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

[Burgey]

Been cod-ordinary frankly

 

[GotSpin]

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.

I'll turn these seemingly two different points into a compliment. cheers

 

[Jono]

It was a compliment tbh

 

[vcs]

Some good points being made here.

 

[aussie]

HAAA @ my post being deleted.

 

[Prince EWS]

HAAA @ my post being deleted.

You don't have any deleted posts in this thread. Must've just not submitted properly.

 

[aussie]

You don't have any deleted posts in this thread. Must've just not submitted properly.

I hope so sir PEWS.

 

[aussie]

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.

There is more than enough credible evidence showing that Sehwag is. But like youself not wishing to turn this good thread ATM into a Hayden debate. I dont wish to turn this good thread into a another Sehwag debate. Since the arguments are old & people who believe otherwise wont change ATS.

 

[Ruckus]

If player X was more successful than player Y (relative to their contemporaries of course), regardless of how people think they would have gone if they swapped timeframes, then player X should be regarded as the superior player

I really don't agree with this. Lets have a hypothetical scenario with two different eras, and two different batsman who are the dominant players in each of these eras:

Era A: All of the wickets are conducive to spin bowling, and offer nothing to pace bowlers.

'Mr Spin' (dominant batsman of Era A): master of playing spin bowling, and because of the nature of the wickets, this is all that is required to be the most prolific run scorer of his generation.

Era B: All of the wickets are conducive to pace bowling, and offer nothing to spin bowlers.

'Mr Pace' (dominant batsman of Era B): master of playing pace bowling, and because of the nature of the wickets, this is all that is required to be the most prolific run scorer of his generation.

Now, lets just assume Mr Spin is relatively more successful than his contemporaries than Mr Pace. So going by the above quote, Mr Spin is simply the superior batsmen (despite both batsmen having a mastery in a completely different domain of batting). This highlights the problems with rating players between eras in this way. Rating isn't simply about ascertaining how good a batsman is compared to his contemporaries, it involves, or at least should involve, evaluating how proficient players are in the various facets of the game. It would be completely unreasonable to say that simply because Mr Spin is a champion batsman he would also excel in Era B. He could be a naturally gifted player of spin, and a very poor player of pace bowling (which is not conducive to success in the new Era). At the same time, he could excel in playing pace bowling as well and might be just as successful in Era B as he was in Era A. The main point here is that it is impossible to know what would happen, and therefore, you cannot simply say a player is "superior" because of his higher degree of dominance in an era which has its own specific challenges.

Therefore, because of those flaws, IMO the only way you can attempt to rate players from different eras is the traditional way of trying to compare various stats between eras (e.g. how did player X as compared to player Y go against spin, swing bowling, the best bowlers of the day, on bad wickets etc. etc. etc. ). Unfortunately, because there are such a large number of variables, any accuracy in comparing players is difficult to achieve. I still believe the best way to compare players is by simply having watched them. However, there is one exception to that rule I can think of: Bradman. Because he was statistically SO far ahead of his contemporaries, and of all other batsmen to have ever graced the game, I think it would be safe to conclude that any inaccuracies in comparing stats are completely covered for.

 

[Prince EWS]

Now, lets just assume Mr Spin is relatively more successful than his contemporaries than Mr Pace. So going by the above quote, Mr Spin is simply the superior batsmen (despite both batsmen having a mastery in a completely different domain of batting). This highlights the problems with rating players between eras in this way. Rating isn't simply about ascertaining how good a batsman is compared to his contemporaries, it involves, or at least should involve, evaluating how proficient players are in the various facets of the game. It would be completely unreasonable to say that simply because Mr Spin is a champion batsman he would also excel in Era B. He could be a naturally gifted player of spin, and a very poor player of pace bowling (which is not conducive to success in the new Era). At the same time, he could excel in playing pace bowling as well and might be just as successful in Era B as he was in Era A. The main point here is that it is impossible to know what would happen, and therefore, you cannot simply say a player is "superior" because of his higher degree of dominance in an era which has its own specific challenges.

