Agent Nationaux
International Coach
Could you post some footage?
-
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
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm afraid I can't find it by googling it, though I suspect it must be out there - its not rare - its just a few frames of WG and Ranji in the nets at Lord's - he was very much at the veteran stage by then
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
Ranji isn't even wearing pads, some real pace bowling there. Would like to imagine how they would have gone against the likes of Marshall, Lillee, Waqar, Steyn, etc.
watson
Banned
Did anyone notice that people were sitting directly behind Grace and Ranji while they were batting with no netting or barrier inbetween? They must have had complete faith in the batsman hitting the ball, or perhaps they didn't mind getting hit because the bowling wasn't very fast. Grace was wearing pads though.
watson
Banned
Initially, I would get guess pretty bad. Thrust into a Test match at Lords in 1984 with Marshall at the top of his run they would be lucky to make double figures.
However, after 3 months of practice on modern pitches with modern equipment against modern fast bowlers I would postulate that they would fair much better than your average Test batsman.
After all, Grace andf Ranji are called greats for very good reasons: - superb hand to eye co-ordination, leaders in innovation and technique, determined and iron-clad temperment, and so forth.
(Incidently, this highlights a 'problem' when choosing Grace or Ranji during an ATG Draft. Do we assume that they be will playing in a hypothetical Test match against modern fast bowlers without any practice or preparation against modern fast bowlers, or assume that they would be playing a modern domestic season before taking part in their first hypothetical Test match? I've always assumed the former so tend not to select pre-WWI batsman)
Last edited:
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
How do you know that they had superb hand eye coordination?
The hand eye coordination needed to face the likes of fast bowlers today doesn't just come within a matter of 3 months. And if they did have the superb hand eye coordination you are talking about then their averages would have been better.
The hand eye coordination needed to face the likes of fast bowlers today doesn't just come within a matter of 3 months. And if they did have the superb hand eye coordination you are talking about then their averages would have been better.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I'd back myself to do better on a 2013 Year 10 Astronomy exam than Galileo; doesn't mean I'm a better astronomer than him. (Pretty sure I've ripped that comparison off from another member here ftr, apologies for not remembering who).
I'm sure cricket has improved vastly in standard overall since 1910; in fact I think people would be surprised to see an overall rise in quality since the 70s for example, judging by the hard evidence that exists in other sports to prove increased athleticism and refinement of skills over time.
I just think trying to judge sportsmen in absolute terms like that is completely absurd, not to mention pretty much impossible objectively when it comes to cricket. The only valuable - not to mention possible - way to compare players across eras is to first compare them to their peers and then compare the results of those comparisons.
I'm sure cricket has improved vastly in standard overall since 1910; in fact I think people would be surprised to see an overall rise in quality since the 70s for example, judging by the hard evidence that exists in other sports to prove increased athleticism and refinement of skills over time.
I just think trying to judge sportsmen in absolute terms like that is completely absurd, not to mention pretty much impossible objectively when it comes to cricket. The only valuable - not to mention possible - way to compare players across eras is to first compare them to their peers and then compare the results of those comparisons.
Last edited:
Howe_zat
Audio File
How would they have gone against trebuchets?
Last edited:
watson
Banned
What about ATG Drafts though? In a hypothetical Test match made up of players from many different decades you have to make some kind of assumption of how Grace would go against Malcolm Marshall in a 'real live' scenario because that's who Grace would be facing-up to in 'reality'. That's the whole point of the exercise!
In other words, you can't hind behind the statement 'Grace was the greatest batsman of his time relative to his peers' because it's an All-Time-Great Draft. Grace 'will be' facing Marshall at his 1984 peak whether you like it or not.
And Galileo 'will be' taking that 2013 astronomy exam to turn your point on its head.
Last edited:
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
Crushed to death just like against Marshall and co.
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
Is there a genetic element to hand-eye coordination (I'm sure the scientists on here would tell us)?
Cabinet96
Global Moderator
The game has changed too much in the last 100 years to ask how a certain batsman would have gone against bowlers from today. They way they batted, their techniques and method, were designed for getting the best possible output at the time, not trying to impress people who watched cricket in the 21st century. Sure, a lot of the so called great batsman from past eras probably wouldn't be great if they time traveled to now to face South Africa at Cape Town. But the same could be said if Warner and Watson were to go back to bat on a sticky wicket against Barnes and co in the 19th century.
Cabinet96
Global Moderator
Is it though? If that were really the case wouldn't it have to be pre decided where and when the games were to be played? If I was picking a team to bat in the 2000's I'd probably take Ponting over Grace, but if I was picking a team to bat in the 19th century I'd probably take Grace. I've always just done drafts by picking the best XI that I could based on how the players went in their eras, not on how I thought they would go against other players in the draft.
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
Do you think that the game has changed for the better though? Would you not apply the rules of the game from today's period even if the match was being played in the 19th century. In a hypothetical situation, would you not make the same assumptions such as ground staff, covers, etc.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I'm fine with people looking at it that way in that situation, but if I forced myself to then I'd just never partake in one, otherwise I'd probably never ever pick a player who played before 1965 and that'd take a lot away from what I think the exercise is really supposed to be about. I mentally standardise eras. If I think Grace was a better player of pace in his era by X amount compared to the mean of his peers then I go ahead and assume that'd be true if he was born in any other era, for the purpose of the draft.
Given we're already imagining a situation whereby someone born in the 1800s can face a bowler born in 1980s, with both players at their peaks, I don't think we really have to be too realistic. The purpose of those drafts is to have some fun building teams of players you think were quality across time; not to denigrate the greats of the past by pointing out that - gasp - after playing cricket for another hundred years we've started to get better at it, or on the flip side pretend that WG Grace fresh out of a time machine would force Compton out of the England side and slap around Dale Steyn.
You're right in that it's an all-time great draft; not a "who would have been great if they were sent to 2013" draft.
Last edited:
watson
Banned
Why? Surely the object of selecting a team of cricketers is that they actually get to play a match against an opposing team of cricketers.
At the end of an ATG Draft it is logical and coherent to assume that Watson's XI WILL BE playing against Cabinet's XI in a hypothetical Test match. Therefore we vote and decide who the winner of the Draft is according to which team is most likely to win in a head-to-head match up on a 'real' cricket field.
Perhaps we should set some parameters before the Draft starts so we are all on the 'same page'. For example; 'Scenario = To win an MCG Test match circa 1950s'
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
And join the rest of you convicts, nah don't think so.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah AN would rather support a team of convicted criminals than actually be one.