Cricket Player Manager
Page 185 of 263 FirstFirst ... 85135175183184185186187195235 ... LastLast
Results 2,761 to 2,775 of 3938
Like Tree311Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #2761
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    In his autobiography Wally Hammond states that McDonald bowled at '90 mph'. Obviously this a best guess so may not be accurate. Suffice to say though, McDonald was a fast bowler of the Larwood variety.

    Hobbs also faced Albert Cotter in 1905 on English wickets and remarked he 'was the fastest bowler he ever faced'. Cotter took 121 wickets for the tour at 20.19.

    All those bowlers would have been at least as lethal I reckon as most fast bowlers around today.
    Lethal at wicket-taking maybe but lethal at knocking the heads off of batsmen ? I doubt that. It simply was not cricket back then to injure people like that, which is why there are so few mentions of anyone being injured in county cricket back then. I certainly have not come across a single instance of a broken jaw or crushed cheekbone from that era. So it'd mean they simply did not bowl bouncers aimed at the heads as much.

    Whereas looking from 1970s onwards, the injury galore every single season is pretty well documented.

  2. #2762
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Samuel_Vimes's Avatar
    Defend Your Castle Champion! Monkey Diving Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bonn, BRD
    Posts
    23,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    Hmm, i am not 100% sure, but it seems to me that the reason no-one ever crossed the 1000 rating points- both as batsmen or bowler- is because there must be a mathematical limiting factor. Otherwise, nobody has ever gone through a purple patch in batting or bowling to attain the 1K ? I assumed it to be logarithmic, since it'd make sense why it gets so bloody hard to acquire rating points near the top end of the scale.
    Yeah but if it was logarithmic it could potentially go way below 0 at the other end. I suspect it's some kind of cumulative distribution function (which, to be fair, has similar asymptotic behaviour)
    Messi scores on the rebound.

    Founder of ESAS - Edgar Schiferli, the best associate bowler
    A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett and Benaud
    Member of JMAS, DMAS, FRAS and RTDAS

    Quote Originally Posted by Adolf Grünbaum
    Is the conduct approved by the gods right ("pious"), because of properties of its own, or merely because it pleases the gods to value or command it?

  3. #2763
    International Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    Lethal at wicket-taking maybe but lethal at knocking the heads off of batsmen ? I doubt that. It simply was not cricket back then to injure people like that, which is why there are so few mentions of anyone being injured in county cricket back then. I certainly have not come across a single instance of a broken jaw or crushed cheekbone from that era. So it'd mean they simply did not bowl bouncers aimed at the heads as much.

    Whereas looking from 1970s onwards, the injury galore every single season is pretty well documented.
    I'm almost sure that McDonald regularly targeted batsman that annoyed him. But I'll have to find the sources again to confirm that.
    Len Hutton - Jack Hobbs - Ted Dexter - Peter May - Walter Hammond - Frank Woolley - Ian Botham - Alan Knott - Hedley Verity - John Snow - Fred Trueman

    Victor Trumper - Bill Lawry - Don Bradman - Greg Chappell - Allan Border - Keith Miller - Adam Gilchrist - Alan Davidson - Shane Warne - Dennis Lillee - Glenn McGrath

  4. #2764
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,273
    Sure Hobbs would he coped, some of the pitches he and Sutcliffe had to survive were down right close to unplayable. I came around to fully accepting Hobbs when I saw some clips of him facing an apparently rampant and rapid Gregory on a wet pitch alternating evading bouncers and protecting his wicket. Think Hobbs is a legitimate top 5 batsman if all time, period.
    Hutton had to face the express Lindwall and the unpredictable Miller. Hammond would have been the less successful vs fast bowling than either row the two, especially struggling against the W.I quicks.
    watson likes this.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3


  5. #2765
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,339
    If a batsman can cope with pace bowled outside off and average 50+, there's every reason to assume that he'll cope fine with some short stuff.

    In these cross-era comparisons, you've got to give a bit of leeway and go with the "champion in one era would be..." idea.

    But all that said, here's some David Frith suggesting that short bowling at the body was common well before bodyline...

    Herbert Sutcliffe was no sensationalist: “The reason for my two car accidents,” he wrote in 1971, “was a burst blood vessel over the left eye which impaired my vision and a black-out followed.” Even in old age he allowed nothing to fluster him. The film evidence is still there: a Jack Gregory bouncer, a parry or a sway, a contemplative walk around the crease; elsewhere a sudden break from his stance as somebody moved behind the bowler: an imperious wave of the hand before resumption. As a senior pro during the red-hot Bodyline series, still mindful of the battering dished out by Australia in earlier years, it was often he – ahead of captain Douglas Jardine’s instruction – who ushered England’s leg-side cordon into position after a few new-ball overs from Harold Larwood and Bill Voce.
    Frith's Encounters No.9: Herbert Sutcliffe

  6. #2766
    State Vice-Captain Coronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,369
    I recall something being mentioned about Bodyline being partly revenge for the hammering Gregory and MacDonald dished out to England earlier.
    ATG World XI
    1. J.B Hobbs 2. H. Sutcliffe 3. D.G Bradman 4. W.R Hammond 5. G.S Sobers 6. A.C Gilchrist 7. Imran Khan 8. M.D Marshall 9. S.K Warne 10. M. Muralitharan 11. G.D McGrath

  7. #2767
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    Sure Hobbs would he coped, some of the pitches he and Sutcliffe had to survive were down right close to unplayable. I came around to fully accepting Hobbs when I saw some clips of him facing an apparently rampant and rapid Gregory on a wet pitch alternating evading bouncers and protecting his wicket. Think Hobbs is a legitimate top 5 batsman if all time, period.
    Hutton had to face the express Lindwall and the unpredictable Miller. Hammond would have been the less successful vs fast bowling than either row the two, especially struggling against the W.I quicks.
    I used to believe the same, till i actually saw footage of Hobbs. Guy played cover drive with both feet in the air, i am sorry,he did not have the technique to survive the modern game. Its one thing to play with no feet movement but playing a drive with both feet in the air ? thats just schoolboy stuff.

    It is a fact that the dearth of fast bowling was so acute in Hobbs and Sutcliffe's career that they opened their batting against spinners and military medium more often than anyone who would even be categorized as medium fast.

    As for the occasional bouncer, yes they existed but fact remains, injuries to the head and hand were far less common pre WWII than post WWII. That can either mean all county players were better at playing the short stuff on dodgier wickets than their counterparts in the post war era or that they simply were so rare (headhunting) that due to the law of averages, hardly anyone got injured.
    I don't need to point out which one is the more sensible option here.

    Not to mention, half the players of that era did not play competetively, it was an amatuer pastime. Its a bit insulting to the pro era to eulogize the amatuer era greats on an even footing.

  8. #2768
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    If a batsman can cope with pace bowled outside off and average 50+, there's every reason to assume that he'll cope fine with some short stuff.

    In these cross-era comparisons, you've got to give a bit of leeway and go with the "champion in one era would be..." idea.

    But all that said, here's some David Frith suggesting that short bowling at the body was common well before bodyline...



    Frith's Encounters No.9: Herbert Sutcliffe
    Thats silly. There are plenty of batsmen who are just fine with pace bowing outside off but crap themselves when its shortpitched into the body. Saurav Ganguly and Suresh Raina are the two clear-cut examples of that.

    Playing the short ball requires a neutral stance. You cannot be too much on the front foot (or you die) and you cannot be too much on the backfoot or you get yorked. It requires not only a certain amount of technique, it also requires confidence, quick reflexes and a great eye. Its not a given that those who play the short ball well will play the full ball well ( Ritchie Richardson, Chris Gayle) and vice versa ( Suresh Raina, Saurav Ganguly)

    And no, i will not give the leeway of 'champion of one era would be champion on any other', for it makes a mockery of the highly elusive skill of adaptation, by making adaptation a default assumption than what it really is: a rare and commendable accomplishment. If adaptation was so easy willy nilly, then every tom dick and harry would adapt to chinks exposed in their game, instead of fading away after a great start. Therefore, adaptation is NOT an assumption i am willing to make.

  9. #2769
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    I used to believe the same, till i actually saw footage of Hobbs. Guy played cover drive with both feet in the air, i am sorry,he did not have the technique to survive the modern game. Its one thing to play with no feet movement but playing a drive with both feet in the air ? thats just schoolboy stuff.

    It is a fact that the dearth of fast bowling was so acute in Hobbs and Sutcliffe's career that they opened their batting against spinners and military medium more often than anyone who would even be categorized as medium fast.

    As for the occasional bouncer, yes they existed but fact remains, injuries to the head and hand were far less common pre WWII than post WWII. That can either mean all county players were better at playing the short stuff on dodgier wickets than their counterparts in the post war era or that they simply were so rare (headhunting) that due to the law of averages, hardly anyone got injured.
    I don't need to point out which one is the more sensible option here.

    Not to mention, half the players of that era did not play competetively, it was an amatuer pastime. Its a bit insulting to the pro era to eulogize the amatuer era greats on an even footing.
    It's a big mistake to think early era cricket was like a Sunday social match, which is what "amateur pastime" suggests. That's actually insulting.

