Page 22 of 34 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 496

Thread: Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

  1. #316
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post

    Bradman: genius + ultimate professional in an amateur game + ordinary competition + rules favoring batsmen = 99.94
    So all those pros in England playing for their livelihood and who earned a lot more money if they played for England not to mention travel opportunities, they were what just playing for fun and giggles? Please
    You know it makes sense.

  2. #317
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,578
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    So all those pros in England playing for their livelihood and who earned a lot more money if they played for England not to mention travel opportunities, they were what just playing for fun and giggles? Please
    I didnt say that they werent taking it seriously

    I said that they werent as professional in their approach as today and it doesnt take Einstein to work that out e.g. the dietary, drinking and smoking culture was far different at that time

  3. #318
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    I didnt say that they werent taking it seriously

    I said that they werent as professional in their approach as today and it doesnt take Einstein to work that out e.g. the dietary, drinking and smoking culture was far different at that time
    Cricket is a game of skill especially batting, don't think it equates to an average of 100 because you didn't drink or smoke. Warne anyone

  4. #319
    International Vice-Captain Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,902
    Quote Originally Posted by sobers no:1 View Post
    no one dominated the game like bradman / wg in modern era
    no better bowler than SFB
    no better batsman than don/wg and headley
    no batsman in his late 40s continued playing international matches in ATG level

    all seems abnormal.
    thats the problem.

    another example from field hockey is dhyanchandh (he scores goals like runs in cricket - don )
    WG didn't dominate his era. Was revolutionary, but hardly dominant compared to his peers.

    Plenty of bowlers from around SFB's era have comparable records to him.

    No one from Bradman's era has anywhere near his record, nor has anyone else from any other era had a record so far above his own team mates and opposition as Bradman did.

    This all stems from the fact you think Bradman is overrated. Seriously cannot believe it's still going.


  5. #320
    International Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,112
    If we assume that Bradman would average around 50 if he played his 52 Tests in the 70s-80s-90s-00s (as has been suggested) then it follows that the likes of Hobbs, Hammond, Leyland, Woodfull and McCabe would average about 25 or so.

    We would then have to assume that the batting talent of Walter Hammond sits somehere between that of Mike Brearley and Shahid Afridi. Clearly this is not the case.
    Last edited by watson; 18-02-2013 at 02:02 AM.

  6. #321
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    WG didn't dominate his era. Was revolutionary, but hardly dominant compared to his peers.
    Nah he really did completely dominate his peers during his prime. He was 32 by the time he played his first Test, and even after that point consistent performances in county cricket were regarded as the most important gauge of quality with Tests being seen as gimmicks to an extent.

    And as far as how much he towered over his peers at that level at the time, well....

    You can say a lot of things against Grace, but that he wasn't a massive, massive, massive stretch ahead of his peers during his prime is certainly not one of them.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 18-02-2013 at 02:04 AM.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  7. #322
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Nah he really did completely dominate his peers during his prime. He was 32 by the time he played his first Test, and even after that point consistent performances in county cricket were regarded as the most important gauge of quality with Tests being seen as gimmicks to an extent.

    And as far as how much he towered over his peers at that level at the time, well....

    You can say a lot of things against Grace, but that he wasn't a massive, massive, massive stretch ahead of his peers during his prime is certainly not one of them.
    The reason only Grace can be compared to Bradman.

  8. #323
    International Vice-Captain Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Nah he really did completely dominate his peers during his prime. He was 32 by the time he played his first Test, and even after that point consistent performances in county cricket were regarded as the most important gauge of quality with Tests being seen as gimmicks to an extent.

    And as far as how much he towered over his peers at that level at the time, well....

    You can say a lot of things against Grace, but that he wasn't a massive, massive, massive stretch ahead of his peers during his prime is certainly not one of them.
    Guys who played tests with Grace, like Ranji, CB Fry, Stanley Jackson & Shrewsbury, all had very comparable raw stats (in both test and FC cricket) to Grace. I'm prepared to be wrong, as I know very little about English cricket in this era, but to me it seems like plenty of guys from Grace's era performed at a similar capacity to Grace.

  9. #324
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Guys who played tests with Grace, like Ranji, CB Fry, Stanley Jackson & Shrewsbury, all had very comparable raw stats (in both test and FC cricket) to Grace. I'm prepared to be wrong, as I know very little about English cricket in this era, but to me it seems like plenty of guys from Grace's era performed at a similar capacity to Grace.

