archie mac
International Coach
Oh ok, although they give stats for him playing against Richmond?
-
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.
Early era batsmen
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
. . . and the debate continues 
It is impossible to have a rational and scientific way to compare players playing in different eras. (I am talking here of great players in each era not comparing greats with non entities) Thus those who insist on taking extreme positions so-and-so IS the greatest and ridicule greats from another era do not present any great argument or logic or nuanced insight. Mostly they expose their own bias and mostly can be left to their own fantasies.
Archie is absolutely right. Tendulkar would have been a great in any era as would Sobers, Richards, Bradman, Trumper, Grace etc. When we choose all time sides we would do well to put the rider that this is one's opinion and not gospel. I myself prefer to add, often, that on another day I would probably choose another side and be equally happy with it and defend each player in it with equal 'ferocity' and the same level of justification. Thats easy for they are greats and have so much in their careers to admire, talk of and use to show them as the greats they were/are.
As I have mentioned often before, if stats were all we needed to decide the 'bestest' of all time, all we needed was to have a thread on the criteria, fix the criteria, feed it to a computer and do good to all the cricket tragics of the world with an all time ranking of all the thousands who have played the game and for the thousands who will come.
Just one more point. When we run down players of a particular era with comments like "oh they bowled in era's of uncovered pitches which accounts for their bowling stats which need to be discounted" we might then make a note of it and the next time we are discussing batsmen, add points to the batsmen of the same era and inflate their batting averages for the same period as well. The same argument is true in reverse when people talk of perfect batting tracks helping to inflate batting averages of modern day cricketers.
Lets not pamper our ego's to the extent of the ridiculous by running down the greats who have played the game, irrespective of era, for it does not enhance us as students of the game - it exposes the exact opposite about us.
It is impossible to have a rational and scientific way to compare players playing in different eras. (I am talking here of great players in each era not comparing greats with non entities) Thus those who insist on taking extreme positions so-and-so IS the greatest and ridicule greats from another era do not present any great argument or logic or nuanced insight. Mostly they expose their own bias and mostly can be left to their own fantasies.
Archie is absolutely right. Tendulkar would have been a great in any era as would Sobers, Richards, Bradman, Trumper, Grace etc. When we choose all time sides we would do well to put the rider that this is one's opinion and not gospel. I myself prefer to add, often, that on another day I would probably choose another side and be equally happy with it and defend each player in it with equal 'ferocity' and the same level of justification. Thats easy for they are greats and have so much in their careers to admire, talk of and use to show them as the greats they were/are.
As I have mentioned often before, if stats were all we needed to decide the 'bestest' of all time, all we needed was to have a thread on the criteria, fix the criteria, feed it to a computer and do good to all the cricket tragics of the world with an all time ranking of all the thousands who have played the game and for the thousands who will come.
Just one more point. When we run down players of a particular era with comments like "oh they bowled in era's of uncovered pitches which accounts for their bowling stats which need to be discounted" we might then make a note of it and the next time we are discussing batsmen, add points to the batsmen of the same era and inflate their batting averages for the same period as well. The same argument is true in reverse when people talk of perfect batting tracks helping to inflate batting averages of modern day cricketers.
Lets not pamper our ego's to the extent of the ridiculous by running down the greats who have played the game, irrespective of era, for it does not enhance us as students of the game - it exposes the exact opposite about us.
Last edited:
the big bambino
International Captain
I agree SJS. Comparisons are odious. The only fair comparison would see each man compared subject to the same conditions. So unless you can somehow reconfigure SRT's birth year to around 1908 its fatuous comparing him to DGB. Or reconfiguring Hobb's birth year approximate to Lara's then don't bother arguing who is better. But if you could at least no one player will have an advantage over another.
Like any other sport you'd expect a cricket team now, if they could go back in time, to win. Or lose if you teleported them into the future. I mean even Kirkut could general a modern army to beat Hannibal but only he would think himself a great soldier.
If you are a born in an era you will play to the standard of that era. Depending on whether you go back or forward in time will determine if you'll be a catweazle or a terminator. But you can't equalise birth years or time travel. So any comparison on the relative merits of players crossing eras is equally fanciful.
Like any other sport you'd expect a cricket team now, if they could go back in time, to win. Or lose if you teleported them into the future. I mean even Kirkut could general a modern army to beat Hannibal but only he would think himself a great soldier.
If you are a born in an era you will play to the standard of that era. Depending on whether you go back or forward in time will determine if you'll be a catweazle or a terminator. But you can't equalise birth years or time travel. So any comparison on the relative merits of players crossing eras is equally fanciful.
Last edited:
the big bambino
International Captain
Interesting. I don't mean to turn you into the forum researcher Archie but would you be able to confirm if he played 1st or sub grade btwn 1938-1940?
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
CV 1st XI Player Register and Career Stats | Victorian Premier Cricket
Official premier cricket stats for everyone who has ever played a 1st XI game.
Official premier cricket stats for everyone who has ever played a 1st XI game.
the big bambino
International Captain
Cool. Thanks for that.
the big bambino
International Captain
Unless my tired eyes are missing something I can't see Manning Clark listed. Could he have bull ****ted his cricket career too?
archie mac
International Coach
Well said SJS, I struggle with ever 'having a go' at someone who was good enought to play for their country. I would love to say I played Test cricket even if I was bowled for a king pair dropped three sitters and was taken off after one over with figures of 0-36.. . . and the debate continues
It is impossible to have a rational and scientific way to compare players playing in different eras. (I am talking here of great players in each era not comparing greats with non entities) Thus those who insist on taking extreme positions so-and-so IS the greatest and ridicule greats from another era do not present any great argument or logic or nuanced insight. Mostly they expose their own bias and mostly can be left to their own fantasies.
Archie is absolutely right. Tendulkar would have been a great in any era as would Sobers, Richards, Bradman, Trumper, Grace etc. When we choose all time sides we would do well to put the rider that this is one's opinion and not gospel. I myself prefer to add, often, that on another day I would probably choose another side and be equally happy with it and defend each player in it with equal 'ferocity' and the same level of justification. Thats easy for they are greats and have so much in their careers to admire, talk of and use to show them as the greats they were/are.
As I have mentioned often before, if stats were all we needed to decide the 'bestest' of all time, all we needed was to have a thread on the criteria, fix the criteria, feed it to a computer and do good to all the cricket tragics of the world with an all time ranking of all the thousands who have played the game and for the thousands who will come.
Just one more point. When we run down players of a particular era with comments like "oh they bowled in era's of uncovered pitches which accounts for their bowling stats which need to be discounted" we might then make a note of it and the next time we are discussing batsmen, add points to the batsmen of the same era and inflate their batting averages for the same period as well. The same argument is true in reverse when people talk of perfect batting tracks helping to inflate batting averages of modern day cricketers.
Lets not pamper our ego's to the extent of the ridiculous by running down the greats who have played the game, irrespective of era, for it does not enhance us as students of the game - it exposes the exact opposite about us.
Happy for people to say that was a poor shot or he is bowling crap but come on, Bradman, Grace, Sobers
Show some respect. You look like a tool when you write he would not last an over against such and such
archie mac
International Coach
When did he claim to have played? Do the records go back far enough?
the big bambino
International Captain
Agree with AM. People make themselves look fools when denigrating champions. Also AM take a look at the link vic_orthodox provides. It shows grade averages in vic grade. It shows Nash's figures so they go back as far as the 30s atleast and I assume are extensive.
Manning Clark claimed he played Fleetwood Smith and, from this thread, Nash too. Yet I couldn't find his stats. Either he's factualising a fiction or the records aren't extensive.
Manning Clark claimed he played Fleetwood Smith and, from this thread, Nash too. Yet I couldn't find his stats. Either he's factualising a fiction or the records aren't extensive.
archie mac
International Coach
Had a look very interesting. MC is interesting as well. Not sure what is happening there