Page 23 of 34 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 345 of 496

Thread: Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

  1. #331
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,618
    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.
    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.
    ~ Cribbage ~

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

  2. #332
    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
    6,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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.

  3. #333
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    152
    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.


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

  4. #334
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    152
    if bradman is the greatest test cricketer
    WG is THE GREATEST CRICKETER


  5. #335
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,737
    Quote Originally Posted by sobers no:1 View Post
    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

  6. #336
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    Imran is the greatest cricketer ever to play the game. PEWS has converted me to his hypothesis
    akram - greatest from pakistan

    bye for now

  7. #337
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,731
    Quote Originally Posted by sobers no:1 View Post


    bradman would avg: around 50 or 60. = hammond = headley = competitive cricket
    WTF? So only Bradman needs his numbers reducing? Care to explain that one?
    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.

  8. #338
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,737
    Quote Originally Posted by sobers no:1 View Post
    akram - greatest from pakistan

    bye for now

  9. #339
    International Vice-Captain centurymaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,825
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    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
    Proud Supporter of All Blacks

  10. #340
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,731
    But he clearly said 50 or 60 which is the same as others.

  11. #341
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,469
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    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

  12. #342
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    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.

  13. #343
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,087
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    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.
    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 | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

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

  14. #344
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,923
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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
    Last edited by watson; 18-02-2013 at 06:51 PM.
    "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong" - Oscar Wilde

  15. #345
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    It is a far far better place ............ etc etc
    Posts
    12,035
    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

Page 23 of 34 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... 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
  •