This obsession with how batsmen would do against all-time great dream lineups...

[aussie]

I think the point that people have completely ignored here is not that players are a product of their own generation etc. Yes I am all for players having techniques that suit the style of pitches on which they routinely play during their generation and it is unfair to compare them to previous generations. However, the point about FTBs is a valid one.

To explain this let me use an example from Tennis. Lets say we have 2 hypothetical players and lets call them 'Federer' and 'Nadal'. Federer goes through tournaments beating all inferior opponents 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 etc to reach the final. Nadal on the other hand gets through to the final winning some games in 4 sets and being really tested throughout the tournament. Yet when they get to the final, Nadal wins in 5 sets and maintains an overall favorable win-loss record against Federer. Should we subscribe to the notion that Federer is better simply because he managed to completely obliterate all those inferiors who never had a chance against them while Nadal couldn't do the same? Or should we say that Nadal is superior because in the greatest of adversities and against the very best he usually comes out on top?

I think I would go for Nadal on that one. I think this analogy can be used in cricket. Matthew Hayden for example bullied every single mediocre bowling attack he could find in unprecedented fashion. And yet when he came up against a strong pace bowling outfit in bowler friendly conditions (such as in the 2 Ashes series in England) the guy could barely lay bat on ball. No matter how much we try to ignore them, seamer friendly conditions still exist in cricket and anyone who cant score runs in those conditions needs to have his record looked at under the microscope. When I look at a player like Thorpe, who IMO is one of the most criminally underrated cricketers from the last 2 decades, I will always consider him to be a better player than Hayden. I couldn't care less if Hayden averages 50+, when he was put in unfavorable conditions, he was not even half the batsman as Thorpe was.

EXACTLYYYYYYY. TEC this is why you have been by main man of this site for the start. Although Hayden did correct those deficiences post Ashes 05.

People making it sound when defending modern day FTBs of the 2000s era, when the whole "products of their generation" argument. Like if seamer friendly condtions/pitches of the 90s, 70s TOTALLY disappered in the 2000s era, thus you cant compare how they would have done if they played in the past. Which is the crazy part of that logic.

 

[Flem274*]

SMH. Another one of the old arguments again..

It must be so hard on you.

This is not true at least for the truly great bowlers. At least not for the truly great bowlers.

For example not because McGrath averaged 20 witht he ball in this FTB era, means his average means more than Imran, Marhsall, Hadlee, Ambrose, Donald, Lillee who played in era of more helpul pitches. All of those bowlers had unique skills to to bowl on flat pitches too & if they had to bowl on the roads of the last 10 years i dont see why they wouldn't have had equal success like McGrath.

I agree to an extent. It is harder to bowl on flat pitches, so they would have been affected a bit, but 20 has generally been the wall on how low bowling averages can go in most cases (60 with the bat, which of course is why Bradman is so special) when the bowler has played a decent amount of games.

But the not so great bowlers, the merely good ones, like Mitchell Johnson etc I believe would average several runs less in previous eras. Dale Steyn and Shane Bond would be what they are in any era, but if you transplanted say, Richard Collinge to this day and age he wouldn't be averaging 29.

But as i said, this has been argued before & it is going around in circles again. I expect the calvary to come in to call this "era bias" or of something of the sort in a few..

Diddums. If you don't want to be argued against then don't post.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think the point that people have completely ignored here is not that players are a product of their own generation etc. Yes I am all for players having techniques that suit the style of pitches on which they routinely play during their generation and it is unfair to compare them to previous generations. However, the point about FTBs is a valid one.

To explain this let me use an example from Tennis. Lets say we have 2 hypothetical players and lets call them 'Federer' and 'Nadal'. Federer goes through tournaments beating all inferior opponents 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 etc to reach the final. Nadal on the other hand gets through to the final winning some games in 4 sets and being really tested throughout the tournament. Yet when they get to the final, Nadal wins in 5 sets and maintains an overall favorable win-loss record against Federer. Should we subscribe to the notion that Federer is better simply because he managed to completely obliterate all those inferiors who never had a chance against them while Nadal couldn't do the same? Or should we say that Nadal is superior because in the greatest of adversities and against the very best he usually comes out on top?

