Early era batsmen

[Agent Nationaux]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Don't you support Pakistan?

Since when have I supported the cheaters in the team?

[watson]

Originally Posted by Pothas

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]

Originally Posted by watson

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]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

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]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

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]

Originally Posted by Cabinet96

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]

Originally Posted by Burgey

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]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

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.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Cabinet96

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]

Originally Posted by watson

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.

Originally Posted by rvd619323

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]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

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]

Originally Posted by watson

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]

Originally Posted by Monk

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]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

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?