    For a period he was so far ahead of all his contemporaries it beggers belief. I think he was averaging 70 while most were in mid 20s

  10. #325
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Guys who played tests with Grace, like Ranji, CB Fry, Stanley Jackson & Shrewsbury, all had very comparable raw stats (in both test and FC cricket) to Grace. I'm prepared to be wrong, as I know very little about English cricket in this era, but to me it seems like plenty of guys from Grace's era performed at a similar capacity to Grace.
    I'll try and do something similar with their figures for you tomorrow.

    If they did have comparable standardised averages though, it would have to mean there were an astonishing amount of players who were truly, truly useless to their teams. You can't have that many players so far ahead of the mean without a ridiculous amount of complete passengers. I find it unlikely that they'd record similarly ridiculous standardised averages over long periods like Grace did, but I'll let you know. The fact that he played so long really hurts his raw stats, as does the fact that scores were typically so much lower (in terms of how we view his raw stats, anyway).

    Either way, he was further ahead of the average, typical county cricketer than Bradman was of the average, typical Test player. That to me is what dominating your peers is about, being a long way ahead of the mean, rather than being a long way ahead of #2. You can have more than one player well ahead of the rest of the pack, if you get me.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 18-02-2013 at 02:38 AM.

  11. #326
    International 12th Man Slifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,612
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    If we assume that Bradman would average around 50 if he played his 52 Tests in the 70s-80s-90s-00s (as has been suggested) then it follows that the likes of Hobbs, Hammond, Leyland, Woodfull and McCabe would average about 25 or so.

    We would then have to assume that the batting talent of Walter Hammond sits somehere between that of Mike Brearley and Shahid Afridi. Clearly this is not the case.
    Yeah thats exactly the issue we face when we try to disect DGBs career. Whatever percentage we wanna lower hsi average by, its only logical we do the same for most of his contemporaries (say most because Im also in the camp who believe George HEadly couldve been 70+ under similar circumstances to theDON). If we lower the dons averageto say 75 for facing modern attacks, then it follows that we lower Hammond etc to Carl Hooper range and there is no way Hammond was the Carl Hooper of his time.

    We therefore just have to accept that the DOn was simply just that good.
    Cause Slifer said so.........!!!!

  12. #327
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    If we assume that Bradman would average around 50 if he played his 52 Tests in the 70s-80s-90s-00s (as has been suggested) then it follows that the likes of Hobbs, Hammond, Leyland, Woodfull and McCabe would average about 25 or so.

    We would then have to assume that the batting talent of Walter Hammond sits somehere between that of Mike Brearley and Shahid Afridi. Clearly this is not the case.
    Never intimated that it would be in the '50's, high sixties, mid seventies maybe.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  13. #328
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,784
    So Hobbs and co would be mid 30s then, bull****.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  14. #329
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Nah he really did completely dominate his peers during his prime. He was 32 by the time he played his first Test, and even after that point consistent performances in county cricket were regarded as the most important gauge of quality with Tests being seen as gimmicks to an extent.

    And as far as how much he towered over his peers at that level at the time, well....

    You can say a lot of things against Grace, but that he wasn't a massive, massive, massive stretch ahead of his peers during his prime is certainly not one of them.
    Genuine question, but how does the longevity factor influence Grace's rating there? Obviously his career was longer than anybody else's by a significant margin, but in terms of 'stretch[ing] ahead of his peers during his prime', it isn't strictly relevant.

    Not saying he wasn't ahead of them, of course. And I'm only bringing it up because his career was so long that it could conceivably skew things somewhere.

  15. #330
    State Regular L Trumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    906
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post
    Genuine question, but how does the longevity factor influence Grace's rating there? Obviously his career was longer than anybody else's by a significant margin, but in terms of 'stretch[ing] ahead of his peers during his prime', it isn't strictly relevant.

    Not saying he wasn't ahead of them, of course. And I'm only bringing it up because his career was so long that it could conceivably skew things somewhere.
    I'd say dominating for 15 years of his career will be enough from a longevity point of view. It shouldn't matter that much, that for the next 20 years he was merely good.

Page 22 of 34 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-02-2012, 08:32 AM
  2. Poll: Greatest Cricketer amongst this lot
    By smalishah84 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 08-01-2011, 09:14 AM
  3. The CW50 - No.30-21
    By The Sean in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 12-12-2009, 03:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •