Deceased XI vs. Living XI

[silentstriker]

Bradman may not be able to hit those amazing pulls of not so short deliveries but Hayden would have trouble staying upright on stickes

Will no one get the ?

Why do you think I said 'Hayden' and not 'Hobbs'?

 

[NUFAN]

The Living would win if we could freeze time and get the deceased players at there prime to play the living at there prime.

It's obvious that the standard of batting, bowling and fielding has gotten better over time..

 

[silentstriker]

The Living would win if we could freeze time and get the deceased players at there prime to play the living at there prime.

It's obvious that the standard of batting, bowling and fielding has gotten better over time..

Fielding certainly, the bats certainly, and the bowlers might be a shade faster, but I disagree with batsmanship and bowling in general.

I shudder to think how much Bradman would have averaged if he used the same bat as Ricky Ponting. And I would bet all my life that half the living would not have a clue if the match were played on uncovered wickets. They've no experience...they'd be sitting ducks against the bowlers who could exploit it. And if we had to use the older equipment, guys like Hayden might find out the hard way that their top edge goes straight to a fielder instead of the second level spectators.

 

[Beleg]

The living XI would beat the daylight out of the dodo's.

 

[andruid]

Cannot believe there is a debate about this. Bradman + Hobbs + Marshall + Barnes = large victories. Especially on sticky wickets, the living XI would be like rabbits in a headlight playing on those.

I contend that even the greats of the deceased XI would sweat contending with the surgical accuracy of McGrath or Imran's left arm reverse swing

 

[silentstriker]

I contend that even the greats of the deceased XI would sweat contending with the surgical accuracy of McGrath or Imran's left arm reverse swing

Not that many people separate Hobbs and McGrath. Hobbs ended his career after Bradman began his, who was still around at the start of Bert Sutcliffe's career...and Bert only retired around five years before Imran. So really only Bert separated Imran and Bradman. So unless cricket required much more skill by the end of Bert's career than the beginning (in which case, he would have averaged a lot more at the beginning), I would say that the skill levels weren't that much different.

 

[NUFAN]

Fielding certainly, the bats certainly, and the bowlers might be a shade faster, but I disagree with batsmanship and bowling in general.

I shudder to think how much Bradman would have averaged if he used the same bat as Ricky Ponting. And I would bet all my life that half the living would not have a clue if the match were played on uncovered wickets. They've no experience...they'd be sitting ducks against the bowlers who could exploit it. And if we had to use the older equipment, guys like Hayden might find out the hard way that their top edge goes straight to a fielder instead of the second level spectators.

Yeah that's the thing though. If the match was played in 2007 (like I wrote in my previous message) the living team would win if all players were at there peak.

If the series was say in 1930s conditions it would be a lot more of a fight.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah that's the thing though. If the match was played in 2007 (like I wrote in my previous message) the living team would win if all players were at there peak.

If the series was say in 1930s conditions it would be a lot more of a fight.

Assuming they all played with 2007 equipment, I am not so sure of that. In 1930s, it would be an easy win for the dead team. Right now, the dead to win in a thriller.

 

[NUFAN]

Assuming they all played with 2007 equipment, I am not so sure of that. In 1930s, it would be an easy win for the dead team. Right now, the dead to win in a thriller.

I know it's not great to think like this, but in general if you look at all sports where there are measures in place to indicate improvement such as in running and swimming etc athletes are performing at a far superior level then from the past even if they used old school clothes/equipment.

With the technology involved, the amount of training, the money invested in the sport - I am fairly certain the living would win.

IF, the deceased were all born in this generation and grew up playing cricket and improved and developed at the rate that the current players did, then I'm pretty sure the deceased would win. BUT.. that's IMO got something to do with the original teams selected, where many players who have played in the 2000's were selected over other living players from other eras.

 

[silentstriker]

I know it's not great to think like this, but in general if you look at all sports where there are measures in place to indicate improvement such as in running and swimming etc athletes are performing at a far superior level then from the past even if they used old school clothes/equipment.