I think I would go for Nadal on that one. I think this analogy can be used in cricket. Matthew Hayden for example bullied every single mediocre bowling attack he could find in unprecedented fashion. And yet when he came up against a strong pace bowling outfit in bowler friendly conditions (such as in the 2 Ashes series in England) the guy could barely lay bat on ball. No matter how much we try to ignore them, seamer friendly conditions still exist in cricket and anyone who cant score runs in those conditions needs to have his record looked at under the microscope. When I look at a player like Thorpe, who IMO is one of the most criminally underrated cricketers from the last 2 decades, I will always consider him to be a better player than Hayden. I couldn't care less if Hayden averages 50+, when he was put in unfavorable conditions, he was not even half the batsman as Thorpe was.

I don't think that's a good analogy at all because batting is not win/loss - cricket is not an individual sport. Winning the game is always worth the same in tennis - scoring 30 and scoring 160 is rarely worth the same in cricket. A scrappy four- or five-set win in tennis when compared to a breezy three set win is probably more analogous to a scrappy, edgy innings of 100 off 210 balls when compared to an effortless innings of 100 off 120.

It's not really that I don't think we can make some vague guesses as to how players would go in different eras based on their techniques and how they've gone in certain circumstances during their careers - I just think it means diddly squat. In today's age, a batsman who ruthlessly cashes in moderate to flat pitches with extreme regularity and fails once every three years when a juicy pitch appears is a lot more useful than the batsman who averages 40 everywhere - and that's what it's all about to me: how useful you are in your own time. Batting success in the 21st century so far has been based around clinical efficiency, ruthlessness, concentration and consistency, because while difficult batting conditions do still exist, they're almost so rare as to make them basically irrelevant.

If none of your batsmen can really cash in on moderate to flat pitches, you're going to lose a lot of games on moderate to flat pitches in the 21st century because they're common as muck - piling on mammoth runs with clinical efficiency and consistency is just a more important skill these days than being able to battle it out on a greentop. How players playing today would've gone in the 80s, while an interesting topic, means nothing to me as far as judging their quality goes - it's all about how useful they are now compared to their contemporaries and the so-called "flat track bullies" are more useful than the Thorpes of the world at present.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't think that's a good analogy at all because batting is not win/loss - cricket is not an individual sport. Winning the game is always worth the same in tennis - scoring 30 and scoring 160 is rarely worth the same in cricket. A scrappy four- or five-set win in tennis when compared to a breezy three set win is probably more analogous to a scrappy, edgy innings of 100 off 210 balls when compared to an effortless innings of 100 off 120.

It's not really that I don't think we can make some vague guesses as to how players would go in different eras based on their techniques and how they've gone in certain circumstances during their careers - I just think it means diddly squat. In today's age, a batsman who ruthlessly cashes in moderate to flat pitches with extremely regularity and fails once every three years when a juicy pitch appears is a lot more useful than the batsman who averages 40 everywhere - and that's what it's all about to me: how useful you are in your own time. Batting in the 21st century so far has been about clinical efficiency, ruthlessness, concentration and consistency - those are the attributes that have made batsmen particularly effective in this era because while difficult batting conditions do still exist, they're almost so rare as to make them basically irrelevant. If none of your batsmen can really cash in on moderate to flat pitches, you're going to lose a lot of games on moderate to flat pitches in the 21st century - piling on mammoth runs with clinical efficiency and consistency is just a more important skill these days than being able to battle it out on a greentop. How players playing today would've gone in the 80s, while an interesting topic, means nothing to me as far as judging their quality goes - it's all about how useful they are now compared to their contemporaries.

I agree with you regarding the comparison of people from different eras and I rarely indulge in those. At the end of the day you are a product of your own era and that is the end of the story.

