Some golden oldies...

[Daemon]

Thread looks to be going down the wrong route..

Anyways, with regards to transporting older players to the modern era, it's like asking someone who's really intelligent in general to do well in a math test that he hasn't studied for. He wouldn't know the type of questions and the style of answering and thus would fare badly, but that wouldn't mean he's poor at math.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by Daemon

Thread looks to be going down the wrong route..

Anyways, with regards to transporting older players to the modern era, it's like asking someone who's really intelligent in general to do well in a math test that he hasn't studied for. He wouldn't know the type of questions and the style of answering and thus would fare badly, but that wouldn't mean he's poor at math.

Good analogy, that.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by daemon

thread looks to be going down the wrong route..

Anyways, with regards to transporting older players to the modern era, it's like asking someone who's really intelligent in general to do well in a math test that he hasn't studied for. He wouldn't know the type of questions and the style of answering and thus would fare badly, but that wouldn't mean he's poor at math.

great analogy!

[Debris]

Some fantastic footage here. Thanks for posting.

[Julian87]

Originally Posted by Daemon

Thread looks to be going down the wrong route..

Anyways, with regards to transporting older players to the modern era, it's like asking someone who's really intelligent in general to do well in a math test that he hasn't studied for. He wouldn't know the type of questions and the style of answering and thus would fare badly, but that wouldn't mean he's poor at math.

I reckon it would.

[Vijay.Sharma]

For the ulterior motive criers - the videos do tell a story, don't they? Ulterior motive or not, you can't deny what you see.

For the people who are interested in serious discussion -
I agree there is a huge difference between the batsmen up until Bradman-Hammond's debuts and the ones before them. Hobbs is regarded as a master but frankly he wouldn't make an all time XI based on skill for me...ridiculously off balance. He will still make it to an all time XI based on factors other than skill like respect, nostalgia, his contribution in the evolution of the game, etc.

I also feel that the state of play between the wars and immediately after the war are different. While you had McCabe, Bradman, Hammond, Woodfull, etc between the wars, guys like Barrington, 3 Ws, Sobers, Hutton, Compton, Hanif, etc made the skill factor much better.

If it's purely cricket skills (no baggage or necessity to cater to respect and nostalgia) I think 9 of an all time XI would come from the 70s,80s, and 90s. If you had to pick only one decade then it's a summit clash between 70s v/s 90s.

Anyway that site is a treasure trove of old clips...it has clips on almost every topic of the black and white era. You can really get lost in all that nostalgia.

Did you notice how full the stadium was for the Ashes test of 1934/35? Man it looked like the Eden Gardens

[GotSpin]

Sorry to all the players pre 1950s. As interpreted from pristine seventy five year old footage, it's pretty clear that although your techniques were used to perfection in your own playing days, it just doesn't sit well with the way we view our current game.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by Vijay.Sharma

For the ulterior motive criers - the videos do tell a story, don't they? Ulterior motive or not, you can't deny what you see.

For the people who are interested in serious discussion -
I agree there is a huge difference between the batsmen up until Bradman-Hammond's debuts and the ones before them. Hobbs is regarded as a master but frankly he wouldn't make an all time XI based on skill for me...ridiculously off balance. He will still make it to an all time XI based on factors other than skill like respect, nostalgia, his contribution in the evolution of the game, etc.

I also feel that the state of play between the wars and immediately after the war are different. While you had McCabe, Bradman, Hammond, Woodfull, etc between the wars, guys like Barrington, 3 Ws, Sobers, Hutton, Compton, Hanif, etc made the skill factor much better.

If it's purely cricket skills (no baggage or necessity to cater to respect and nostalgia) I think 9 of an all time XI would come from the 70s,80s, and 90s. If you had to pick only one decade then it's a summit clash between 70s v/s 90s.

You speak of not catering to respect and nostalgia for players pre WWII yet afford that accommodation to players in the 70s and 80s.

[Daemon]

Originally Posted by Julian87

I reckon it would.

