If They were Playing Today

[Sanz]

Players from Yesteryears, Greats and not so great ones, How would they fare against the players of today ?

Let's start with two of the greatest Batsmen of their era, Gavaskar and Richards.

 

[readie]

Both would be successful IMO.

Richards would especially be suited to today's play. His attacking batting would be as if not more effective in conditions which are more batsmen friendly.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Viv Richards would still be the greatest player in this era, and Gavaskar the best opener in the world.

 

[chaminda_00]

Gavaskar, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman

Man that would be a batting line up. Would give the all powerful West Indies pace attack of 70s and 80s a run for their money.

It been mentioned before when Lara and Richards were discussed and who was better. But it would be interesting to see how Richards would go in the same situations and having more ownership placed on his wicket. Would he be as free flowing if he didn't have the starts that Hayne and Greenridge were providing or knowing he had Lloyd to come if he failed. I'm sure he would be success, but it would interesting if he batted the same and how much that burden would have placed on his batting.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Gavaskar, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman

Man that would be a batting line up. Would give the all powerful West Indies pace attack of 70s and 80s a run for their money.

It been mentioned before when Lara and Richards were discussed and who was better. But it would be interesting to see how Richards would go in the same situations and having more ownership placed on his wicket. Would he be as free flowing if he didn't have the starts that Hayne and Greenridge were providing or knowing he had Lloyd to come if he failed. I'm sure he would be success, but it would interesting if he batted the same and how much that burden would have placed on his batting.

Viv Richards would have made a lot more runs had he played in a weaker side and had been the only great batsman in the team. In England in 1976 when he was still trying to establish himself in the side and the West Indies were fresh from the hiding they took in Australia he was prepared to bat forever.......and nearly did.

 

[Manee]

I believe that Viv Richards would be subject to many plans which may result in a bad series or two, but the overall career of dominance would be much the same.

 

[Ikki]

Richards would have done just as well and I think if he were in the current WIndies team he would have batted more responsively; resulting in that higher average his detractors seem to want.

As for Sunil, I am not quite sure. Whilst the flat pitches would aid him, the bowling attacks are largely better nowadays and the requirement to score faster shift doubts over him.

 

[subshakerz]

Richards would have done just as well and I think if he were in the current WIndies team he would have batted more responsively; resulting in that higher average his detractors seem to want.

As for Sunil, I am not quite sure. Whilst the flat pitches would aid him, the bowling attacks are largely better nowadays and the requirement to score faster shift doubts over him.

Are you kidding me? Gavaskar played in an era against Hadlee, Lillee, Imran, Willis and the West Indians. Bowling attacks nowadays are either inexperienced, erratic or flat out mediocre. The only bowling that has improved is spin, and Gavaskar was a master at combatting that. Are you telling me you would rather be a batsman in the 70s and 80s than now?

 

[Ikki]

Are you kidding me? Gavaskar played in an era against Hadlee, Lillee, Imran, Willis and the West Indians. Bowling attacks nowadays are either inexperienced, erratic or flat out mediocre. The only bowling that has improved is spin, and Gavaskar was a master at combatting that. Are you telling me you would rather be a batsman in the 70s and 80s than now?

Gavaskar faced Lillee for one series and completely failed. Never faced Thommo and Lillee together. Faced Thomson and a much weaker attack. Didn't do that well against the Windies in the 80s - when they actually had a good bowling attack - and failed altogether against England. Gavaskar averages 46 in the 80s. Well-enough, not great, against Hadlee and co, actually was very good against Pakistan.

Yes, I would DEFINITELY rather face bowlers in the 70s... about the 80s, it's debatable.

 

[pasag]

Taking the more literal meaning of Sanz’s ‘today’, looking at the very last Test attacks each team of the top eight played with:

Australia
Lee
Clark
Johnson
Hogg

New Zealand
Martin
Southee
Vettori
Patel

England
Sidebottom
Anderson
Broad
Panesar

Pakistan
Akhtar
Sami
Arafat
Kaneria

Sri Lanka
Vaas
Amerasinghe
Mirando
Muralitharan

West Indies
Powell
Taylor
Edwards
Bravo

India
Sharma
Sreesanth
Singh
Chawla

South Africa
Steyn
Ntini
Morkel
Harris

How would Viv and Sunil do? Doubt they’d have too much problem tbh.

 

[Ikki]

Ooh, good catch. If by "today" the meaning is the immediate today, then yeah, both would do well. If "today" was in reference to the current era, then no, as said above in previous posts.

