Players of the past who would have better/worse records

[Ilovecric]

if they were playing today ?


The batsman would most likely have better records for a few reasons, the bowlers i'm not so sure.

[0RI0N]

4 batsmen, 2 Aus and 2 WI
V Trumper
G Greenidge
C Lloyd
R Simpson

All 4 would probably ave 50 + imo.
I'll throw this name out and see what the CW thinks:
GA Hick - would he ave 45+ if he made his debut in 2005 or later?

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by 0RI0N

4 batsmen, 2 Aus and 2 WI
V Trumper
G Greenidge
C Lloyd
R Simpson

All 4 would probably ave 50 + imo.

He did a full 100 years ago what sehwag is doing now. One could only imagine the pandemonium he would create if he is playing now. May be SR around 125 and average in 45 - 55 range.

[wfdu_ben91]

Originally Posted by L Trumper

He did a full 100 years ago what sehwag is doing now. One could only imagine the pandemonium he would create if he is playing now. May be SR around 125 and average in 45 - 55 range.

So you think that first-class cricket back in Trumper's day was stronger then International cricket today? Because Trumper didn't even average 45+ in first-class cricket and Clem Hill had a higher Test batting average.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

So you think that first-class cricket back in Trumper's day was stronger then International cricket today? Because Trumper didn't even average 45+ in first-class cricket and Clem Hill had a higher Test batting average.

Without wishing to get into more averages-are/aren't-everything shenanigans, it should be remembered that batting averages generally were much lower before WWI.

[Richard]

All of this is IIRR, but... Trumper's average in Shield cricket was about 55, and his long-time opening partner Reggie Duff's was nearly 20 runs lower. And Duff was regarded as an excellent batsmen.

No-one should underestimate just how dominant Trumper was in his day. It's, obviously, not possible to know how he'd go in different circumstances because Trumper was something of a free-spirited soul (one of the reasons for his immense popularity) who, like Ian Botham, could have been completely changed by small things. But there's undoubtedly huge similarities between he and Sehwag.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by 0RI0N

I'll throw this name out and see what the CW thinks:
GA Hick - would he ave 45+ if he made his debut in 2005 or later?

Hick could, to me, very conceivably have averaged 50+ if he'd debuted in 2001/02 or later.

[0RI0N]

Originally Posted by Richard

All of this is IIRR, but... Trumper's average in Shield cricket was about 55, and his long-time opening partner Reggie Duff's was nearly 20 runs lower. And Duff was regarded as an excellent batsmen.

No-one should underestimate just how dominant Trumper was in his day. It's, obviously, not possible to know how he'd go in different circumstances because Trumper was something of a free-spirited soul (one of the reasons for his immense popularity) who, like Ian Botham, could have been completely changed by small things. But there's undoubtedly huge similarities between he and Sehwag.

One of your better posts amongst the 79000 odd Richard.(srs)
*
@wfdu_ben
You don't realize that most of the pre WWI wickets were very difficult to bat on.
I would also like to add
The Croucher Jessop: the Original Master Blaster.
He also scored very quickly on difficult wickets...consistenly.
Another batsman who would have done well post 2000.
Trumper,like the Croucher were batsmen well ahead of the time.

[social]

Originally Posted by Richard

Hick could, to me, very conceivably have averaged 50+ if he'd debuted in 2001/02 or later.

Yeah sure

A few years wouldnt have fixed his technique or improved his mental frailty

[GotSpin]

Bradman would still be batting

[wfdu_ben91]

Originally Posted by social

Yeah sure

A few years wouldnt have fixed his technique or improved his mental frailty

His still having trouble swallowing the pill that Matthew Hayden is better then any English batsman since Len Hutton.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by social

Yeah sure

A few years wouldnt have fixed his technique or improved his mental frailty

A few years did fix his technique, actually - after being found to be inadequate by the West Indians of 1991, he was smashing the Australians of 1993 who tried similar tactics, then carving-up the South Africans who were arguably better still.

Hick modified his technique to cut-out the flaws of his early Test career, enjoyed the fruits of this between 1992/93 and 1995/96, and his later difficulties were the result of mental frailties. These frailties may well not have occurred had he not had earlier technical difficulties, difficulties which would have been extremely unlikely to have been exposed as mercilessly as they were 1991-1992 in 2001/02 or 2003/04 because of the lesser calibre of bowling.

What is more, with more sympathetic handling than he was allowed in his day - which did indeed abound later, and which for instance Andrew Caddick benefited hugely from - his mental frailties could easily have been reduced to irrelevance.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

His still having trouble swallowing the pill that Matthew Hayden is better then any English batsman since Len Hutton.

That comment was not merely factually unsound, but both useless and precisely the sort of thing that the CC community is making an effort to stamp-out (ie, things that are specifically likely to divert a thread to a tired, long-since-stupifyingly-bored-the-pants-off-everyone route).

So I'd recommend you pack comments of the sort in.

[social]

Originally Posted by Richard

A few years did fix his technique, actually - after being found to be inadequate by the West Indians of 1991, he was smashing the Australians of 1993 who tried similar tactics, then carving-up the South Africans who were arguably better still.

Hick modified his technique to cut-out the flaws of his early Test career, enjoyed the fruits of this between 1992/93 and 1995/96, and his later difficulties were the result of mental frailties. These frailties may well not have occurred had he not had earlier technical difficulties, difficulties which would have been extremely unlikely to have been exposed as mercilessly as they were 1991-1992 in 2001/02 or 2003/04 because of the lesser calibre of bowling.

What is more, with more sympathetic handling than he was allowed in his day - which did indeed abound later, and which for instance Andrew Caddick benefited hugely from - his mental frailties could easily have been reduced to irrelevance.

The definition of an "exceptional/great test batsman" (which an average of 50+ implies) does not include room for excuses.

Hick was a very ordinary test match batsman who was exposed in the Sheffield Shield well before his test debut and nothing after that was a surprise

[social]

If S.F. Barnes was an Australian playing in the 1990s/2000s, at best he would've had a very abbreviated test career and in all likelihood struggled to have a bowling average less than 50

Medium pace non-spinners = cannon-fodder