• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Some golden oldies...

Vijay.Sharma

School Boy/Girl Captain
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

Hall of Fame Member
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

Hall of Fame Member
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.
:laugh::laugh:

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

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
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.
 
Last edited:

Vijay.Sharma

School Boy/Girl Captain
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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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:
 

Ruckus

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

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.
Your entire 40 page piece of **** is a ranking, you're deluded mate. And of course the assumption about Bradman is a belief based opinion. "Put you fellows in my bozo bin"? You have no right to assume any ****ing moral high ground here. Your insight is horse****, and I'm pretty sure even you know it.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
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.
I'm happy to read alternative opinions, but if they're rubbish I'm going to call you out on it. Stop being a sensitive moron.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
I'm happy to read alternative opinions, but if they're rubbish I'm going to call you out on it. Stop being a sensitive moron.
Your entire 40 page piece of **** is a ranking, you're deluded mate. And of course the assumption about Bradman is a belief based opinion. "Put you fellows in my bozo bin"? You have no right to assume any ****ing moral high ground here. Your insight is horse****, and I'm pretty sure even you know it.
If you can't post without resorting to denigrating the poster, then refrain from posting at all.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
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.
But it shouldn't matter whether his technique would fair well in the modern game or not. His technique has been constructed to combat the conditions of his time, not to please the eyes of viewers 80 years ahead.

And like you so rightly point out, the best batsmen of any era possess certain qualities that are necessary for success - Specifically concentration and hand-to-eye coordination - Which would have allowed them to adapt to the differing challenges that confronted them.
 

JBMAC

State Captain
This thread unfortunately is heading down the "wet wicket thread" path. Which is a pity in some ways because it had potential.Maybe it should be closed???????
 

Ruckus

International Captain
But it shouldn't matter whether his technique would fair well in the modern game or not. His technique has been constructed to combat the conditions of his time, not to please the eyes of viewers 80 years ahead.

Yeah no disagreement here.
 

L Trumper

State Regular
This is a famous excerpt generally used for ignorant people

"You could give Aristotle a tutorial. Not only can you know more than him about the world.
You also can have a deeper understanding of how everything works.
Such is the privilege of living after Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Watson, Crick and their colleagues."
--
"I'm not saying you're more intelligent than Aristotle, or wiser. That's not the point.
The point is only that science is cumulative, and we live later."


It is the analogy any one who wants to compare present with past has to look into first, before denigrating all that was achieved by the likes of hobbs, grace et al..

Of course I may have better batting technique than Victor Trumper : But that doesn't make me an all-time aussie cricketer.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
This is a famous excerpt generally used for ignorant people

"You could give Aristotle a tutorial. Not only can you know more than him about the world.
You also can have a deeper understanding of how everything works.
Such is the privilege of living after Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Watson, Crick and their colleagues."
--
"I'm not saying you're more intelligent than Aristotle, or wiser. That's not the point.
The point is only that science is cumulative, and we live later."


It is the analogy any one who wants to compare present with past has to look into first, before denigrating all that was achieved by the likes of hobbs, grace et al..

Of course I may have better batting technique than Victor Trumper : But that doesn't make me an all-time aussie cricketer.
Post of the year, imho.
 

Vijay.Sharma

School Boy/Girl Captain
This is a famous excerpt generally used for ignorant people

"You could give Aristotle a tutorial. Not only can you know more than him about the world.
You also can have a deeper understanding of how everything works.
Such is the privilege of living after Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Watson, Crick and their colleagues."
--
"I'm not saying you're more intelligent than Aristotle, or wiser. That's not the point.
The point is only that science is cumulative, and we live later."


It is the analogy any one who wants to compare present with past has to look into first, before denigrating all that was achieved by the likes of hobbs, grace et al..

Of course I may have better batting technique than Victor Trumper : But that doesn't make me an all-time aussie cricketer.
That totally agrees with my philosophy. I use this particular saying of William Wordsworth to pull me dad's leg ever since I learned about it in the 6th grade: the child is the father of the man
 

Top