At the point where they failed the test, yes, which is why I believe some of those guys wouldn't do well now. However, a talented batsmen would be able to pick up concepts, learn and adapt, eventually doing well for the test. Talent can't be underrated, you see it all the time. So many professional sports players have played other sports at a decent level before having to decide between one, take AB de Villiers for example.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Originally Posted by GotSpin

You speak of not catering to respect and nostalgia for players pre WWII yet afford that accommodation to players in the 70s and 80s.

Huh? Reading things that are not there, are we?

[JBMAC]

Originally Posted by weldone

Vijay Sharma has been able to convince me that Tendulkar is almost as good as Bradman





























....as a bowler.

: laugh:

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Daemon

At the point where they failed the test, yes, which is why I believe some of those guys wouldn't do well now. However, a talented batsmen would be able to pick up concepts, learn and adapt, eventually doing well for the test. Talent can't be underrated, you see it all the time. So many professional sports players have played other sports at a decent level before having to decide between one, take AB de Villiers for example.

Yeah exactly, it's all relative. A player like Hobbs had a batting technique which probably wouldn't fair well in the modern game, but given the conditions of the day his performance relative to his contemporaries was nonetheless preeminent. If you accept that his contemporaries shared similar 'unrefined' (for want of a better word) techniques, there are obviously other qualities he must have possessed which seperated him from the rest of the bunch - these are the qualities you can assume would transcend eras (things like concentration, determination to be the best etc.). I'm very much of the opinion that a champion always finds a way to succeed, and because of that I think it is totally plausible to assume a master of one era would have been a master of another. IMO it is impossible to work out to what extent a player would be successful across eras (which is why I think any attempts to compare players across eras are rather pointless, with one exception). That exception is of course Bradman, and for reasons self-evident.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Yeah exactly, it's all relative. A player like Hobbs had a batting technique which probably wouldn't fair well in the modern game, but given the conditions of the day his performance relative to his contemporaries was nonetheless preeminent. If you accept that his contemporaries shared similar 'unrefined' (for want of a better word) techniques,

So now the 'back in the day' argument dunn seem to be working well, innit?
Anyway, take it to the logical conclusion - it means that Hobbs, etc were way too good for cricketers in the 1920s and 1930s. Nothing more, nothing less. And it must stop there instead of going around claiming that this guy is a better batsman than that guy....the judgment of betterness is a subjective thing and I fail to understand how people who have never seen the said batsman bat (even videos) start claiming this fellow is number 1, that fellow is number 2.

O before you jump up to ridicule me again, my analysis ain't a ranking and I never claimed it to be complete either.

Originally Posted by DeusEx

there are obviously other qualities he must have possessed which seperated him from the rest of the bunch - these are the qualities you can assume would transcend eras (things like concentration, determination to be the best etc.). I'm very much of the opinion that a champion always finds a way to succeed, and because of that I think it is totally plausible to assume a master of one era would have been a master of another. IMO it is impossible to work out to what extent a player would be successful across eras (which is why I think any attempts to compare players across eras are rather pointless, with one exception).

No disagreement there.

Originally Posted by DeusEx

That exception is of course Bradman, and for reasons self-evident.

Gee! Why the sudden change in standards here then? You know the guy is about 175% better than the greats of his time as far as stats are concerned. Now what logic caused you to infer his 175% greatness over Hobbs necessarily means he is greater than all comers? Clearly it is a belief based opinion...you will do a great lot by acknowledging that fact instead of yelling out at people who have different opinions than you.

Now, for the last time I am telling you guys to keep it civil and live with the fact that I think differently. If you follow me around and keep poking at me just coz you are incapable of tolerance for people with different opinions, I guess I'll just have to put you fellows in my bozo bin. Keep it civil and we might have some nice conversations and insightful ones too.

[Daemon]

Keep it civil or I'll put you in the bozo bin, ****s. I have an opinion and you should read it and acknowledge it without deconstructing my argument. :rollsomemother****ingeyes:

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Daemon

Keep it civil or I'll put you in the bozo bin, ****s. I have an opinion and you should read it and acknowledge it without deconstructing my argument. :rollsomemother****ingeyes: