1938.
 

jamesicus

School Boy/Girl Captain
The two world wars had a profound effect on cricket -- in my opinion more than is generally recognized -- in a multitude of ways. It wasn't just the dearth of organized first class -- especially international -- competition for six long years during WW2 that depressed the game so much -- many upcoming cricketers, ground-keepers, umpires and administrators were lost forever. Facilities that had fallen into disuse -- especially in Britain -- had to be rebuilt, equipment had to be replenished and training programs had to be re-instituted.

Team depth was diluted at every level and key players had to be replaced -- I think it took Yorkshire several years to reshape their bowling attack due to the loss of Headley Verity, for he was the keystone of their pre-war scheme.

Several of the best British players (and those of other cricketing countries serving in Europe) lost their best playing years to wartime service and the fact that consistent top flight cricket was not available in wartime Britain for six years.

As I outline in my web pages, it took the Lancashire League and local club cricket over two years to get back to normal after WW2.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
swede said:
Batsmen playing slow turning cricket into wars of attrition has blighted all eras since the first world war in my opinion until the ashes 2005.
Well, 3 day cricket in England usually made for reasonably attractive cricket (and bear in mind that until WW2 all Tests in England were 3 days too, Ashes Tests in the 1930s aside, may be other exceptions too).

Personally, I'd have loved to have been a regular cricket watcher between the wars, it certainly wasn't uneventful, and there were all the spinners compared to the relative lack thereof of today.
 

jamesicus

School Boy/Girl Captain
Originally Posted by SJS
In have done something like that for the batsmen's eras.

Grace Era
Hobbs Era
Bradman Era
Sobers Era
Richards Era
Tendulkar Era


I feel that there is something missing between the Bradman and carrying into the Sobers era -- if dominance by a batsman is intended to be the criterion. From the late 1940s until the mid 1950s I submit that test match batting was dominated by the Windies three Ws -- Worrell, Walcott & Weekes -- with Everton Weekes being preeminent in that illustrious trilogy viz. his five consecutive test centuries and his statistical average. During that time, Garfield Sobers was cutting his batting teeth so to speak -- learning his craft under the tutelage of the three masters as it were.
 
Last edited:

swede

School Boy/Girl Captain
Tom Halsey said:
Well, 3 day cricket in England usually made for reasonably attractive cricket (and bear in mind that until WW2 all Tests in England were 3 days too, Ashes Tests in the 1930s aside, may be other exceptions too).

Personally, I'd have loved to have been a regular cricket watcher between the wars, it certainly wasn't uneventful, and there were all the spinners compared to the relative lack thereof of today.
I think 3-day cricket must have been pretty farcical by the time it was abandoned.
lots of declarations and contrived results.
I would have loved to watch it in the era before 1914, though, very few draws (weather apart)

matches should be essentially timeless but just naturally reach a conclusion in 3-4 days.

They certainly must have had lots of spinners considering the over rates. Its astonishing that 24 overs per hour seemed to once being the norm sometimes even more.
 

C_C

International Captain
I think the latter evaluation presented by Pratyush is far more sound in its reasoning than the former argument.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
swede said:
I think 3-day cricket must have been pretty farcical by the time it was abandoned.
lots of declarations and contrived results.
I would have loved to watch it in the era before 1914, though, very few draws (weather apart)
Well the vastly better over rates than today meant that you could score at similar rates to today and get results quite easily.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
C_C said:
I think the latter evaluation presented by Pratyush is far more sound in its reasoning than the former argument.
Its by SJS actually.

I am just analysing the eras for the moment and haent formed opinions properly till now. The subject is very deep and vast. :)
 

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
Tom Halsey said:
Personally, I'd have loved to have been a regular cricket watcher between the wars.
Despite the fact you'd have almost certainly had to have lived through one of the wars, and probably both?
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Jamee999 said:
Despite the fact you'd have almost certainly had to have lived through one of the wars, and probably both?
I wouldn't have wanted to live through the wars however. :p

I'll have the best of both worlds please. :D
 

swede

School Boy/Girl Captain
Tom Halsey said:
Well the vastly better over rates than today meant that you could score at similar rates to today and get results quite easily.
yes the current 4-day game is essentially the same as the pre-war 3-day game, however draws and slow play began long before over rates began to drop.

3 days was plenty once. they even experimented with 2-day cricket in 1919. some games managed to get in 330 overs in that time, meaning that, for instance all the 3 ashes 2005 result-matches could, amazingly, have been finished in 2 days. Staggering to consider England´s edgbaston first innings played twice as fast.

generally, I only think there is one way of evaluating any era. do batsmen play shots if possible. If they do, its great cricket. sadly, mostly they didnt in the 20th century
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
When I first started going to county championship matches in the 1960's, 120 overs in the day was the norm.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
swede said:
3 days was plenty once. they even experimented with 2-day cricket in 1919. some games managed to get in 330 overs in that time,
165 overs in a day? Are you sure about that?
 

Craig

World Traveller
luckyeddie said:
When I first started going to county championship matches in the 1960's, 120 overs in the day was the norm.
How did they manage that?

Bowl lots of spinners so they get through the overs quickly? Start really early and finish late? Or players just got on with the game instead of taking forever and a day to bowl an over when a new bowler comes and the captain running to his star man to have a chat?
 

archie mac

International Coach
They did play extended hours, but in the end it was not a huge success and they went back to three day matches the following year
 

Top