I do think however, that the case of a juicy pitch showing up is more than every 3 years. We're seeing it with enough frequency to suggest that players need to be at least somewhat competent on them. I dont deny that FTBs are in fashion and that players like Trescothick, Hayden, Gayle etc were/are quite valuable to their team. However, the fact of the matter is that these players also tend to go missing when their team is in troubled waters. Ask me any day of the week and I'd pick a player like Laxman or Thorpe over Hayden despite the trade off for the extra runs on flat pitches. Because the fact that these players are liabilities in certain conditions basically takes the sheen away from their overall record.

 

[Prince EWS]

Also, lets please not turn this into a Hayden-specific debate, because I think this thread could be really good if we don't. Whether or not his performances in India in adverse batting conditions make up for his failings in England in adverse batting conditions of a different nature really misses the point of the thread completely.

 

[Prince EWS]

I agree with you regarding the comparison of people from different eras and I rarely indulge in those. At the end of the day you are a product of your own era and that is the end of the story.

I do think however, that the case of a juicy pitch showing up is more than every 3 years. We're seeing it with enough frequency to suggest that players need to be at least somewhat competent on them. I dont deny that FTBs are in fashion and that players like Trescothick, Hayden, Gayle etc were/are quite valuable to their team. However, the fact of the matter is that these players also tend to go missing when their team is in troubled waters. Ask me any day of the week and I'd pick a player like Laxman or Thorpe over Hayden despite the trade off for the extra runs on flat pitches. Because the fact that these players are liabilities in certain conditions basically takes the sheen away from their overall record.

That's fair enough really; I have a lot of time for this position, even though I don't think I quite agree.

 

[Ikki]

I dont ignore it. He performed brilliantly in India but the guy couldnt play the seaming ball to save his life until the fag end of his career. Just because he scored on average 10 more runs on a flat track in comparison to some of his contemporaries it doesn't escape the fact that many of them were far more capable of scoring runs in all conditions.

Except against S.Africa in S.Africa too, you mean.

I have no time for this kind of argument. I'm a firm believer that an all-time great in one era will have been able to adjust had he played in another era. Had Hayden stayed and played in the 90s, he'd have adjusted.

 

[Prince EWS]

I have no time for this kind of argument. I'm a firm believer that an all-time great in one era will have been able to adjust had he played in another era. Had Hayden stayed and played in the 90s, he'd have adjusted.

Unlike aussie and Richard though, TEC isn't actually arguing that certain players who succeeded in today's era would've been flops in another - like me he thinks that's, at best, irrelevant. What he's arguing is that bowler-friendly conditions are more common than a lot of us think these days and that being good in all conditions is still more valuable than being godly in 90% of conditions and abysmal in 10%.

I don't really agree with him, but his argument is one I would not dismiss. I have some time for it.

 

[aussie]

I agree to an extent. It is harder to bowl on flat pitches, so they would have been affected a bit, but 20 has generally been the wall on how low bowling averages can go in most cases (60 with the bat, which of course is why Bradman is so special) when the bowler has played a decent amount of games.

But the not so great bowlers, the merely good ones, like Mitchell Johnson etc I believe would average several runs less in previous eras. Dale Steyn and Shane Bond would be what they are in any era, but if you transplanted say, Richard Collinge to this day and age he wouldn't be averaging 29..

Yea bowlers like Johnson, Morkel, Ntini, Amderson, Hoggard, Hilfenahaus could have very well & averaged less in the 70s, 90s.

While swing bowlers Collinge, Geoff Arnold, Terry Alderman, Bob Appleyard would average higher in the 2000s.

 

[aussie]

Unlike aussie and Richard though, TEC isn't actually arguing that certain players who succeeded in today's era would've been flops in another - like me he thinks that's, at best, irrelevant. What he's arguing is that bowler-friendly conditions are more common than a lot of us think these days and that being good in all conditions is still more valuable than being godly in 90% of conditions and abysmal in 10%.

I don't really agree with him, but his argument is one I would not dismiss. I have some time for it.

Myself & Richard have argued the bolded just like what TEC as said. The only reason past era's is mentioned is to highlight to people like youself & others who defend modern FTBs. Is the bowler friendly pitches/quality pace attacks, that have been around in the 70s -90s where present between 2000-2010, those batsmen wouldn't average that high.

