Early era batsmen

[Red]

Does anyone have any insight in to when bowling changed from under-arm to round-arm to over-arm etc?

Greg Chappell's captaincy aside...

 

[benchmark00]

You judge them like this:

Have you seen them play?
If yes judge them against others you have seen with respect to environmental variables.
If no :

is the level of cricket able to be compared to other cricket without making massive leaps?
If yes ----> take comparison to peers and stack up against other contenders.
If no ----> Error 404 - can not compare

 

[watson]

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?

Estimation of players strengths and weaknesses is not a matter of fairness. There is no ethical dimension here.

 

[Red]

You judge them like this:

Have you seen them play?
If yes judge them against others you have seen with respect to environmental variables.
If no :

is the level of cricket able to be compared to other cricket without making massive leaps?
If yes ----> take comparison to peers and stack up against other contenders.
If no ----> Error 404 - can not compare

Have to factor in artistry as well.

 

[watson]

Have to factor in artistry as well.

Only as a means to scoring relatively quickly and effectively.

 

[Red]

Only as a means to scoring relatively quickly and effectively.

Many will disagree, but in my eyes Mark Waugh was a much superior batsman to his brother, and many of his other team-mates with higher averages.

 

[Coronis]

Many will disagree, but in my eyes Mark Waugh was a much superior batsman to his brother, and many of his other team-mates with higher averages.

If I had a choice between the Waugh brothers, I would choose Steve every time. Unless I'm picking based purely on style. In that case I might as well pop in David Gower in all my XI's.

 

[Red]

If I had a choice between the Waugh brothers, I would choose Steve every time. Unless I'm picking based purely on style. In that case I might as well pop in David Gower in all my XI's.

I wouldn't. I'd choose Mark. As I said, many would disagree, and I understand why.

Take away Steve's massive amount of NOs however, and their averages are very comparable (flawed thing I know, but they averaged a very similar amount each time they batted).

 

[watson]

You judge them like this:

Have you seen them play?
If yes judge them against others you have seen with respect to environmental variables.
If no :

is the level of cricket able to be compared to other cricket without making massive leaps?
If yes ----> take comparison to peers and stack up against other contenders.
If no ----> Error 404 - can not compare

I do like a good algorithmn.

 

[Coronis]

I wouldn't. I'd choose Mark. As I said, many would disagree, and I understand why.

Take away Steve's massive amount of NOs however, and their averages are very comparable (flawed thing I know, but they averaged a very similar amount each time they batted).

I understand where you're coming from, but personally I'd much rather the batsman who would stay in and play a match-winning innings rather than one who may throw his wicket away much earlier.

 

[watson]

I wouldn't. I'd choose Mark. As I said, many would disagree, and I understand why.

Take away Steve's massive amount of NOs however, and their averages are very comparable (flawed thing I know, but they averaged a very similar amount each time they batted).

There's very little between Mark and Steve and both fit into any ATG team. The main reason that people are sceptical of Mark (I think) is that he got himself out when he shouldn't have, unlike his brother.

In other words he also scored too many 50s that should have been converted into 100s. And no really big scores either. A batsman of Mark Waugh's class should have a double century to his name. Even Jason Gillespie has a double century. In some ways his apparent laziness is unforgiveable.

 

[Satyanash89]

Many will disagree, but in my eyes Mark Waugh was a much superior batsman to his brother, and many of his other team-mates with higher averages.

Thats like saying VVS was a better batsman than Dravid. Needless to say i disagree vehemently... Apart from aesthetic, Mark had nothing over Steve

 

[L Trumper]

Does anyone have any insight in to when bowling changed from under-arm to round-arm to over-arm etc?

Greg Chappell's captaincy aside...

Edgar Wilsher instigated the wider change in 1864, even though there are instances before that. Generally 1864 is considered the start, although there are some disagreements. On a whole by 70s over arm was the norm. Curiously WG was noted as bowling round arm at that time.

 

[Red]

Thats like saying VVS was a better batsman than Dravid. Needless to say i disagree vehemently... Apart from aesthetic, Mark had nothing over Steve

Except that VVS batted lower in the order than Dravid, while Mark batted higher in the order than Steve.

I wouldn't argue or labour the point hard, cos as I said, most would disagree with me, but in my opinion, a player like Mark is of immense value because of his ability to score fluently and his skill against spin.

I reckon Mark was an underachiever in some ways. In all honesty, I think he is probably the most gifted Australian batsman since Greg Chappell, yet his stats record doesn't reflect this. Always got the sense with him that he had a bit of Miller about him, and he loved the game, but didn't care much for the accolades that come with averages and big scores. S. Waugh had a bit more Bradman about him!

 

[Furball]

Many will disagree, but in my eyes Mark Waugh was a much superior batsman to his brother, and many of his other team-mates with higher averages.

Yeah, no.

 

[the big bambino]

Just because they were the best of their era, doesn't mean they were automatically great. The level of cricket drastically improved after the first war and so did the pitches, so the rediculous bowling averages started to disappear. I generally don't rate players from before the war, in particular the bowlers, because not only have we never even see glimpses of them, for the mass majority we are not even sure what they bowled and the level of competition was generally weak.
On the other hand, after the war we see the re-establishment of Hobbs, the emergence of Bradman, Headley, Hammond and Hutton, and though the batting conditions, especially in Australia were easier, we see players with modern techniques who would be able to thrieve today. We also see the emergence of better fast bowlers, though the Aussie pitches were peepared to an extent nulify them and encourage spin, they were al three of greatest ever spinners operating at the time, so there was always a challenge.

Well SF Barnes was a pre war bowler and candidate for greatest ever. I think the pitches had alot to do with it. Pitches did improve in the 1890s but shockers were still prevalent as a quick look in Frith's Eng v Aus book indicate.

The poor pitches tended to favour medium pace seam bowlers that thrived on them. Lohmann, Trumble, Turner and Ferris come to mind. They probably wouldn't have thrived in better conditions but muscled their way into sides back then ahead of the pace bowlers we would recognise and rate today. Men like Fielder, Brearley, Knox, Kortright and a Saffy whose name escapes me. So appearances are deceptive.

O'Reilly had contempt the Aussie pitches of his day but admitted they had pace. A comment I've seen vouched by others. I recall a description of Bradman being in early trouble in a Brisbane test against the Saffies Bell and Quinn due to the pace of the pitch. Melb had a reputation as very quick. The English pitches however were doped and slow and favoured spin more than pace.

Ironically enough each of Australia's and England's bowling strength were contrary to the conditions of their pitches and their bowlers generally performed better away from home.

 

[Migara]

Is there a genetic element to hand-eye coordination (I'm sure the scientists on here would tell us)?

Yes it is. It's a in born quality. Can improve it a bit with practice, but if you are slow, then you are slow. There's no way to improve it. But batsmen with slow reflexes can play fast bowling well, if they develop a tight technique and playing closer to the body. These will never be flashy, but can get the job done.

 

[Migara]

Don't you support Pakistan?

potshot

 

[Red]

Yeah, no.

Yeah, yeh.

 

[uvelocity]

potshot

look lets not be chucking insults now