Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

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.

My main point there was his standardised average tbh; I just chucked the value number thing in because it was so similar to Bradman's Test one. Longevity doesn't affect the standardised averages I listed at all; just that 12.whatever number I posted.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

My main point there was his standardised average tbh; I just chucked the value number thing in because it was so similar to Bradman's Test one. Longevity doesn't affect the standardised averages I listed at all; just that 12.whatever number I posted.

Yep, gotcha. That does show just how ridiculously good WG is.

Not a new point by any means, but we always tend to underrate Grace because his raw stats don't look all that flash. But damn, he was good.

[sobers no:1]

Originally Posted by watson

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.

bradman would avg: around 50 or 60. = hammond = headley = competitive cricket

[sobers no:1]

if bradman is the greatest test cricketer
WG is THE GREATEST CRICKETER

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by sobers no:1

if bradman is the greatest test cricketer
WG is THE GREATEST CRICKETER

Imran is the greatest cricketer ever to play the game. PEWS has converted me to his hypothesis

[sobers no:1]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

Imran is the greatest cricketer ever to play the game. PEWS has converted me to his hypothesis

akram - greatest from pakistan

bye for now

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by sobers no:1

bradman would avg: around 50 or 60. = hammond = headley = competitive cricket

WTF? So only Bradman needs his numbers reducing? Care to explain that one?

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by sobers no:1

akram - greatest from pakistan

bye for now

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by marc71178

WTF? So only Bradman needs his numbers reducing? Care to explain that one?

dimishing returns principle I guess

100 to 70

55-60 to 45-50

[marc71178]

But he clearly said 50 or 60 which is the same as others.

[social]

Originally Posted by archie mac

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

Skill will always be paramount and one of the beauties of cricket is that they are always evolving

In W G Graces time, the "mystery" ball was a googly

Bradman never had to face reverse swing or doosras

Until the late 60s, fieldsmen did not leave their feet to stop a ball

[Coronis]

Originally Posted by marc71178

But he clearly said 50 or 60 which is the same as others.

This reminds me of something from a Bradman biography I have "it couldn't be that the tracks were only flat for Bradman" or something to that effect... Maybe thats sobers no 1's view.

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by marc71178

So Hobbs and co would be mid 30s then, bull****.

I disagree, Bradman was a genius and a great batsman, but those who belive that he would have averaged the same out in any other era are seriously fooling themselves. Hobbs did have some favorable rules, but he played on much tougher wickets and played in a much more bolwer friendly conditions, especially before the war. Bradman was the result of a perfect storm; immence talent and ability, flawless consistency, weak opposition (outside of England), immencely strong team and batsmen around him, flat tracks (especially at home), only two great fast bowlers played againts, regulations favoring the batsmen (smaller stumps and old lbw law) and Bradman, like Grace before him was the man, the main attraction and everyone knew it. He averaged over 200 againts South Africa and over 160 vs India, it's this as much as his record againts England that puses his average towards the hundred mark that defines his legacy. He is the best, but he was also the product of all around him and to his credit was the best suited to take advantage of it.

[watson]

Originally Posted by kyear2

I disagree, Bradman was a genius and a great batsman, but those who belive that he would have averaged the same out in any other era are seriously fooling themselves. Hobbs did have some favorable rules, but he played on much tougher wickets and played in a much more bolwer friendly conditions, especially before the war. Bradman was the result of a perfect storm; immence talent and ability, flawless consistency, weak opposition (outside of England), immencely strong team and batsmen around him, flat tracks (especially at home), only two great fast bowlers played againts, regulations favoring the batsmen (smaller stumps and old lbw law) and Bradman, like Grace before him was the man, the main attraction and everyone knew it. He averaged over 200 againts South Africa and over 160 vs India, it's this as much as his record againts England that puses his average towards the hundred mark that defines his legacy. He is the best, but he was also the product of all around him and to his credit was the best suited to take advantage of it.

This still doesn't explain why Ponsford and McCabe didn't average in the 60s or 70s if they played most of their Test cricket in the 1930s like Bradman, and therefore benefited from the same batter friendly conditions.

(Incidently, McCabe played 2 series against RSA and averaged 'only' 56.45. His 5 Tests against the West Indies yielded 196 runs at 32.66.)

Having said that, I do think that Bradman's stats could not be repeated if he played in the 1970s onwards. The hectic schedule involving ODIs and a relentless battery of West Indian and Pakistani fast bowlers would not allow for an Average of nearly 100. As a rough guess I would suggest that he would Average in the mid-70s for his 52 Test matches.

I would also guess that Stan McCabe might actually improve his average a little bit due to his brilliant footwork against fast-bowling. On-the-other-hand, I would expect Ponsford's average to fall to around 40, as he would have real technical difficulties against Snow, Holding, Roberts, Imran etc

[fredfertang]

Personally I think that in terms of batting ability Stan McCabe was every bit as good a batsman as Bradman, the difference between them (and a very significant one at that) being that he simply didn't have that all-consuming desire to succeed at all costs and the relentless ability to concentrate consistently that that brings with it