• 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

greg

International Debutant
Many modern batsmen, if transported back to another era, with no helmets, modern gloves, pads, box etc would probably be lucky if they got out before they got killed.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Many modern batsmen, if transported back to another era, with no helmets, modern gloves, pads, box etc would probably be lucky if they got out before they got killed.
Yep. Any modern player helmetless vs. Larwood would be carnage.

Such a different technique to playing the short ball back then.
 

archie mac

International Coach
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.
Hobbs said the reason he was so good after the war was the huge drop in bowling standard. He thought himself a better batsman before the Great War. Armstrong said the 1902 side could beat his 1921 side wearing blind folds and batting with walking sticks.

No one has seen him play and there is no footage so why should I rate him? And if you say because he was better than his competition, then wasn't he the only one to actually take his cricket seriously as compared to everyone else and he was also a cheat.
:laugh: Gen Y, I didn't see it so it can't have happened 8-)

I am sure all of the pros who relied on cricket to pay their bills and support their families never took the game seriously:dry:
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Hobbs said the reason he was so good after the war was the huge drop in bowling standard. He thought himself a better batsman before the Great War. Armstrong said the 1902 side could beat his 1921 side wearing blind folds and batting with walking sticks.



:laugh: Gen Y, I didn't see it so it can't have happened 8-)

I am sure all of the pros who relied on cricket to pay their bills and support their families never took the game seriously:dry:
Thats just generational jingoism from Hobbs and Armstrong though. Not many (if any) Aussie sides Hobbs faced leading up to the war compared to Gregory, McDonald and Mailey. Armstrong became one of those tedious loud mouths decrying how everything went downhill after he retired.
 

archie mac

International Coach
Thats just generational jingoism from Hobbs and Armstrong though. Not many (if any) Aussie sides Hobbs faced leading up to the war compared to Gregory, McDonald and Mailey. Armstrong became one of those tedious loud mouths decrying how everything went downhill after he retired.
How do you know that about Hobbs? Was a very honest man from what I have read. I will tend to say perhaps modesty. He did face Trumble, Cotter and the South African googly mob not to mention Barnes and Rhodes in county cricket. McDonald played only one Test series against Hobbs and Mailey apart from the occassional full toss did not overly worry him.

Have a look at the Australian attack in 1928-29 apart from Grimmett and compare that against the pre war bowlers.

Armstrong did like to denigrate modern players, but what would he be gaining by criticising a successful team he captained?

You can hardly read a book published in the 1920s which does not bemoan the lack of especially fast bowling after the war.
 

Agent Nationaux

International Coach
Hobbs said the reason he was so good after the war was the huge drop in bowling standard. He thought himself a better batsman before the Great War. Armstrong said the 1902 side could beat his 1921 side wearing blind folds and batting with walking sticks.



:laugh: Gen Y, I didn't see it so it can't have happened 8-)

I am sure all of the pros who relied on cricket to pay their bills and support their families never took the game seriously:dry:
I'm not the only one who didn't see him play. No one else alive has either. But I assure you I am not denying it didn't happen (the fact that he played cricket lol).

Why don't you tell me why I should rate him.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
How do you know that about Hobbs? Was a very honest man from what I have read. I will tend to say perhaps modesty. He did face Trumble, Cotter and the South African googly mob not to mention Barnes and Rhodes in county cricket. McDonald played only one Test series against Hobbs and Mailey apart from the occassional full toss did not overly worry him.

Have a look at the Australian attack in 1928-29 apart from Grimmett and compare that against the pre war bowlers.

Armstrong did like to denigrate modern players, but what would he be gaining by criticising a successful team he captained?

You can hardly read a book published in the 1920s which does not bemoan the lack of especially fast bowling after the war.
England had a generation buried due to the war. The men who played fc cricket directly after the war were those who played before it. So the men Hobbs was criticising were the men he rated so highly before the war! Rhodes, Hitch, Howell, Douglas. So Hobbs may have been honest but that doesn't necessarily mean he was right. Btw McDonald played 2 series against Australia and then county cricket so his career shadowed Hobbs. Its true what you say abt the 28/29 Oz side but that is only one series. However we had the bowlers nonetheless. The selectors just failed to pick them until the final test which we won. They went on to form the basis of the 1930 attack which won the ashes and was highly praised at the time.

I'm not bothered to understand Armstrong's motives. I just know that his derision of the 1921 side is plainly stupid. As any would be given that sides batting and bowling strength. Mailey btw gave many English bats a headache and for a while held the record of the no of test wkts taken in a series.
 

archie mac

International Coach
I'm not the only one who didn't see him play. No one else alive has either. But I assure you I am not denying it didn't happen (the fact that he played cricket lol).

Why don't you tell me why I should rate him.
OK, just two reasons from me. At his peak which was quite a few years before the start of Test cricket he had at least twice the average of his contemporaries for a number of years.

In 1895 (sometimes I mix up years:() at the age of 47 he was still able to rank as the best batsman in the county game. Can't remember his exact figures but they were impressive. You can only imagine how good he must have been in his prime.

Really he is the only one you can say was better than Bradman and not look a fool. Except on this forum when some crazy daisies can say Sachin and not be laughed at:@
 

archie mac

International Coach
England had a generation buried due to the war. The men who played fc cricket directly after the war were those who played before it. So the men Hobbs was criticising were the men he rated so highly before the war! Rhodes, Hitch, Howell, Douglas. So Hobbs may have been honest but that doesn't necessarily mean he was right. Btw McDonald played 2 series against Australia and then county cricket so his career shadowed Hobbs. Its true what you say abt the 28/29 Oz side but that is only one series. However we had the bowlers nonetheless. The selectors just failed to pick them until the final test which we won. They went on to form the basis of the 1930 attack which won the ashes and was highly praised at the time.

I'm not bothered to understand Armstrong's motives. I just know that his derision of the 1921 side is plainly stupid. As any would be given that sides batting and bowling strength. Mailey btw gave many English bats a headache and for a while held the record of the no of test wkts taken in a series.
I think that's the point, the best players were still the ones who had been the best before the war but were 6 or 7 years older. The war is a good point but only means cricket was not as strong after the war which is what I said.

Mr memory of the 1930 team was Grimmett first day light second. Also I think DGB may have had a lot to do with that series win.

1921 saw Hobbs miss the whole series (I think he played first but retired ill?). Can't remember Hobbs struggling against McDonald in county cricket too many times, though no doubt he was a fine bowler also.

Yeah Mailey was a great bowler if a little expensive but Hobbs had his measure as he had most bowlers.

So your contention is bowling in the 20s was stronger than that pre war? Can't have been too strong they asked SF to come to OZ in 1920:p
 
Last edited:

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Look, are we really saying Shane Watson is a better batsman that WG Grace simply because Grace played in the 19th Century?

It is purely impossible to extrapolate Grace's performance to 2013 or Watson' performance to 1885. It is ludicrous to even try. The game has changed so much. What would WG think of a reverse Dilscoop and slower-ball bouncers, and what would Watson think of not hitting shots on the leg side? (Okay, that is a dumb hypothetical, it would involve Twatto thinking)

Anyway, you judge players relative to their era, you read and you think further than a bloody spreadsheet. None of this 'are we playing in 1950 or 2050' bull****. Statistics don't paint the entire picture, neither does video nor written accounts. But combining that with some - shock horror - actual thought comes out with a realistic judgement on whether a player is decent or not.

In 100 years time, when everyone who saw Thilan Samaraweera play is dead, people may well be debating him as worthy of an ATG XI spot on the basis of his 50+ average and 23 FC bowling average. We may well be doing the same thing, but generally speaking, when you combine each of the forms of reference available to you, we tend to get it pretty accurate.

Yes, there's a hint of romanticism and rose-coloured glasses, but **** me if I'm going to stand here while someone rates Shahid ****ing Afridi as a better Test player than Stan McCabe.

It isn't about who'd be better if they faced Dale Steyn tomorrow. That's ludicrous. It's all relative.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
I think that's the point, the best players were still the ones who had been the best before the war but were 6 or 7 years older. The war is a good point but only means cricket was not as strong after the war which is what I said.

Mr memory of the 1930 team was Grimmett first day light second. Also I think DGB may have had a lot to do with that series win.

1921 saw Hobbs miss the whole series (I think he played first but retired ill?). Can't remember Hobbs struggling against McDonald in county cricket too many times, though no doubt he was a fine bowler also.

Yeah Mailey was a great bowler if a little expensive but Hobbs had his measure as he had most bowlers.

So your contention is bowling in the 20s was stronger than that pre war? Can't have been too strong they asked SF to come to OZ in 1920:p
Well Barnes was quite a veteran in 1911/12 so it seems Hobb's golden era relied on an aging Barnes too! :p Besides I think if he toured and Foster was fit they would have made a competitive duo.

Yes you are right abt Hobbs in 1921 though it doesn't negate the strength of the tourists attack. There is no doubt that England relied on post war cricketers after the great war but if Hobbs suggests the std remained poor in comparison anytime after 1926 then I'd have to respectfully disagree. There was discernible improvement going back to 24/25.

Bradman and Grimmett were the stars in '30 no doubt but we weren't a 2 man team. The conditions in England favoured Grimmett as the one best to exploit them. However in Australian conditions for example Wall, Fairfax and Hornibrook would have been more prominent. Either way I can recollect reading a number of commentaries praising our bowling on that tour.

Yet I think it could have been stronger if we picked just one of Ironmonger or McDonald let alone both. Hendren is alleged to have started the whispering campaign against Dainty's action bcos he reckoned that "if that blighter toured England would have lost 5 nil and we couldn't have that happening could we?".

Even if we didn't pick Ironmonger for whatever reason and couldn't avail ourselves of McDonald I think we should have atleast picked Oxenham whom I think would have been devastating in England, ahead of A'Beckett.
 
Last edited:

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Well Barnes was quite a veteran in 1911/12 so it seems Hobb's golden era relied on an aging Barnes too! :p Besides I think if he toured and Foster was fit they would have made a competitive duo.

Yes you are right abt Hobbs in 1921 though it doesn't negate the strength of the tourists attack. There is no doubt that England relied on post war cricketers after the great war but if Hobbs suggests the std remained poor in comparison anytime after 1926 then I'd have to respectfully disagree.

Bradman and Grimmett were the stars no doubt but we weren't a 2 man team. The conditions in England favoured Grimmett as the one best to exploit them. However in Australian conditions for example Wall, Fairfax and Hornibrook would have been more prominent. Either way I can recollect reading a number of commentaries praising our bowling on that tour.

Yet I think it could have been stronger if we picked just one of Ironmonger or McDonald let alone both. Hendren is alleged to have started the whispering campaign against Dainty's action bcos he reckoned that "if that blighter toured England would have lost 5 nil and we couldn't have that happening could we?".

Even if we didn't pick Ironmonger for whatever reason and couldn't avail ourselves of McDonald I think we should have atleast picked Oxenham whom I think would have been devastating in England, ahead of A'Beckett.
Oxenham, A'Beckett, Hornibrook and Wall ahead of Noble, Whitty, Macartney and Armstrong?
 

the big bambino

International Captain
I don't really see a great difference. Noble and Grimmett being the standouts. As mentioned earlier the 30 side deprived itself of Oxenham and Ironmonger and couldn't pick McDonald. So in all I think the 30 side was quite strong to bear those losses and yet win. Btw A'Beckett only played occasionally. Fairfax most often took that spot.
 
Last edited:

archie mac

International Coach
Well Barnes was quite a veteran in 1911/12 so it seems Hobb's golden era relied on an aging Barnes too! :p Besides I think if he toured and Foster was fit they would have made a competitive duo.

Yes you are right abt Hobbs in 1921 though it doesn't negate the strength of the tourists attack. There is no doubt that England relied on post war cricketers after the great war but if Hobbs suggests the std remained poor in comparison anytime after 1926 then I'd have to respectfully disagree. There was discernible improvement going back to 24/25.

Bradman and Grimmett were the stars in '30 no doubt but we weren't a 2 man team. The conditions in England favoured Grimmett as the one best to exploit them. However in Australian conditions for example Wall, Fairfax and Hornibrook would have been more prominent. Either way I can recollect reading a number of commentaries praising our bowling on that tour.

Yet I think it could have been stronger if we picked just one of Ironmonger or McDonald let alone both. Hendren is alleged to have started the whispering campaign against Dainty's action bcos he reckoned that "if that blighter toured England would have lost 5 nil and we couldn't have that happening could we?".

Even if we didn't pick Ironmonger for whatever reason and couldn't avail ourselves of McDonald I think we should have atleast picked Oxenham whom I think would have been devastating in England, ahead of A'Beckett.
Good post that:cool:

Iremonger with the new definition of chucking would have been interesting. A great wet pitch bowler may have been very interesting in England, a great what if?

Still a lot of the bowlers you mentioned never really succeeded at Test level. I suppose Tiger apart (Clarrie a given) we never really had a great bowling line up throughout the 30s. With all due respect to McCabe to have him opening in a Test says it all really. Perhaps Nash may have been worth ago but again in the same class as Wall for my money.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Good post that:cool:

Iremonger with the new definition of chucking would have been interesting. A great wet pitch bowler may have been very interesting in England, a great what if?

Still a lot of the bowlers you mentioned never really succeeded at Test level. I suppose Tiger apart (Clarrie a given) we never really had a great bowling line up throughout the 30s. With all due respect to McCabe to have him opening in a Test says it all really. Perhaps Nash may have been worth ago but again in the same class as Wall for my money.
Thank you.

Funny you should mention Nash. Keith Miller called his continued snubbing as the greatest waste of talent in our cricket history. Ironmonger was a hard bowler to get away on shirtfronts too. I tend to agree abt McCabe but in his time our strength was spin so I look at it as a reverse of the situation now. We rely on pace with say Clarke as back up with Lyon. Back then all we needed was someone to deshine for Tiger and Grum who could bowl all day if required so why pick that extra bowler? Might have been what the selectors were thinking: Who knows.

Still I think an era that had Gregory, McDonald, Mailey, Grimmett, O'Reilly, Ironmonger, Fleetwood Smith and lesser lights like McCormick, Nash and Wall isn't doing too badly. And I do suspect that Oxenham in England would have been a very interesting proposition.
 

watson

Banned
Look, are we really saying Shane Watson is a better batsman that WG Grace simply because Grace played in the 19th Century?

It is purely impossible to extrapolate Grace's performance to 2013 or Watson' performance to 1885. It is ludicrous to even try. The game has changed so much. What would WG think of a reverse Dilscoop and slower-ball bouncers, and what would Watson think of not hitting shots on the leg side? (Okay, that is a dumb hypothetical, it would involve Twatto thinking)

Anyway, you judge players relative to their era, you read and you think further than a bloody spreadsheet. None of this 'are we playing in 1950 or 2050' bull****. Statistics don't paint the entire picture, neither does video nor written accounts. But combining that with some - shock horror - actual thought comes out with a realistic judgement on whether a player is decent or not.

In 100 years time, when everyone who saw Thilan Samaraweera play is dead, people may well be debating him as worthy of an ATG XI spot on the basis of his 50+ average and 23 FC bowling average. We may well be doing the same thing, but generally speaking, when you combine each of the forms of reference available to you, we tend to get it pretty accurate.

Yes, there's a hint of romanticism and rose-coloured glasses, but **** me if I'm going to stand here while someone rates Shahid ****ing Afridi as a better Test player than Stan McCabe.

It isn't about who'd be better if they faced Dale Steyn tomorrow. That's ludicrous. It's all relative.
No we are not saying that Shane Watson is a better batsman than WG. Indeed, no one has suggested that. Rather we are suggesting that Hobbs and Hutton are significantly better batsman because they succeeded against some splendid bowlers and are probably technically better. We are comparing great with great, and Shane is not a great by any measure.

The same principle applies for Afridi V McCabe. I agree that it is intrinsically silly to compare these two batsman because even Afridi himself would deny that he is a great batsman. However, it is not silly to compare McCabe with Macartney or Greg Chappell. This is often done and is a worthwhile comparison.

In general, Greg Chappell comes out on top because he faced a wider range of skillful fast bowlers and still managed an excellent batting average. This estimation is not a pure guess, but involves rational consideration of bowlers like Snow, Roberts, Holding, and Willis.

In short, it is possible to make comparisons of players from different eras that are coherent. But only a fool would make any dogmatic assertions with an air of certainty. We use words like 'maybe', 'possibly' or 'probably' for good reason.

I think that you provided one too many 'straw man' arguments in you post Dan.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Greg Chappell's performance in WSC against those great attacks on some dodgy pitches is one of cricket's best ever batting efforts.
 

Top