Class, Categories and Other General Questions

[hang on]

1) A conversation between Ikki and myself a couple of weeks ago had us arguing about the concept of class in the sense that a particular player is in a different class (league, category, playing field, levels...you name it) from another in terms of quality. In that instance it was about Gavaskar and Chappell. While it could well be a semantic point, the article by that arch spanker, Roebuck, in the SMH today jogged my memory about the point. In particular, the bit:

These fellows count amongst the four greatest batsmen of the era. Most observers place them a fraction below Brian Lara, the twinkle-toed genius, and Sachin Tendulkar, master of classical and contemporary. In part it has been a question of style. Lara could scintillate; Tendulkar's strokes are etched in perfection. Beside them, Kallis can seem ponderous and Ponting pragmatic.

Now, I would like to ask how those on the forum approach this issue when thinking of and rating the great players.

2) The threads about the best batsmen in subcontinental and nonsubcontinental conditions were also interesting since they certainly beg the question of what defines a subcontinental pitch (or conditions). After all, the subcontinent is, surprise, a huge place and there is considerable variation in pitches. At the same time, can all subcontinental countries actually be termed to be similar enough to be lumped together? I would imagine not but I would like to hear your views on it.

3) The All time 11 with a twist by SJS with overlapping eras/players also made me think of when it is fair to say the modern era of batsmenship actually started? Grace's time? Hobbs's? Bradman's? Sobers's? And how one weights batsmen or bowlers from one era against another when comparing their merits. To what extent does having watched a batsman - say, Hayden - affect your understanding of his quality relative to having read about someone - say Hobbs?

 

[smash84]

maybe you should have made a separate thread for each and every point that you are making

 

[hang on]

that would have meant 4 or 5 threads by me on the first page! way too many.

anyway, just wanted it to be a longtime, meandering thread that could cover the this cricket season and see us through to xmas and beyond.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I wouldn't categorise the Subcontinent pitches the same. Sri Lanka obviously has some pitches different to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Also in Pakistan, Karachi is very different from the rest, with that sea breeze coming in.

I would also categorise UAE pitches as different to the subcontinent pitches and would say that they are the worst in the world. As Howe Zat pointed out, pitches there have no wickets and no runs.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think "class" is rather like beauty; hard to define, but instantly recognisable when one sees it. I suppose an example would be to compare Dravid with Kallis. One the face of it, if one just looked at the stats, one would probably conclude they're both essentially defensive batsmen with the latter being slightly the greater talent. However, when one sees both in action, it should be clear to any reasonably unbiased observer that Dravid's touch, grace and beautiful economy of movement marks him out as being cut from a finer cloth.

With regards to the third point about having seen players, I'd say it's natural to be biased towards those one has seen in action, especially those one sees in one's formative years who pique one's interest in the sport in the first place. Hobbs tends to buck this trend though because there's a general consensus amongst contemporary cricket writers his was the brightest talent to grace the crease until Bradman came along to forever end all arguments. Hobbs's overall test figures, whilst very impressive, aren't quite as good as his long term opening partner Herb Sutcliffe. That Hobbs is regarded as the better player with a consensus that borders on universal leads us back to that paradoxically elusive but immediately familiar concept of "class".

The cricketing world might not have the footage to admire, but The Master is so eloquently eulogised it's very hard to imagine him being a front-foot biffer in the Hayden mold.

As for the point about "subcontinental pitches"; that they're all lumped together is either convenient journalistic shorthand or anglocentric hack laziness, depending on one's own bias. There is a perception (and maybe something of a reality too) that they take spin more readily than English pitches (just as, I'm sure, a belief that our own tracks offer more seam movement), but I'm sure the distances separating some stadia in India alone are about the same as between London & Moscow, so it stands to reason they'll have their own characters.

 

[centurymaker]

I think "class" is rather like beauty; hard to define, but instantly recognisable when one sees it. I suppose an example would be to compare Dravid with Kallis. One the face of it, if one just looked at the stats, one would probably conclude they're both essentially defensive batsmen with the latter being slightly the greater talent. However, when one sees both in action, it should be clear to any reasonably unbiased observer that Dravid's touch, grace and beautiful economy of movement marks him out as being cut from a finer cloth.

