Early era batsmen

[Cabinet96]

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'

But like with Pews, that would make my picks very central to the era being played. If the matches were to be played in pre WW I days, I'd probably not pick great modern era cricketers like Gilchrist, Kallis and Tendulkar and instead would look for players who played more at that time, even if I felt they were inferior cricketers, because the truth is they'd probably do better than better modern players would if they were imported to the old days to play a test match.

I prefer to just pick players based on how they faired in their era, and imagine they would fare similarly in all eras. That probably wouldn't be the case in real life, but I find it much easier to pick and vote for teams that way. I can see your thinking but if I was to vote for an XI based on how I think it would go against other XI's it would be very messy for me.

 

[watson]

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.

That makes no sense to me. As I said to Cabinet,

'Surely the object of selecting a team of cricketers is that they actually get to play a match against an opposing team of cricketers.'

BTW The parameter doesn't have to be 'sent to 2013'. The parameter can be set to any era prior to the Draft. I think that it should be stipulated so the Drafters understand which direction we are headed in. At the minute we all assume very different things which may or may not make the whole game more fun.

 

[Pothas]

Err you do know that drafts are not actually real, right?

 

[Burgey]

What odd pre-conceptions? Everyone was an amateur and there were no professionals back then. And isn't he known for being a cheat?

Don't you support Pakistan?

 

[watson]

But like with Pews, that would make my picks very central to the era being played. If the matches were to be played in pre WW I days, I'd probably not pick great modern era cricketers like Gilchrist, Kallis and Tendulkar and instead would look for players who played more at that time, even if I felt they were inferior cricketers, because the truth is they'd probably do better than better modern players would if they were imported to the old days to play a test match.

I prefer to just pick players based on how they faired in their era, and imagine they would fare similarly in all eras. That probably wouldn't be the case in real life, but I find it much easier to pick and vote for teams that way. I can see your thinking but if I was to vote for an XI based on how I think it would go against other XI's it would be very messy for me.

I agree. If the scenario was 'SCG Test match circa 1890s' then I would bias my selections to batsman who have experienced 'sticky wickets'. However, I would still select Marshall no matter what. If he was lethal on 'flat' 1980s pitches then he would be especially lethal on 1890s 'sticky' wickets bowling to batsman with no helmets!

And again I agree with your term 'messy' as this sort of 'what if' thinking is always 'messy'. But I find it inherently more fun than a reductive approach where you choose a particular player based purely on his performance against his peers.

'Messy' is better.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Don't you support Pakistan?

Since when have I supported the cheaters in the team?

 

[watson]

Err you do know that drafts are not actually real, right?

No. I have Time Machine in my garage and have Bill O'Reilly over for afternoon tea and a hit in the nets most Sundays. What do you do with your Sundays?

 

[Cabinet96]

I agree. If the scenario was 'SCG Test match circa 1890s' then I would bias my selections to batsman who have experienced 'sticky wickets'. However, I would still select Marshall no matter what. If he was lethal on 'flat' 1980s pitches then he would be especially lethal on 1890s 'sticky' wickets bowling to batsman with no helmets!

And again I agree with your term 'messy' as this sort of 'what if' thinking is always 'messy'. But I find it inherently more fun than a reductive approach where you choose a particular player based purely on his performance against his peers.

'Messy' is better.

I can definitely see the fun in it, and I guess I do it as a fun exercise in most drafts, but it's just not how I decide my picks and votes.

Trying to decide how Graeme Pollock's run scoring would differ as a result of facing Sydney Barnes at the MCG in 1909, while at the same time trying to figure out how Jack Hobbs would go against Shane Warne and Dale Steyn in 2013, all while trying to figure out if Sachin Tendulkar would play Bill O'Reiley like he did Warne is too much for me!

 

[Burgey]

Since when have I supported the cheaters in the team?

Yeah but you still hold what the team does in some regard, and rightly so. I don't see how Grace doing the odd dodgy thing detracts from his record as a player. He was obviously the King of Cricket. In fact, he was probably most responsible for making it a widely regarded sport and got it underway.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Yeah AN would rather support a team of convicted criminals than actually be one.

Those criminals aren't in the team any more and were rightly banned. And if the choice came to it, yeah I would rather support a team of convicts than actually be one myself.

 

[watson]

I can definitely see the fun in it, and I guess I do it as a fun exercise in most drafts, but it's just not how I decide my picks and votes.

Trying to decide how Graeme Pollock's run scoring would differ as a result of facing Sydney Barnes at the MCG in 1909, while at the same time trying to figure out how Jack Hobbs would go against Shane Warne and Dale Steyn in 2013, all while trying to figure out if Sachin Tendulkar would play Bill O'Reiley like he did Warne is too much for me!

Well it's too much for me too. But I still have a well founded hunch that Patsy Hendren (on a flat wicket) would smash Malcolm Marshall's bouncers repeatedly over the long-leg boundary. In fact, I reckon that the spectators on the 5th row back from the picket fence would spend most their afternoon ducking.

As for Pollock V Barnes, we would have to find out in the literature whether Pollock was any good against drift/swing plus leg-breaks. I assume though that being a left-hander would help Pollock greatly. Ergo, Pollock to make 75 runs before lunch, and before being bowled 'thru the gate', at the MCG, 1909. No rain.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Yeah but you still hold what the team does in some regard, and rightly so. I don't see how Grace doing the odd dodgy thing detracts from his record as a player. He was obviously the King of Cricket. In fact, he was probably most responsible for making it a widely regarded sport and got it underway.

No doubt about him being responsible for making it popular. But I don't rate his record to that of Lara's or Tendulkar's, whom I consider better cricketers.

 

[benchmark00]

Those criminals aren't in the team any more and were rightly banned. And if the choice came to it, yeah I would rather support a team of convicts than actually be one myself.

Don't let me see you supporting Afridi then...


Anyway, only using performance as measured against peers as a measure of 'all time greatness' is deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply flawed.

For this reason, in my opinion, Grace should not and can not be considered an all time great player, although his impact on the game of cricket has no doubt probably been greater than anyone else.

 

[Red]

I can definitely see the fun in it, and I guess I do it as a fun exercise in most drafts, but it's just not how I decide my picks and votes.

Trying to decide how Graeme Pollock's run scoring would differ as a result of facing Sydney Barnes at the MCG in 1909, while at the same time trying to figure out how Jack Hobbs would go against Shane Warne and Dale Steyn in 2013, all while trying to figure out if Sachin Tendulkar would play Bill O'Reiley like he did Warne is too much for me!

I guess this post sort of sums up why I started this thread. Hobbs was one of the great batsmen in the era when averages started to soar. Hobbs faced bowlers like Jack Gregory and Clarrie Grimmett, so I can kind of imagine him taking on Steyn and Warne in the modern era.

However, pre-Hobbs, cricket seems a vastly different game, (including statistically).

 

[TimAngas]

Does anyone understand the footwork back then?

 

[Cabinet96]

Well it's too much for me too. But I still have a well founded hunch that Patsy Hendren (on a flat wicket) would smash Malcolm Marshall's bouncers repeatedly over the long-leg boundary. In fact, I reckon that the spectators on the 5th row back from the picket fence would spend most their afternoon ducking.

Pre World War II Draft

Cabinet96's XI
Jack Hobbs
Cyril Walters
Ernest Tyldesley
Eddie Paynter
Patsy Hendren
Charles Kellaway
Warwick Armstrong
Bert Oldfield +
Charlie Turner
Headley Verity
Johnny Briggs
(Tip Foster)

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Don't let me see you supporting Afridi then...


Anyway, only using performance as measured against peers as a measure of 'all time greatness' is deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply flawed.

For this reason, in my opinion, Grace should not and can not be considered an all time great player, although his impact on the game of cricket has no doubt probably been greater than anyone else.

Since when has Afridi been a criminal. Anyway he is a tool and has cheated to get ahead.

 

[Cabinet96]

As for Pollock V Barnes, we would have to find out in the literature whether Pollock was any good against drift/swing plus leg-breaks. I assume though that being a left-hander would help Pollock greatly. Ergo, Pollock to make 75 runs before lunch, and before being bowled 'thru the gate', at the MCG, 1909. No rain.

Of course, this all goes back to my original point that the whole exercise is immensely unfair, since Pollock didn't apply himself for having to face bowlers like Barnes, therefore us judging how he would go against him, based on how he played other bowlers isn't a great indicator. Still a fun thing to do every now and then, though, I guess

 

[watson]

I guess this post sort of sums up why I started this thread. Hobbs was one of the great batsmen in the era when averages started to soar. Hobbs faced bowlers like Jack Gregory and Clarrie Grimmett, so I can kind of imagine him taking on Steyn and Warne in the modern era.

However, pre-Hobbs, cricket seems a vastly different game, (including statistically).

Yes it was a vastly different game. So much so that I believe that we can be reasonably certain that Grace's batsmanship would not translate to the 1980s. Therefore, and for example, he would not last the half-hour against Malcolm Marshall in modern settings - without significant practice against modern fast bowling.

However, this 'fact' does NOT diminish his greatness one iota. WG Grace is/was a cricketing great.

 

[Cabinet96]

Anyway, only using performance as measured against peers as a measure of 'all time greatness' is deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply flawed.

For this reason, in my opinion, Grace should not and can not be considered an all time great player, although his impact on the game of cricket has no doubt probably been greater than anyone else.

But how else would you rate a player then, as, like I said, I don't believe judging how certain players would have gone in different eras and circumstances than they ever had to play in is fair?