You think I'm saying that a player automatically be exactly as effective in all eras, but what I'm saying is that it's not at all relevant. Mr. Spin and Mr. Pace are both given the job of being as effective as they possibly can be given the bowling attacks and conditions they face. What they would've done in another era is of absolutely no importance to me because it's not their job to appear as if they'd do well in conditions different to what they're presented with - their job is to do better than their contemporaries in the conditions they play in.

 

[Ruckus]

You think I'm saying that a player automatically be exactly as effective in all eras, but what I'm saying is that it's not at all relevant. Mr. Spin and Mr. Pace are both given the job of being as effective as they possibly can be given the bowling attacks and conditions they face. What they would've done in another era is of absolutely no importance to me because it's not their job to appear as if they'd do well in conditions different to what they're presented with - their job is to do better than their contemporaries in the conditions they play in.

The whole point of what I wrote was to highlight the problems with that idea though. The batsman's job is indeed to do better than their contemporaries in the conditions they play in, however, the level of success in that respect cannot be used to compare players between different eras (because the success is era specific!).

That is why the only legitimate (albeit, somewhat tedious and innacurate) way to compare players between eras is to look at the stats for how they faired in the various, objective aspects of the game.

 

[Prince EWS]

The whole point of what I wrote was to highlight the problems with that idea though. The batsman's job is indeed to do better than their contemporaries in the conditions they play in, however, the level of success in that respect cannot be used to compare players between different eras (because the success is era specific!).

That is why the only legitimate (albeit, somewhat tedious and innacurate) way to compare players between eras is to look at the stats for how they faired in the various, objective aspects of the game.

Totally disagree. I think we've reached a roadblock.

 

[SJS]

Gideon Haigh, in my humble opinion, is one of the leading (if not the best) cricket writers of the modern era. Here he is on a subject very similar to what;s being discussed..,

The Joys of The Past​

World XIs have a lot to recommend them in theory, not much to point to in practice. The idea of a team of the talents has a timeless appeal. Some are born to bat, others to bowl, but anyone and everyone, fans included, has a sneaking faith in their aptitude for selection. Yet somehow such ensembles have a tendency to punch below their collective weights.

Australia bowled a Rest of the World XI out in Perth for 59 in an hour and a half in December 1971. Dennis Lillee on a Perth greentop? Not a job for the semi-committed. The ICC, in their perennial unwisdom, gave official Test and ODI status to the games of the World XI who visited Australia five years ago, in an effort to stir players to their best. The ensuing shambles made a mockery of the players' expectation of star treatment. Abiding memories of that visit will be Shoaib Akhtar expending more energy on the dance floor than in the nets, and Inzamam ul-Haq strolling around the covers because there was no room for him in the costive cordon of slips.

Is there any reason to expect better of Cricinfo's all-time World XI? Perhaps the selectors should be thankful we will never find out. But from the fortunes of those prior units can be deduced a hint of the challenges of bringing together a team from all over both the world and the decades. Lists of great players are static; teams are dynamic and must be designed with their functioning in mind. Who will provide the strokes and who the stability? Who will catch, at slip and at bat-pad? There's no point picking four new-ball bowlers if only two can share it; no need to pick three spinners if you're playing on seaming tracks or under cloud cover.

That's even before you come to the dilemmas involved in choosing from across the generations. Which version of the player, for instance, would one be choosing? The Viv Richards circa 1976 or circa 1990? The Sachin Tendulkar of 1998 or of today? The Imran Khan who bowled so thrillingly with the new ball, or the Imran Khan of thoroughbred batsmanship who bowled second change? And how does one factor the cost of war into those who careers were carved up by it? An innings opened by the 1912 model Jack Hobbs would be very different to that begun by the 1930 model.

Questions nag. Under whose conditions would games be played? Would the pitch be uncovered? Would the Test be timeless? Whose lbw and no-ball law would be in force? Whose equipment would be in use? Imagine Garry Sobers with one of those modern bats that picks up like a swizzle stick but makes contact like a mace. Above all, in whose world, and according to whose values, would the team mobilise? Would Victor Trumper wish to play in a team listening to Javed Miandad sledge? Would Jack Hobbs be capable of maintaining the team omerta about Shane Warne's SMS habits?

Often all one has to judge are records, and records are only ever indicative, never definitive. Had George Headley and Graeme Pollock played 45 Tests each rather than 45 between them, would they have maintained their averages of 60? Would Richard Hadlee have been the same bowler in a stronger attack that competed for wickets with him more strenuously? Batting averages of 50 today seem almost as common as averages of 40 in the 1980s: this debasement of the currency of runs must mean something.

The game is now more global, more various. Given that Sir Donald Bradman made all his Test runs and Dennis Lillee claimed all but 28 of his Test wickets at home or in England, is there sufficient evidence of their versatility and adaptability? Can one be confident that they would have prospered in other conditions and in an era of many more games far closer together?

To adjust for the briefer, less concentrated careers of past players involves a discrimination against the present. Ricky Ponting has had the good fortune to play in a fully professional era in which cricket could be his be-all and end-all, one in which conditions were stacked in batsmen's favour and there were few bowlers of express pace. But how is one to pay homage to his great qualities, of fitness, resilience and unappeasable appetite for the game?

To lean towards the records of the moderns, swollen by constant competition, incentivised by rich financial baits, is to ignore how prestigious first-class cricket was even 20 years ago, and how handsome were the inducements of English league cricket - handsome enough to cause Sydney Barnes and Ted McDonald, two of history's greatest bowlers, to turn their backs on their countries and play comparatively little Test cricket.

Ranking cricketers from different eras, then, is a little like ranking inventions from history. Is the world wide web a greater innovation than the telephone? Quite possibly, but the former could not have arisen without the latter. It is possible when Tendulkar bats to see through him the whole history of batsmanship: WG Grace's playing back, Ranjitsinhji's playing to leg, Bradman's playing across the line, Gavaskar's stoic endurance, Richards' instinct to dominate. What does he owe their inspiriting qualities?

So why perform an exercise that seems meretricious, intellectually flawed and is almost bound to mislead? Two reasons. First, it cajoles us into contemplating the past, for which the modern game, which wants our money rather than our love, gives us little encouragement. Second, in superficially obscuring differences, it forces us to acknowledge them: we have to pretend that the world of cricket has not changed because we know it has. Oh, one other reason: because it's fun, and ultimately, although it is so easy to forget in this grim present, that is what we're here for​

 

[Ruckus]

Gideon Haigh, in my humble opinion, is one of the leading (if not the best) cricket writers of the modern era. Here he is on a subject very similar to what;s being discussed..,

Truly excellent article.

 

[robelinda]

Truly excellent article.

Read my first Gideon book in the early 90's "The Border Years", quality quality writer.

 

[Spark]

That's a top-rate article.

 

[Ikki]

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.

I do think they're more prevalent than we give credit for...which is why Hayden averaging 50+ in the era is notable. Sticking to the few times he was a failure and concluding every other time it wasn't seaming or swinging or spinning well is what I have a big problem with.

 

[Altaican]

Is it unique to cricket fans? I mean, I don't often see football fans discussing how Maradona would do against a defence consisting of Maldini, Baresi, Thuram and Cafu for example. But I'm not a particularly die-hard football fan either, so maybe they do.

My guess is it happens in all the sports.I follow tennis intensely, and questions in discussion boards as to how a player would have done in a certain era come up all the time (for example if Nadal would have won 2 Wimbledons if he were playing on the fast-grass, big-serving era of the 90s etc.).

The point is, how important is it in practice, to be able to survive and score at an average of 50+ (or whatever determines greatness) against an attack of Marshall-Lillee-Hadlee-Warne(insert your own dream lineup here)? Now I'm not suggesting that minnow-bashing should be enough to bestow greatness on an individual, but really, how often do you come up against an all-time great bowling lineup in adverse conditions?