With the technology involved, the amount of training, the money invested in the sport - I am fairly certain the living would win.

IF, the deceased were all born in this generation and grew up playing cricket and improved and developed at the rate that the current players did, then I'm pretty sure the deceased would win. BUT.. that's IMO got something to do with the original teams selected, where many players who have played in the 2000's were selected over other living players from other eras.

As I mentioned above, only one player - Bert Sutcliffe - separated Imran Khan and Donald Bradman. So cricket couldn't have improved all that much, if the same player was able to play in both eras without having 'grown up twice with training' and such?

 

[NUFAN]

As I mentioned above, only one player - Bert Sutcliffe - separated Imran Khan and Donald Bradman. So cricket couldn't have improved all that much, if the same player was able to play in both eras without having 'grown up twice with training' and such?

I don't get what you mean by only one player in Bert Sutcliffe, he didn't even make the team.

IF... 8 players from the mid 90s to present have made the living team and only the real legends in Khan, Sobers and I guess Gavaskar have made the team, doesn't that show that the skill levels are improving over the eras?

With cricket being such a stats game I know most people would like to compare the players on stats really and in this case the dead would go great and it looks like a very exciting match where the dead would most likely win.

But the living are just better cricketers, the game has evolved without a doubt.

 

[Jamee999]

Sutcliffe played with the Don and Imran, I think.

 

[NUFAN]

Oh OK. He obviously improved a lot, that's why he kept getting picked.

EDIT - Actually he only scored 1 century in his final 10 years in Test Cricket..

From 1956 to 1965 he didn't do too much at all. He was a lot better early on in his career, but obviously the argument will be that he was too old late in his career.

 

[silentstriker]

Oh OK. He obviously improved a lot, that's why he kept getting picked.

EDIT - Actually he only scored 1 century in his final 10 years in Test Cricket..

From 1956 to 1965 he didn't do too much at all. He was a lot better early on in his career, but obviously the argument will be that he was too old late in his career.

Err, that was just an example, another one is Laker, who obviously did well in 48 and until 1960. And Sobers was around by that time, and he did well into the 70s.

Cricket changed a lot but it didn't change so much that players who were good in the forties were any less good in the seventies (as shown by players who span the era).

 

[shortpitched713]

I contend that even the greats of the deceased XI would sweat contending with the surgical accuracy of McGrath or Imran's left arm reverse swing

Hes right handed, but.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Hes right handed, but.

How dare you insinuate that Imran couldn't bowl left-handed if he so desired?

 

[Anil]

the zombies to win mainly due to the master zombie, bradman....

 

[Days of Grace]

Imran is a god, remember. How dare you question his ability bowling with the left-arm!!!

 

[JerseyGuy]

Let's look at it position by position:

Hobbs vs. Gavaskar
Winner: The dead

Hutton vs. Hayden
Winner: The dead

Bradman vs Ponting
Winner: The dead

Hammond vs. Lara
Winner: The dead

Headley vs. Tendulkar
Winner: The dead

Barrington vs Sobers
Winner: The Living

Grout vs. Gilchrist
Winner: The Living

Bowlers (not comparing in order)

Marshall vs. Imran
Winner: The dead

Muralitharan vs. Barnes
Winner: The dead (we have to compare a spinner vs. a hybrid as the new team has more spinners than the old one)

Wane vs. O'Reilly
Winner: The living

McGrath vs. Trueman
Winner: The living

Thats 7-4. Though the biggest difference would be Bradman, as he is pretty much equivalent to two any other batsmen and any other strengths that the living have simply cannot make that up.

I agree but for three changes...

Headley vs. Tendulkar
Winner: The living

Muralitharan vs. Barnes
Winner: The living

This would change scale in favor of the living 6-5:

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I agree but for three changes...

Headley vs. Tendulkar
Winner: The living

Muralitharan vs. Barnes
Winner: The living

This would change scale in favor of the living 6-5:

Murali vs Barnes is debatable so Headley vs Tendulkar IMO.