    While it was more common to open the bowling with a spinner due to the more receptive nature of pitches at the time, there were still plenty of quick bowlers around.

    Jack Gregory was every bit as quick as the WIs bowlers of the 70s.

  10. #2770
    International Coach HeathDavisSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Rummaging through Iain O'Brien's dustbins.
    Posts
    14,692
    How many versions of the both feet off the ground shot from Hobbs have you seen? Is it a reasonable sample to draw the conclusion that all his cover drives were played in that way, or is the sample limited due to the fact there is very little useful footage left from that era?
    >>>>>>WHHOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHH>>>>>>
    Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation Society
    Supporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
    Adam Wheater - Another batsman off the Essex production line
    Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.


    Vimes tells it how it is:
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    Heath worryingly quick.

  11. #2771
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    It's a big mistake to think early era cricket was like a Sunday social match, which is what "amateur pastime" suggests. That's actually insulting.

    While it was more common to open the bowling with a spinner due to the more receptive nature of pitches at the time, there were still plenty of quick bowlers around.

    Jack Gregory was every bit as quick as the WIs bowlers of the 70s.
    There is nothing insulting in saying that I take my job more seriously than my hobby because my livelihood depends on it.
    Amatuer X is less competetive than professional X simply because of the same difference between hobby and a job. Doesnt mean every single hobbyist is half-arsing it or every single professional is putting 100% in their jobs, but by and large, that is the case for the masses. People more often than not take it easier on a hobby than work.
    It is insulting to suggest though that 100 people working at something professionally are producing just the same type of results as 100 hobbyists having fun.

    And I don't care if Jack Gregory was every bit as quick as the WI bowlers of the 70s (though that is a tall claim i am inclined to toss aside, elite speed, ie, consistent 90mph+ is something that not just anyone who looks fast is capable of). What i do care about, is the fact that when you do open with a spinner, the pace bowler is getting shafted because the pace bowler loses a lot more when the shine of the ball is gone and it is softer.
    This is why no pace bowler willingly prefers bowling first change to opening the bowling.

  12. #2772
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Sampling size, in this case, does not really matter. I've seen probably 400 of Tendulkar's innings, about 200+ of Lara's innings, i did not see a single instance of them playing a cover drive with both feet in the air. So i don't care if Hobb's did it infrequently, the fact that he did it, puts his callibre in the 'schoolboy' status.

  13. #2773
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    There is nothing insulting in saying that I take my job more seriously than my hobby because my livelihood depends on it.
    Amatuer X is less competetive than professional X simply because of the same difference between hobby and a job. Doesnt mean every single hobbyist is half-arsing it or every single professional is putting 100% in their jobs, but by and large, that is the case for the masses. People more often than not take it easier on a hobby than work.
    It is insulting to suggest though that 100 people working at something professionally are producing just the same type of results as 100 hobbyists having fun.
    Yep, I wouldn't go so far as to say they were hobbyists, but they definitely weren't of the same professional standard as today. Do people really think that players who worked other jobs on the side could really have been as good as players who dedicate most hours of their life to it? Come off it. This isn't a slight at older era players, it's simply an admission that the standards weren't the same, and couldn't have been by design.

  14. #2774
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    Yep, I wouldn't go so far as to say they were hobbyists, but they definitely weren't of the same professional standard as today. Do people really think that players who worked other jobs on the side could really have been as good as players who dedicate most hours of their life to it? Come off it. This isn't a slight at older era players, it's simply an admission that the standards weren't the same, and couldn't have been by design.
    They were playing the highest standard of the day, the same as modern players. It's all just fantasy talk anyhow, but I've no doubt that champions who were able to magically cross eras would still be champions in another.

    I know allowances would have to be made, but adjustment would happen in most cases.

  15. #2775
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    They were playing the highest standard of the day, the same as modern players. It's all just fantasy talk anyhow, but I've no doubt that champions who were able to magically cross eras would still be champions in another.

    I know allowances would have to be made, but adjustment would happen in most cases.
    'Highest standards of the day' is not equal throughout time, when you consider the fact that today's 'highest standard of the day' are produced by dedicating 100% effort & time to perfect one's cricket, while 80 years ago, it came after you took 40 hours of work and 10-15 hours of commuting to work out of the week.

    It is a slight to the professional to say that he is just as good doing something on a primary basis as an amatuer who is doing it on limited time and secondary basis after doing his day job.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Thread Hijacks
    By sledger in forum Site Discussion
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 05:32 PM
  2. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 06:29 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
  •