Obviously in the current era (almost since 2003) the presence of a truly great attack is virtually non-existent, so in that sense, a batsman being great against such an attack is not of much use for the team. But what I have observed is, batsmen who consistently dominate under tough conditions (like against a peak Marshall, Lillee on a seaming wicket etc.) generally don't have much trouble dominating on flat-tracks against modest attacks.

If I were a team selector or a captain or fan of a team in the current era, I couldn't care less about how a certain player in the team would perform against great attacks of the past. All I would be bothered about is, if he can deliver the goods in the present situation.

But the point of labelling someone as an ATG or bestwoing greatness is completely different. It is quite honestly one's own opinion. It is very hard to find any absolute here. For me, it is very hard to consider a batsman with a severe weakness against pace or short pitched bowling as an all time great (no matter what era it is, or what the statistical acheivements of the batsman in that particular era are). I am much more compromising on weakness against spin.

Ideally I would expect someone who is considered an ATG to have at least one stellar series performance, playing his natural game, in all extremes. This would show that he is capable of performing well in any era (condition). But then, that is just my opinion/taste.

It really depends on one's viewing experience of cricket. As I have said before, those who have never seen Aus-Windies or England-Windies matches during the 80s would have no clue about the degree of difficulty a batsman had to face. Even watching India-RSA or Pak-RSA series in the mid-90s would give some idea.

I think batsmen of the past, even if they faced better attacks on the whole, it wasn't as if they were always up against 4 ATGs with no respite.. there probably were a few weak links even in those attacks that could be targeted. People sometimes seem to forget that.

It depends a lot on what sort of back-up the ATG bowlers have, and if in that series the back-up bowlers themselves were bowling like ATGs. According to many, Thommo was no ATG but the way he bowled at his peak (72 to mid-78), batsmen did not prefer facing him to Lillee (who is obviously an ATG).

Jason Gillespie was pretty ordinary in the absence of McGrath (ignoring his great performances against Zim/BD). But he was very very good as a back-up for McGrath.

Weathering the initial storm (of say the Windies attack of 80s) without giving away the wicket itself was a big deal. Occasionally batsmen truly did not have any respite. After the massacre at MCG in 1988, Allan Border retorted "You wonder where your next single is going to come.". And this despite having a very good, tough batting line-up.

If you are suggesting that great batsmen of this era (with their attacking mindset and strokeplay, and positive attitude) would have done just as well against great attacks of the past (70s, 80s, 90s) by targetting the lesser bowlers, it is very hard to say.

One thing that works against your suggestion though is that performances of many great batsmen of this decade are not all too flattering when they came up against truly great attacks in adverse batting conditions like in the 90s to early 2000s.

To be fair to the batsmen of this era, it is true for batsmen of any era. There is some truth in Andy Robert's statement that all batsmen, no matter how great,are very vulnerable against ferocious pace. It is just that batsmen of this era are damn lucky while those of the 80s facing the Windies weren't that lucky .

Nevertheless, it is hard to generalize one way or the other regarding batsmen of the current era. IMO, stats of all current batsmen would suffer if they had to play great attacks frequently. How much they suffer depends on how quickly and how well batsmen of the current era adapt, and how strong their fundamentals of the game are.

 

[aussie]

Gideon Haigh, in my humble opinion, is one of the leading (if not the best) cricket writers of the modern era. Here he is on a subject very similar to what;s being discussed..,

This is what my opinion on the bolded is.

The Joys of The Past​

Lists of great players are static; teams are dynamic and must be designed with their functioning in mind. Who will provide the strokes and who the stability? Who will catch, at slip and at bat-pad? There's no point picking four new-ball bowlers if only two can share it; no need to pick three spinners if you're playing on seaming tracks or under cloud cover.

Well of course any erudite cricket fan when picking these hypotetical all-time XIs for the various nations. Would not make these silly errors.

That's even before you come to the dilemmas involved in choosing from across the generations. Which version of the player, for instance, would one be choosing? The Viv Richards circa 1976 or circa 1990? The Sachin Tendulkar of 1998 or of today? The Imran Khan who bowled so thrillingly with the new ball, or the Imran Khan of thoroughbred batsmanship who bowled second change? And how does one factor the cost of war into those who careers were carved up by it? An innings opened by the 1912 model Jack Hobbs would be very different to that begun by the 1930 model..

We should always pick the players @ their peaks of their whether bowler or batsman. While for all-rounders, you have to pick the period when the combined batting or bowling the best really. Since the idea of ATXIs is to imagine the best player @ the peaks battling againts each other. Thus:

- For Viv clearly it would circa 1976-1986/88. Not when he passed his peak in 1990/91 at all

- For Tendy in an Indian ATXI or World XI think we could chose anyone TBF. Since Tendy from 1990-2002 & Tendy since 2007/08 are about the same really. ATM i personally am tempted to take the venteran Tendy since he all the skills of 1990-2002, but more experience.

- Imran you got to pick the period when he combined solid batting ability & top quality 90 mph bowling. Which was from Karachi 1980 - Bridgetown 1988.

- For Hobbs, well that one is interesting. I have never read anything that suggest Jack Hobbs style as opener before WW1 & after WW1 was different TBH. The impression i always got is that he came back after WW1 & just continued his run making.

Questions nag. Under whose conditions would games be played? Would the pitch be uncovered? Would the Test be timeless? Whose lbw and no-ball law would be in force? Whose equipment would be in use? Imagine Garry Sobers with one of those modern bats that picks up like a swizzle stick but makes contact like a mace. Above all, in whose world, and according to whose values, would the team mobilise? Would Victor Trumper wish to play in a team listening to Javed Miandad sledge? Would Jack Hobbs be capable of maintaining the team omerta about Shane Warne's SMS habits?.

The conditions would have to be under-modern times, thats the most fair balance. Plus cricket has been of a very similar style & standard since the 1950s:

- A regular diet of two of quality new-ball bowlers of the 80-90 mph vs openers in most teams

- change in the lbw rule.

- Introduction of helmets

- elimination of timeless tests

- 6 ball pers over in all natiosn except for AUS in the 60s & 70s

- No uncovered wickets, except the last phase of it in England during the 60s.


So basically the new lbw rule which came into play after 1936 has to be instead of the old one.

No need for timeless test. Since for the 60 years, generally 5 day test have been around.

Old players could/should get to use modern improved equipment as well. That would help them presuming they get time to adjust in a few practice matches.

The other values stuff haha, those are funny imaginatory stuff. But i guess the old stars & modern stars could work it out.

Often all one has to judge are records, and records are only ever indicative, never definitive. Had George Headley and Graeme Pollock played 45 Tests each rather than 45 between them, would they have maintained their averages of 60? Would Richard Hadlee have been the same bowler in a stronger attack that competed for wickets with him more strenuously? Batting averages of 50 today seem almost as common as averages of 40 in the 1980s: this debasement of the currency of runs must mean something..

No to Headley & Pollock IMO. Esepcially if they have to face consist of amount of world-class bowling in these hypotetical matchups.

I think Hadlee may have done fairly similar if he played with a stronger attack.

The high 50+ averages that have been seen in the modern FTB. Would definately be reduced if batsman had to face the a consistent amount of WC bowling attacks from the top 8 nations ATXIs. Without a doubt. It would be an amazing feat with the exception of Bradman to average 50+ againts those kind of attacks.

The game is now more global, more various. Given that Sir Donald Bradman made all his Test runs and Dennis Lillee claimed all but 28 of his Test wickets at home or in England, is there sufficient evidence of their versatility and adaptability? Can one be confident that they would have prospered in other conditions and in an era of many more games far closer together?.

Ye i'm confident Lillee would. Although he played in era's of alot bowler friendly decks, one or two flat pitches popped up in his career & he took wickets on them.

Ranking cricketers from different eras, then, is a little like ranking inventions from history. Is the world wide web a greater innovation than the telephone? Quite possibly, but the former could not have arisen without the latter. It is possible when Tendulkar bats to see through him the whole history of batsmanship: WG Grace's playing back, Ranjitsinhji's playing to leg, Bradman's playing across the line, Gavaskar's stoic endurance, Richards' instinct to dominate. What does he owe their inspiriting qualities?.

Yep. The best point.

So why perform an exercise that seems meretricious, intellectually flawed and is almost bound to mislead? Two reasons. First, it cajoles us into contemplating the past, for which the modern game, which wants our money rather than our love, gives us little encouragement. Second, in superficially obscuring differences, it forces us to acknowledge them: we have to pretend that the world of cricket has not changed because we know it has. Oh, one other reason: because it's fun, and ultimately, although it is so easy to forget in this grim present, that is what we're here for[/INDENT][/I]

Yep its all great fun.

 

[aussie]

My guess is it happens in all the sports.I follow tennis intensely, and questions in discussion boards as to how a player would have done in a certain era come up all the time (for example if Nadal would have won 2 Wimbledons if he were playing on the fast-grass, big-serving era of the 90s etc.).



Obviously in the current era (almost since 2003) the presence of a truly great attack is virtually non-existent, so in that sense, a batsman being great against such an attack is not of much use for the team. But what I have observed is, batsmen who consistently dominate under tough conditions (like against a peak Marshall, Lillee on a seaming wicket etc.) generally don't have much trouble dominating on flat-tracks against modest attacks.

If I were a team selector or a captain or fan of a team in the current era, I couldn't care less about how a certain player in the team would perform against great attacks of the past. All I would be bothered about is, if he can deliver the goods in the present situation.

But the point of labelling someone as an ATG or bestwoing greatness is completely different. It is quite honestly one's own opinion. It is very hard to find any absolute here. For me, it is very hard to consider a batsman with a severe weakness against pace or short pitched bowling as an all time great (no matter what era it is, or what the statistical acheivements of the batsman in that particular era are). I am much more compromising on weakness against spin.

Ideally I would expect someone who is considered an ATG to have at least one stellar series performance, playing his natural game, in all extremes. This would show that he is capable of performing well in any era (condition). But then, that is just my opinion/taste.

It really depends on one's viewing experience of cricket. As I have said before, those who have never seen Aus-Windies or England-Windies matches during the 80s would have no clue about the degree of difficulty a batsman had to face. Even watching India-RSA or Pak-RSA series in the mid-90s would give some idea.



It depends a lot on what sort of back-up the ATG bowlers have, and if in that series the back-up bowlers themselves were bowling like ATGs. According to many, Thommo was no ATG but the way he bowled at his peak (72 to mid-78), batsmen did not prefer facing him to Lillee (who is obviously an ATG).

Jason Gillespie was pretty ordinary in the absence of McGrath (ignoring his great performances against Zim/BD). But he was very very good as a back-up for McGrath.

Weathering the initial storm (of say the Windies attack of 80s) without giving away the wicket itself was a big deal. Occasionally batsmen truly did not have any respite. After the massacre at MCG in 1988, Allan Border retorted "You wonder where your next single is going to come.". And this despite having a very good, tough batting line-up.

If you are suggesting that great batsmen of this era (with their attacking mindset and strokeplay, and positive attitude) would have done just as well against great attacks of the past (70s, 80s, 90s) by targetting the lesser bowlers, it is very hard to say.

One thing that works against your suggestion though is that performances of many great batsmen of this decade are not all too flattering when they came up against truly great attacks in adverse batting conditions like in the 90s to early 2000s.

To be fair to the batsmen of this era, it is true for batsmen of any era. There is some truth in Andy Robert's statement that all batsmen, no matter how great,are very vulnerable against ferocious pace. It is just that batsmen of this era are damn lucky while those of the 80s facing the Windies weren't that lucky .

Nevertheless, it is hard to generalize one way or the other regarding batsmen of the current era. IMO, stats of all current batsmen would suffer if they had to play great attacks frequently. How much they suffer depends on how quickly and how well batsmen of the current era adapt, and how strong their fundamentals of the game are.

Quality post.

Only slight point i disagree with is that Gillespie being poor without McGrath. He lead AUS attack without McGrath & won series (in SRI 04) & even outbowled McGrath on occassions (in India 04).