With regards to the third point about having seen players, I'd say it's natural to be biased towards those one has seen in action, especially those one sees in one's formative years who pique one's interest in the sport in the first place. Hobbs tends to buck this trend though because there's a general consensus amongst contemporary cricket writers his was the brightest talent to grace the crease until Bradman came along to forever end all arguments. Hobbs's overall test figures, whilst very impressive, aren't quite as good as his long term opening partner Herb Sutcliffe. That Hobbs is regarded as the better player with a consensus that borders on universal leads us back to that paradoxically elusive but immediately familiar concept of "class".

The cricketing world might not have the footage to admire, but The Master is so eloquently eulogised it's very hard to imagine him being a front-foot biffer in the Hayden mold.

As for the point about "subcontinental pitches"; that they're all lumped together is either convenient journalistic shorthand or anglocentric hack laziness, depending on one's own bias. There is a perception (and maybe something of a reality too) that they take spin more readily than English pitches (just as, I'm sure, a belief that our own tracks offer more seam movement), but I'm sure the distances separating some stadia in India alone are about the same as between London & Moscow, so it stands to reason they'll have their own characters.

you beauty!

 

[hang on]

very nice post, boybrumby. could surely do a better job of writing for the independent than brenkley.

 

[hang on]

how would one go around sorting the following great bowlers into different classes, if at all?

marshall, lillee, ambrose, donald, khan, akram, waqar, holding, mcgrath, donald, pollock, steyn?

what about the following batsmen?

sobers, richards, gavaskar, chappell, miandad, tendulkar, lara, ponting, waugh, dravid, kallis, inzamam, sangakkara, boycott?

 

[ankitj]

how would one go around sorting the following great bowlers into different classes, if at all?

marshall, lillee, ambrose, donald, khan, akram, waqar, holding, mcgrath, donald, pollock, steyn?

Class A - Marshall, Hadlee, Ambrose, McGrath
Class B - Donald, Imran, Lillee, Pollock, Holding
Class C - Akram, Waqar

what about the following batsmen?

sobers, richards, gavaskar, chappell, miandad, tendulkar, lara, ponting, waugh, dravid, kallis, inzamam, sangakkara, boycott?

Class A - Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar, G. Pollock, Lara, Chappell
Class B - Gavaskar, Ponting, Kallis, Waugh, Dravid, Miandad, Sangakkara
Class C - Inzamam, Boycott

I threw Hadlee and G. Pollock, two of my favourites, into the mix. Kept Steyn out as he is yet to settle into one of those groups.

 

[Hurricane]

I like Brumby's post. For me class is classical technique combined with strong achievements. I like BJ Watling's technique for example but his achievements less than please me.

 

[zaremba]

I think "class" is rather like beauty; hard to define, but instantly recognisable when one sees it. I suppose an example would be to compare Dravid with Kallis. One the face of it, if one just looked at the stats, one would probably conclude they're both essentially defensive batsmen with the latter being slightly the greater talent. However, when one sees both in action, it should be clear to any reasonably unbiased observer that Dravid's touch, grace and beautiful economy of movement marks him out as being cut from a finer cloth.

With regards to the third point about having seen players, I'd say it's natural to be biased towards those one has seen in action, especially those one sees in one's formative years who pique one's interest in the sport in the first place. Hobbs tends to buck this trend though because there's a general consensus amongst contemporary cricket writers his was the brightest talent to grace the crease until Bradman came along to forever end all arguments. Hobbs's overall test figures, whilst very impressive, aren't quite as good as his long term opening partner Herb Sutcliffe. That Hobbs is regarded as the better player with a consensus that borders on universal leads us back to that paradoxically elusive but immediately familiar concept of "class".

The cricketing world might not have the footage to admire, but The Master is so eloquently eulogised it's very hard to imagine him being a front-foot biffer in the Hayden mold.

As for the point about "subcontinental pitches"; that they're all lumped together is either convenient journalistic shorthand or anglocentric hack laziness, depending on one's own bias. There is a perception (and maybe something of a reality too) that they take spin more readily than English pitches (just as, I'm sure, a belief that our own tracks offer more seam movement), but I'm sure the distances separating some stadia in India alone are about the same as between London & Moscow, so it stands to reason they'll have their own characters.

Class.