Page 122 of 202 FirstFirst ... 2272112120121122123124132172 ... LastLast
Results 1,816 to 1,830 of 3016
Like Tree115Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #1816
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    1,879
    Seeing is believing. Trouble is we wont and haven't seen it all. So you have to rely on 1st hand accounts and stats. I can't credit people who say stats aren't everything. When someone says that they are often attempting to establish the primacy of their opinion over facts. Stats and reports from the day are superior to anyone's opinions. Especially if you haven't seen the player.

    The stats have been pretty comparable from every decade since the 20s making comparisons fairly authentic. The batting ave in Barnes' day was transitioning to that trend. In Lohamnn's day the batting average was low however. About 19. Thats gotta tell you something abt the state of the pitches. Which is why, I'm surmising, slow left armers and medium paced right armers dominated then. As pitches improve fast and leg spin bowling come into their own. Which is why I'm not certain Lohamnn, Turner, Ferris etc are transferable to a modern era. But someone like Barnes who could take Hill's off stump after pitching outside leg will always be a champion. Besides the Australian pitches of the time had improved as had our batting. Barnes was the best bowler in our conditions; the hardest in the world at that time.

    Even though Barnes' time was one of transition you can still make a comparison with subsequent eras. That is why I think comparing a bowler's ave to the global ave has some merit. The global ave will give clues of the conditions prevailing. The individual ave, in comparsion, how good or bad the bowler is. For someone to establish a difference of 10 btwn his effort compared to the overall ave has done something that people like Marshall have done. And this with only the benefit of a few games against SA. He was special and if anything his ave is inflated due to the preponderance of games he played against Oz.
    Last edited by the big bambino; 19-04-2013 at 04:39 AM.

  2. #1817
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    1,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    Actually yes, if you read the whole article, he mentions Richardson as the "fully realised personification of a fast bowler that every schoolboy dreams of". He also makes references about Trumper's style, so some of his choices were influenced by romanticism, clearly. But jeez, when every Australian and English cricketer of the time agree that he was the best, its damn hard to ignore. The South African team were not minnows btw, they were actually quite strong at that time iirc. I mean in 1928, when the Windies toured England, they still considered him the best bowler they faced. Now, England didn't have the strongest bowling lineup at that time, but Tate and Larwood were certainly playing. Barnes was 55 and they reckoned him the best they played.
    That'll do.

  3. #1818
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    1,879
    In his era Barnes' ave against Australia is spectacular. It is only bettered by Blythe. However the latter did all his damage in Eng. He wasn't Barnes' equal in Australia. Down under Barnes is the top wicket taker with only FR Foster beating his ave but in 8 fewer matches.

  4. #1819
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    17,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    I'd be pretty ****ing pissed if I was the best bowler in the side, and was not put in to open the bowling like I usually did. Can't really put anything against him for wanting more pay and to bring his wife with him either.
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    Nah - he was just a bit forward-thinking by the standards of his time and wasn't prepared, unlike most contemporary professionals, to be treated like a piece of **** - he was no prima donna
    I didn't actually know this.

    Its been fun ranting like a lunatic. As good as Barnes was, no one has convinced me that he should make my all time team though.


  5. #1820
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    17,464
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    In his era Barnes' ave against Australia is spectacular. It is only bettered by Blythe. However the latter did all his damage in Eng. He wasn't Barnes' equal in Australia. Down under Barnes is the top wicket taker with only FR Foster beating his ave but in 8 fewer matches.
    How many other cricketers picked for their bowling had an opportunity to average under Barnes in his era?

  6. #1821
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    1,879
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    How many other cricketers picked for their bowling had an opportunity to average under Barnes in his era?
    Blythe and Trumble come closest. I get the impression that the former's figures are flattering though he was a champion slow bowler. Trumble by all accounts was great. If I'm getting your drift you'd say Trumble should be a show at selection. Which would be fair enough I suppose.

    Other well known bowlers from the era include Rhodes, Hirst, Cotter, Faulkner, Noble and Hordern. They averaged from 23 to 28 which is around the era's average or just a bit higher. Foster only played 11 games before war came. He averaged 20 in them.

  7. #1822
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    17,464
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    Blythe and Trumble come closest. I get the impression that the former's figures are flattering though he was a champion slow bowler. Trumble by all accounts was great. If I'm getting your drift you'd say Trumble should be a show at selection. Which would be fair enough I suppose.

    Other well known bowlers from the era include Rhodes, Hirst, Cotter, Faulkner, Noble and Hordern. They averaged from 23 to 28 which is around the era's average or just a bit higher. Foster only played 11 games before war came. He averaged 20 in them.
    Yep that's one of my points. I don't think I've ever seen anyone consider Blythe or Trumble in an ATG side. I acknowledge Barnes 5 wickets is an innings rate is very impressive though.

  8. #1823
    International Captain LongHopCassidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nursing a broken ****ing arm
    Posts
    5,652
    Bit of a loose cannon by some accounts - fell out with the MCC, refused many Test tours and CC contracts because he earned more from bowling at hapless amateurs in the Lancashire League.

    Although he did maintain an average of 9 there up to the tender age of 61.
    "The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.

  9. #1824
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    1,879
    Tbf Trumble should be a contender though. I mean its a great effort. Actually his ave against Eng is better then Barnes against Aus. Funnily enough Trumble missed out in his sole test against SA, taking 0/127.

    Yet I find it hard to get past my prejudice against his style of bowler. The kind of medium pace spinner that I suspect would find it hard on true wickets. One point in favour of Barnes is he bowled from 1901 to 1914 whereas Trumble retired early 1904. Maybe Hugh sneaked in on some dicey pitches, idk. Anyway the easiest thing to do is just rate Trumble now more than I did. Barnes ahead of him but its a lot closer than I thought.

  10. #1825
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,607
    [QUOTE=the big bambino;3054743]Seeing is believing. Trouble is we wont and haven't seen it all. So you have to rely on 1st hand accounts and stats. I can't credit people who say stats aren't everything. When someone says that they are often attempting to establish the primacy of their opinion over facts. Stats and reports from the day are superior to anyone's opinions. Especially if you haven't seen the player.

    The stats have been pretty comparable from every decade since the 20s making comparisons fairly authentic. The batting ave in Barnes' day was transitioning to that trend. In Lohamnn's day the batting average was low however. About 19. Thats gotta tell you something abt the state of the pitches. Which is why, I'm surmising, slow left armers and medium paced right armers dominated then. As pitches improve fast and leg spin bowling come into their own. Which is why I'm not certain Lohamnn, Turner, Ferris etc are transferable to a modern era. But someone like Barnes who could take Hill's off stump after pitching outside leg will always be a champion. Besides the Australian pitches of the time had improved as had our batting. Barnes was the best bowler in our conditions; the hardest in the world at that time.

    Even though Barnes' time was one of transition you can still make a comparison with subsequent eras. That is why I think comparing a bowler's ave to the global ave has some merit. The global ave will give clues of the conditions prevailing. The individual ave, in comparsion, how good or bad the bowler is. For someone to establish a difference of 10 btwn his effort compared to the overall ave has done something that people like Marshall have done. And this with only the benefit of a few games against SA. He was special and if anything his ave is inflated due to the preponderance of games he played against Oz.[/QUOTE]

    I find that comment strange, thats like saying Murali's average was inflated by playing too much vs Lara and Tendulkar and should have played Zim and Bangladesh more.
    I don't rate players particularily on what they did againts minnows, be it Bradman, Weekes, Sangakkara or Murali and so it shouldn't be any different for Barnes.
    1st XI
    Hutton | Hobbs | Bradman* | Richards^ | Tendulkar | Sobers5^ | Gilchrist+ | Khan3 | Marshall1 | Warne4^ | McGrath2
    2nd XI
    Sutcliffe | Gavaskar* | Headley | Chappell^ | Lara^ | Kallis5^ | Knott+ | Hadlee3 | Ambrose2 | Lillee1 | Muralitharan4
    3rd XI
    Greenidge | Richards^ | Ponting^ | Pollock | Hammond^ | Worrell5* | Waite+ | Akram3 | Steyn1 | Holding2 | O'Reilly4
    4th XI
    Morris | Simpson^ | Sangakkara | Weekes^ | Border*^ | Walcott+ | Faulkner5 | Laker4 | Trueman1 | Garner3 | Donald2

  11. #1826
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,607
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    Tbf Trumble should be a contender though. I mean its a great effort. Actually his ave against Eng is better then Barnes against Aus. Funnily enough Trumble missed out in his sole test against SA, taking 0/127.

    Yet I find it hard to get past my prejudice against his style of bowler. The kind of medium pace spinner that I suspect would find it hard on true wickets. One point in favour of Barnes is he bowled from 1901 to 1914 whereas Trumble retired early 1904. Maybe Hugh sneaked in on some dicey pitches, idk. Anyway the easiest thing to do is just rate Trumble now more than I did. Barnes ahead of him but its a lot closer than I thought.
    Fully agree, and that is part of my point.

    Back to Lillee though, when WSC is included his average is the same, not sure about the strike rate but it would certainly push him over 400 wickets. Holdings average was similar and Imran and Procter had better averages but from much fewer matches.
    Great player no doubt and I rank him on par with Ambrose and in my second team. Just think Marshall and Mcgrath proved themselves in more places and conditions. Lillee was top tier though.

  12. #1827
    State Vice-Captain harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,463
    Dickie Bird's All Time Test XI apparently is:

    Barry Richards
    Sunil Gavaskar
    Vivian Richards
    Graeme Pollock
    Greg Chappell
    Garry Sobers
    Imran Khan
    Alan Knott
    Shane Warne
    Dennis Lillee
    Lance Gibbs

    What in the world is Gibbs doing there?? I think this is a team of players who he has actually seen play, so Don, Hobbs, Grace, Hutton, Barnes, Headley, Hammond, Miller were disqualified. But why Gibbs?
    If you were that old, and that kind, and the very last of your kind, you couldn't just stand back and watch children cry.

  13. #1828
    State Vice-Captain harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,463
    I am guessing Sachin, Lara, Gilchrist and Murali are not considered since Dickie retired from umpiring in 96, and he only chose from players he had seen becoming great on the field while umpiring.

    Of course, he still might have picked Knott and seen Murali's action as doubtful. But I have a feeling that he would have picked Lara ahead of Chappell. seeing that he likes attacking batsmen. Gavaskar ahead of Greenidge the only defensive option, but then again, Sunny could score fast if he wanted to.

  14. #1829
    State Vice-Captain harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,463
    The disregard for the Windies pace bowlers continues on the lines of Benaud and Bradman. Gibbs ahead of Marshall. Malcolm would roll in his grave if he gave a f***
    kyear2 likes this.

  15. #1830
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,403
    At one point Dickie had Abdul Qadir in above Warne



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Thread Hijacks
    By sledger in forum Site Discussion
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 04:32 PM
  2. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 05:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •