Cricket Player Manager
Page 26 of 34 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 390 of 496

Thread: Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

  1. #376
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,813
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    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

  2. #377
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,735
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    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+
    You know it makes sense.

  3. #378
    International Vice-Captain centurymaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,825
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    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)
    Last edited by centurymaker; 19-02-2013 at 05:27 AM.
    Proud Supporter of All Blacks

  4. #379
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,461
    Quote Originally Posted by centurymaker View Post
    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...


  5. #380
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    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)
    Last edited by sobers no:1; 19-02-2013 at 07:48 AM.

  6. #381
    Cricket Spectator BeardofAmla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ganspan
    Posts
    45
    Bradman first then daylight then Pollock, Tendulkar/Lara Sobers/Kallis, Richards
    Twenty-over cricket can be “boring”. It has grown up. It takes concentration. It is no longer a game for the post-literate generation. They need the distractions, the loud music to disguise the boredom. They never warned you about that.

  7. #382
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by BeardofAmla View Post
    Bradman first then daylight then Pollock, Tendulkar/Lara Sobers/Kallis, Richards

    in that case

    wg >= bradman > headley > hobbs > rest

  8. #383
    Cricket Spectator BeardofAmla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ganspan
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by sobers no:1 View Post
    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

  9. #384
    International Captain hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    7,308
    Imran Khan is the greatest player ever IMO, but I like bowlers.

  10. #385
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by BeardofAmla View Post
    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

  11. #386
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,813
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    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!

  12. #387
    Cricket Spectator BeardofAmla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ganspan
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by sobers no:1 View Post
    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

  13. #388
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,735
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    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

  14. #389
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,735
    Quote Originally Posted by BeardofAmla View Post
    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

  15. #390
    International Debutant the big bambino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    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.

Page 26 of 34 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... 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, 09:32 AM
  2. Poll: Greatest Cricketer amongst this lot
    By smalishah84 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 08-01-2011, 10:14 AM
  3. The CW50 - No.30-21
    By The Sean in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 12-12-2009, 04:54 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
  •