Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[social]

I don't remember saying they were not great bowlers, but they are not the only bowlers to average under 24, show me how many batsman average over 99?

I have never said that Bradman wasnt the greatest of all time - in light of his record, it is just nonsense to do so IMO

However, assuming that he would perform at the same level irrespective of the era in which he played is equally as foolhardy

Take the late 70s - 80s, every single test playing nation had a pace bowler that was at least as good as anything he faced in his entire career e.g. Lillee - Oz, Willis (debateable but great record) - Eng, Imran - Pakistan, NZ - Hadlee, Kapil Dev - India, and WI had about 5 that would fall into that category

Combined with the bowler friendly conditions (not just the pitches but also the balls and playing conditions) and unfamiliar surroundings (remember that Bradman only played in 2 countries against basically one decent team) and it is not inconceivable that he could have fared a lot worse particularly when you'd have to think that he would be walking to the wicket early on virtually all the time

[archie mac]

I have never said that Bradman wasnt the greatest of all time - in light of his record, it is just nonsense to do so IMO

However, assuming that he would perform at the same level irrespective of the era in which he played is equally as foolhardy

Take the late 70s - 80s, every single test playing nation had a pace bowler that was at least as good as anything he faced in his entire career e.g. Lillee - Oz, Willis (debateable but great record) - Eng, Imran - Pakistan, NZ - Hadlee, Kapil Dev - India, and WI had about 5 that would fall into that category

Combined with the bowler friendly conditions (not just the pitches but also the balls and playing conditions) and unfamiliar surroundings (remember that Bradman only played in 2 countries against basically one decent team) and it is not inconceivable that he could have fared a lot worse particularly when you'd have to think that he would be walking to the wicket early on virtually all the time

Larwood, Farnes, Voce and Tate were pretty good bowlers. I suppose we will never know, my money is on Bradman to still average 80+

[centurymaker]

I have never said that Bradman wasnt the greatest of all time - in light of his record, it is just nonsense to do so IMO

However, assuming that he would perform at the same level irrespective of the era in which he played is equally as foolhardy

Take the late 70s - 80s, every single test playing nation had a pace bowler that was at least as good as anything he faced in his entire career e.g. Lillee - Oz, Willis (debateable but great record) - Eng, Imran - Pakistan, NZ - Hadlee, Kapil Dev - India, and WI had about 5 that would fall into that category

Combined with the bowler friendly conditions (not just the pitches but also the balls and playing conditions) and unfamiliar surroundings (remember that Bradman only played in 2 countries against basically one decent team) and it is not inconceivable that he could have fared a lot worse particularly when you'd have to think that he would be walking to the wicket early on virtually all the time

yeah even if he had done extremely well, I don't think he would've been able to maintain it for 100+ tests at the same average. Diminishing returns set in at a certain stage. (as you play more, it becomes more difficult to sustain a high average so avg tends to fall)

[vic_orthdox]

yeah even if he had done extremely well, I don't think he would've been able to maintain it for 100+ tests at the same average. Diminishing returns set in at a certain stage. (as you play more, it becomes more difficult to sustain a high average so avg tends to fall)

The bloke did play over 20 years...

[sobers no:1]

They are. They are the only two contenders in my opinion, depending on how you judge the players. Perhaps Sobers too.

3 contenders for greatest player ever.

1. sobers
2. wg
3. don

7-8 contenders for greatest batsman ever (including above 3)

you can not make a case for lara/hadlee being greatest cricketer ever, but lara/hadlee > wg/bradman is arguable.
for sobers his worst ranking should be no:3 (after wg/bradman)

[BeardofAmla]

Bradman first then daylight then Pollock, Tendulkar/Lara Sobers/Kallis, Richards

[sobers no:1]

Bradman first then daylight then Pollock, Tendulkar/Lara Sobers/Kallis, Richards

in that case

wg >= bradman > headley > hobbs > rest

[BeardofAmla]

in that case

wg >= bradman > headley > hobbs > rest

I don't know if you have the same principle but I always believe that one can't really compare players from the different era's with another as there are many factors that would it into a never ending discussion.

Wouldn't you think if it was better if they had devided it up into 30 years? Considereding the 1900-1930 there was two test test teams and a weak SA just coming into the game. Then 50's to 80's that was a era which they almost played in same circumstances more quality Bowlers and the last era with no bouncer restrictions?

90's till current we have basically same laws and a new crop of stars coming to age. Plus batting avg per country did not increase as much in that period.

It would be really unfair to say Grace is better than Tendulkar or Lara considering cricket was restricted to privilege and a guy bowling 150km/h was unheard of neither was a reverse sweep, switch hit or Gray Nichols bat with a sweetspot as big as the bat.

Would really think that's the only way to settle it and bring justice to the talents of the different era's and recognizing their skills

[hendrix]

Imran Khan is the greatest player ever IMO, but I like bowlers.

[sobers no:1]

I don't know if you have the same principle but I always believe that one can't really compare players from the different era's with another as there are many factors that would it into a never ending discussion.

Wouldn't you think if it was better if they had devided it up into 30 years? Considereding the 1900-1930 there was two test test teams and a weak SA just coming into the game. Then 50's to 80's that was a era which they almost played in same circumstances more quality Bowlers and the last era with no bouncer restrictions?

90's till current we have basically same laws and a new crop of stars coming to age. Plus batting avg per country did not increase as much in that period.

It would be really unfair to say Grace is better than Tendulkar or Lara considering cricket was restricted to privilege and a guy bowling 150km/h was unheard of neither was a reverse sweep, switch hit or Gray Nichols bat with a sweetspot as big as the bat.

Would really think that's the only way to settle it and bring justice to the talents of the different era's and recognizing their skills

then , how come this ?
"Bradman first then daylight then Pollock, Tendulkar/Lara Sobers/Kallis, Richards"

for me
wg is arguably greatest batsman
so is bradman
so is sobers
pollock
barry
gavaskar
viv
sachin
and
lara

[social]

Larwood, Farnes, Voce and Tate were pretty good bowlers. I suppose we will never know, my money is on Bradman to still average 80+

Bad bet

Bradman averaged 89.78 against "pretty good" bowlers from England

Unfortunately, the Windies of late 70s/early 80s didnt deal in "pretty good"

Aside from rebel tours and WSC, they dealt in at least 3 ATGs backed by an "incredible" 4th paceman, cynical tactics and arguably the greatest fielding side ever assembled

As I have said, no argument in calling Bradman the best ever (his achievements are akin to Federer winning virtually every Slam he played in his career) but let's not kid ourselves by rating him 60% better than Greg Chappell!

[BeardofAmla]

then , how come this ?
"Bradman first then daylight then Pollock, Tendulkar/Lara Sobers/Kallis, Richards"

for me
wg is arguably greatest batsman
so is bradman
so is sobers
pollock
barry
gavaskar
viv
sachin
and
lara

I was making a suggestion and you would notice the / between Kallis and Sobers. Bradman is tops but I don't see where Grace fits into it. Bradman still averaged over 60 when they fired the short pitched stuff at him. Its just unfair if you look how Gooch's face looked after facing the Windies and the aggressive bowling something the greats from your list did not get a taste of

[archie mac]

Bad bet

Bradman averaged 89.78 against "pretty good" bowlers from England

Unfortunately, the Windies of late 70s/early 80s didnt deal in "pretty good"

Aside from rebel tours and WSC, they dealt in at least 3 ATGs backed by an "incredible" 4th paceman, cynical tactics and arguably the greatest fielding side ever assembled

As I have said, no argument in calling Bradman the best ever (his achievements are akin to Federer winning virtually every Slam he played in his career) but let's not kid ourselves by rating him 60% better than Greg Chappell!

60%? Chappell 53 Bradman 80. I do know about the WIs 80s attack, still simply don't agree he would struggle. Less than he averaged in the 30s still better than everyone else. Anyway going around in circles so will stop discussion

[archie mac]

I don't know if you have the same principle but I always believe that one can't really compare players from the different era's with another as there are many factors that would it into a never ending discussion.

Wouldn't you think if it was better if they had devided it up into 30 years? Considereding the 1900-1930 there was two test test teams and a weak SA just coming into the game. Then 50's to 80's that was a era which they almost played in same circumstances more quality Bowlers and the last era with no bouncer restrictions?

90's till current we have basically same laws and a new crop of stars coming to age. Plus batting avg per country did not increase as much in that period.

It would be really unfair to say Grace is better than Tendulkar or Lara considering cricket was restricted to privilege and a guy bowling 150km/h was unheard of neither was a reverse sweep, switch hit or Gray Nichols bat with a sweetspot as big as the bat.

Would really think that's the only way to settle it and bring justice to the talents of the different era's and recognizing their skills

Cricket was more popular with the average Englishman at the time than now, when it is more of a privileged game.

No one knows what speed they bowled but Kortwright (spelling) was very quick

[the big bambino]

I think that there is a vast difference between being paid to do something and adopting a professional approach

IMO, the latter implies doing virtually everything in one's power to give yourself the best chance of being succesful.

In Bradman's case, he was notoriously meticulous in his preparation and his discipline to the task at hand was legendary whilst the same could not be said of his contemporaries (many of whom would not have survived in today's environment)

No doubt their have been innovations but it is wrong to say players of that era weren't serious professionals or didnot incorporate or create new innovations. The Yorkshire side of the era were the benchmark for a professional outfit. The important thing is attitude and willingness to succeed. It is risible to think that a professional of that era would not have easily adapted to the modern dietary requirements and training methods. Theres no logical reason why they wouldn't have.