 

[Jono]

They'd both average 55+. No Warne would help Viv as well.

And the fact that you don't think Gavaskar would do well in the 2000s era Kaz is ridiculous. He may not average as much as your God Ponting, nor score as quickly, but if Ian Bell and Collingwood can average mid-40s in this time, then Gavaskar will do just fine.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Gavaskar was the perfect opening batsman, superb technique against the new ball and perfectly capable of digging in when necessary and upping the tempo when it was appropriate (despite an obcession in some quarters with his rather odd innings at Lords in the 1975 World Cup.)

 

[Ikki]

They'd both average 55+. No Warne would help Viv as well.

And the fact that you don't think Gavaskar would do well in the 2000s era Kaz is ridiculous. He may not average as much as your God Ponting, nor score as quickly, but if Ian Bell and Collingwood can average mid-40s in this time, then Gavaskar will do just fine.

LOL, Collingwood and Bell are in the form of their lives, so doesn't impress me.

What I was talking about was not regarding his average - in fact, I never said he'd get less than 50? I think he'd average the same if not more. But I do think he would have been found out much more. Whereas with Richards, I think he'd make Ponting look human.

 

[Jono]

Firstly, Collingwood and Bell aren't supposed to impress you, they back up my point that if average to good batsman like those two can average mid 40s in this era, than all-time greats (both Gavaskar and Viv in Benaud's all-time XI) would do quite well.

What the hell is your definition of doing well anyway?

In this post below...

Ooh, good catch. If by "today" the meaning is the immediate today, then yeah, both would do well. If "today" was in reference to the current era, then no, as said above in previous posts.

... you suggested that the answer as to whether they would do well in the 2000s is a 'no' for Sunil Gavaskar.

Averaging over 50 in this era is doing well.

 

[Ikki]

Firstly, Collingwood and Bell aren't supposed to impress you, they back up my point that if average to good batsman like those two can average mid 40s in this era, than all-time greats (both Gavaskar and Viv in Benaud's all-time XI) would do quite well.

What the hell is your definition of doing well anyway?

In this post below...

... you suggested that the answer as to whether they would do well in the 2000s is a 'no' for Sunil Gavaskar.

Averaging over 50 in this era is doing well.

No, I said there would be doubts over Sunil - and I mentioned in which capacities whereas I think Richards would suit this era to a T. His strike-rate for THAT era is unbelievable, even now it would be amongst the best with that kind of average. And he was excellent against pace bowling against lively pitches, I really don't question him much on excellent bowling against flatter pitches.

And averaging 50 is doing well now, but Hayden still can't touch Gavaskar right? That's why I didn't mention average. I think he'd do as well as Hayden in terms of average. But I don't think he'd do it the same way. For people to mention those past bowlers as if Gavaskar was dominant just shows the myths that people have whispered to each other throughout the years. And then the standards they've kept for comparing him with others have been skewed.

Points are, I think Gavaskar and Hayden (someone from this era) are in the same class - he would do no better than him - but someone like Richards is above both.

Batting average of openers across the decades.

 

[Fusion]

Richards would destroy the bowling of today while Gavaskar would easily be the best opener in the world.

 

[funnygirl]

They both have an average near to 70 ,such pitches and mediocre bowlers .

 

[subshakerz]

Richards would destroy the bowling of today while Gavaskar would easily be the best opener in the world.

Bingo. Frankly, I find it ridiculous that Gavaskar, who opened against some of the best fast bowlers ever and had a tighter technique than Dravid, would be 'found out' by the mediocre bowling of the last few years. Given that batsmen like Graeme Smith and Jaywardene can average 50 in this age of buffet bowling, Gavaskar could pretty easily manage 60+.

And the bowling from the last decade can't compare with the 80s, or even the 70s. Aside from McGrath, Warne, Murali and possibly Kumble, no world class bowler has consistently performed since the start of the decade.

 

[sideshowtim]

To answer your question, Gavaskar would belt the dire bowling at an incriedble rate and probably end up averaging 129.45. Richards very much the same, I'd put his average up around 160.04. I mean, today's bowling is so dire.

God I hate the romanticism of pre-2000 cricket. It makes this place unbearable sometimes.

The thing I don't get is, if post 2000 bowling is so disgustingly crappy and poor, how come a man who is considered one of the greatest of all time can only average 46.63 in the era against sides that aren't Bangladesh and Zimbabwe? Surely anything below an average of 55 is unacceptable in the era?