Early era batsmen

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

Hey Archie; you mentioned Laurie Nash earlier. Do you have any idea how his career went after his last test in '37? I've heard he played well in Melbourne grade cricket and deserved selection for the state team on form but never got picked. Can you confirm that and relay his grade stats in say 1938 and 1939?

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Nash finished playing Grade cricket in 1937/38.

Thanks to Vic, who may well be right but I think he may have played the 1939-40 season. He started with Fitzroy in 1927-28 and played his last two seasons with Camberwell and retired when he was 29 mainly because of the WW2.

His last two seasons for Camberwell produced 154 wickets @10.25 This compares well to his overall Grade average of 532 @15.11.

Nash was a great bowler but was never selected in the SS. In the season of 1937-38 Nash was easily the best performing bowler in grade cricket.

It was felt because he bowled some bouncers at the MCC in 1936-37 his card was stamped and although the best allrounder in the country he did not make the 1938 tour. I think he was a victim of the hysteria about Bodyline which made fast bowling a dirty thing in the late 1930s.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Coronis

Is the article only comparing batsmen, or the whole team? If you had some completely crap tailenders in your team that would drag the average down, boosting stats for the batsman in question. Also, the article first says Border should be highly rated because of how much better he did than his comparitively crap teammates. Then contradicts itself by saying Chappell is also amazing because of how good his contemporaries were.

Yeah there are some problems with the article, although still interesting

[the big bambino]

Thanks for that AM. We must have been pretty strong or stupid to do without him. I've also heard that he was abrasive and combative and may have been overlooked as much for reasons of class snobbery as a willingness to bounce batsmen.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

Thanks for that AM. We must have been pretty strong or stupid to do without him. I've also heard that he was abrasive and combative and may have been overlooked as much for reasons of class snobbery as a willingness to bounce batsmen.

My pleasure

I agree he was a bit rough and ready and a boaster before that was considered confidence.

When asked who was the best Australian Rules Footballer of all time he said words to the affect:

I just happen to see the greatest player every morning when I shave

[the big bambino]

He also reckoned he would have sorted this bodyline business if they just gave him 3 overs at Hammond. He also misunderstood his man when he pinged Woodfull and expecting him to be impressed enough to recommend he tour England in 1934.

He probably would have had a good test career if Richardson was the captain in the early 30s instead of Woodfull.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

He also reckoned he would have sorted this bodyline business if they just gave him 3 overs at Hammond. He also misunderstood his man when he pinged Woodfull and expecting him to be impressed enough to recommend he tour England in 1934.

He probably would have had a good test career if Richardson was the captain in the early 30s instead of Woodfull.

True, Richardson said he would have ended BL by giving the Poms a taste of their own. In the end however it seems to depend on who has the fire power, there was little to be gained in bowling bouncers at the Windies teams of the 80s.

[MartinB]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

Hey Archie; you mentioned Laurie Nash earlier. Do you have any idea how his career went after his last test in '37? I've heard he played well in Melbourne grade cricket and deserved selection for the state team on form but never got picked. Can you confirm that and relay his grade stats in say 1938 and 1939?

From what I know Nash, he was never picked for a shield game by Victoria, he did play the odd match for Tasmania / Exhibition game.

If you have not read it, the bodyline and test come back sections of the Wikipeadia article Laurie Nash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia are worth a look.

Interesting points for match against England:

• England captain Gubby Allen pressed for Nash's banishment from the Australian team
• There was a threat of an English walk off I Nash bowled a boncer / bowled a ball at the body

Also Keith Millers description: Nash's non-selection as a regular Test player was "the greatest waste of talent in Australian cricket history"

[the big bambino]

Thanks MartinB. Nash was the 1st to be paid to play grade cricket. Legend and pioneer.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by archie mac

Thanks to Vic, who may well be right but I think he may have played the 1939-40 season. He started with Fitzroy in 1927-28 and played his last two seasons with Camberwell and retired when he was 29 mainly because of the WW2.

His last two seasons for Camberwell produced 154 wickets @10.25 This compares well to his overall Grade average of 532 @15.11.

Nash was a great bowler but was never selected in the SS. In the season of 1937-38 Nash was easily the best performing bowler in grade cricket.

It was felt because he bowled some bouncers at the MCC in 1936-37 his card was stamped and although the best allrounder in the country he did not make the 1938 tour. I think he was a victim of the hysteria about Bodyline which made fast bowling a dirty thing in the late 1930s.

Camberwell was in sub-district then.

[the big bambino]

That kind of makes sense. They were a VFA team as well and offered terms to Nash to be their footy captain coach too. So he got paid for playing cricket and footy with them as well as getting a job with council. Gravy.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Camberwell was in sub-district then.

Oh ok, although they give stats for him playing against Richmond?

[SJS]

. . . 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.

[the big bambino]

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.

[the big bambino]

Originally Posted by archie mac

Oh ok, although they give stats for him playing against Richmond?

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]

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.