 

[GotSpin]

I think it's fair to say that if you take the cream of the crop over the last 20 years - For arguments sake, I'll just say Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar. Now these guys probably would have averaged the same had they played in any era since they'e just that good.

However, for the players just below, who average over 50 in a generation where so many do, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that some may averaged a few runs less.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think it's fair to say that if you take the cream of the crop over the last 20 years - For arguments sake, I'll just say Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar. Now these guys probably would have averaged the same had they played in any era since they'e just that good.

However, for the players just below, who average over 50 in a generation where so many do, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that some may averaged a few runs less.

I think everyone would average a few runs less (well, except Chris Martin) - or rather should be treated as if they would when they're compared. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. You're only as good as you are relative to everyone else during your time and there are just generally more runs these days, so you have to average slightly more these days to be rated the same. That's why I standardise averages across time to take into account the era average standards. Steyn's average across time becomes 21 and Barnes's average becomes 19 - I don't have the batting ones on hand at the moment but you'd see similar changes. That's a much different argument to picking and choosing which players would suffer more, though, or suggesting everyone would average 15 runs less or something.

You posted something extremely similar before and I replied with this:

Well no-one's saying that averaging 60 in an era where the average batsman averages 35 is more impressive than averaging 55 in an era where the average batsman averages 25. Not at all. Your utility during your era is determined by how well you play relative to the rest the world, not the rest of time.

What I disagree with though is picking out someone like Sehwag and saying he'd suffer a much larger average drop in another era than someone like Dravid, and using it to make a case for Dravid being better the batsman. Firstly I don't think it's necessarily true, but more importantly, even if it is correct, I just find the whole concept completely and utterly irrelevant to a batsman's quality. Sehwag and Dravid honestly don't give a **** how they'd do in different eras and neither do the bowlers bowling to them, the selectors that pick them or the punters who bet on them. They've both done their best to adapt their techniques to the conditions and the bowlers they face today, not to satisfy the whim and fancy of people like us who want to compare them to Greg Chappell.

It is possible to compare players between eras, but the only way to do it with any real context is to compare players' output relative to their contemporaries. Guessing who'd do well in different eras based on technique is admittedly quite an interesting theoretical conversation but IMO it shouldn't really have a baring on how highly we rate the players in question.

And my response to that post is still the same so I'm going to post it again..

 

[GotSpin]

Well no-one's saying that averaging 60 in an era where the average batsman averages 35 is more impressive than averaging 55 in an era where the average batsman averages 25. Not at all. Your utility during your era is determined by how well you play relative to the rest the world, not the rest of time.

What I disagree with though is picking out someone like Sehwag and saying he'd suffer a much larger average drop in another era than someone like Dravid, and using it to make a case for Dravid being better the batsman. Firstly I don't think it's necessarily true, but more importantly, even if it is correct, I just find the whole concept completely and utterly irrelevant to a batsman's quality. Sehwag and Dravid honestly don't give a **** how they'd do in different eras and neither do the bowlers bowling to them, the selectors that pick them or the punters who bet on them. They've both done their best to adapt their techniques to the conditions and the bowlers they face today, not to satisfy the whim and fancy of people like us who want to compare them to Greg Chappell.

It is possible to compare players between eras, but the only way to do it with any real context is to compare players' output relative to their contemporaries. Guessing who'd do well in different eras based on technique is admittedly quite an interesting theoretical conversation but IMO it shouldn't really have a baring on how highly we rate the players in question.

Hmm not really sure where to start here

- Fiirstly, I haven't put down Sehwag at all - Someone just brought it up and I was going along with the hypothetical. He's obviously good enough to adjust his technique. Whether he could score as many runs, who knows.

- Nevertheless, I'd certainly put down a batsmen who has failed in conditions that suited a particular type of bowling which was more widely available in the past. As TEC pointed out, seaming conditions still do pop up and it exposes the FTBs so I don't see an issue with 'putting down' a player who routinely scores runs in easy conditions and routinely fails in seaming conditions in favour of a player in the opposite, even if that other player played in an era which was more exposed to seaming conditions etc

- Obviously they don't care about this meaningless discussion. Fairly irrelevant though since most topics in CC are worth 20c

 

[Prince EWS]

- Fiirstly, I haven't put down Sehwag at all - Someone just brought it up and I was going along with the hypothetical. He's obviously good enough to adjust his technique. Whether he could score as many runs, who knows.

I was just using Sehwag as an example; I hadn't even noticed you referencing him. He's generally a pretty good example for things like this though.

 

[GotSpin]

I was just using Sehwag as an example; I hadn't even noticed you referencing him. He's generally a pretty good example for things like this though.

Think Hayden is probably the best example for this. It would have been interesting to see how Sehwag would have adjusted to the short ball though

 

[tooextracool]

Except against S.Africa in S.Africa too, you mean.

I have no time for this kind of argument. I'm a firm believer that an all-time great in one era will have been able to adjust had he played in another era. Had Hayden stayed and played in the 90s, he'd have adjusted.

What is the definition of an all time great though? Can you just put an arbitrary number up and say so and so is an all time great? If so what should it be? 50? Well then Thilan Samaraweera is one of the greatest batsmen ever. Clearly thats not valid so we have to filter down some other way.

Bottom line is that there is no real uniform definition of what an 'all time great' is and it probably goes beyond numbers. I'd like to think of an all time great as someone who succeeded in all conditions otherwise you are demeaning the other greats of the game. It should really be a very exclusive category and since Hayden didn't succeed in all conditions I don't think I'd admit him.

 

[tooextracool]

Also, lets please not turn this into a Hayden-specific debate, because I think this thread could be really good if we don't. Whether or not his performances in India in adverse batting conditions make up for his failings in England in adverse batting conditions of a different nature really misses the point of the thread completely.

Well I don't intend to turn this into a Hayden specific debate, but I can't really think of anyone else who has prospered from the dearth in fast bowling and the quality of pitches as Hayden has. Players like Trescothick and Gayle have but they haven't really cashed in to the extent that Hayden has. One could argue Sehwag, but I don't think there is enough credible evidence just yet to show that Sehwag is an FTB or that he couldn't alter his game in more difficult conditions.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well I don't intend to turn this into a Hayden specific debate, but I can't really think of anyone else who has prospered from the dearth in fast bowling and the quality of pitches as Hayden has. Players like Trescothick and Gayle have but they haven't really cashed in to the extent that Hayden has. One could argue Sehwag, but I don't think there is enough credible evidence just yet to show that Sehwag is an FTB or that he couldn't alter his game in more difficult conditions.

Wasn't referring to your posts - they were fine in using him as an example. I was more referring to the inevitable replies to them, like the one Sanz made, and the beginning of one of Ikki's, which completely miss the point of the thread.

Whether or not certain players did prosper in bowler-friendly conditions isn't the topic here - it's more about how important that should be when rating them. Getting into a debate over his efforts in India and South Africa versus his efforts in England doesn't really add anything to that point in either direction.

 

[Jono]

Going to put this out there.

The last 10-12 posts have been interesting stuff. Sure it's ideological differences coming the fore, and sure the argument has been one made on CW a lot, but it's in depth discussion whereby differences are explained.

Really enjoyed that.

And on a side note, if I had a dollar for every time Got Spin had a bitch at Cricket Chat in one of his posts I'd be a millionaire. The irony is he is here a lot more and the quality of discussion in Cricket Chat has been quite good of late.

 

[Prince EWS]

Going to put this out there.

The last 10-12 posts have been interesting stuff. Sure it's ideological differences coming the fore, and sure the argument has been one made on CW a lot, but it's in depth discussion whereby differences are explained.

Really enjoyed that.

And on a side note, if I had a dollar for every time Got Spin had a bitch at Cricket Chat in one of his posts I'd be a millionaire. The irony is he is here a lot more and the quality of discussion in Cricket Chat has been quite good of late.

Yeah, I love topics like this. Not even just this subject, but fundamental cricket analysis theory overall. Instead of debating the merits of certain players which always invites bias and over-the-top emotion, we've debated the theory at its core and just used players as examples. Love it.