Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[Monk]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

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.

Run a poll. Is this a good, or bad choice of word if Bambino wants to assert that Yorkshire were professional?

[the big bambino]

Originally Posted by social

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

These are hardly insurmountable obstacles and you should acquaint yourself with some the SA sides of the 50s and fieldsmen like Davidson and Simpson. Much better than some of the slack fielding we have now.

[the big bambino]

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...,.

Oh dear and on and on it goes. If you take Bradman's contribition out ,the 30s had one of the lowest runs per wickets average of any decade. Sorry to interupt you with a fact.

[the big bambino]

Originally Posted by social

Trying to estimate what Bradman would average in the modern game is nothing more than pure speculation and will never reach agreement

For those that say that he would still average around 100, that means that he would be nearly twice as effective as Viv, Sunil and Greg Chappell - I'm calling total bs on that one

For those that say that he would average say 70, that means the likes of Hammond would be nothing more than average batsmen or slightly above

I treat the Don in the same way as I treat Babe Ruth - rather than picking holes in their resume (e.g. the Babe never played with or against the races that dominate modern day baseball), it's best just to respect their achievements and afford them the place in history they deserve

So...The Don can't be any good bcos he didn't play an African American in baseball?

Ok. I disagree but I respect your right to say that.

[the big bambino]

Originally Posted by social

Average test players fared so well against Murali that he ended up with 800 test wickets @ 22!


However, the most interesting thing about Waqar was that despite the fact that he was undoubtedly better than any pace bowler that Bradman faced, he wasnt even the best in his team

Look mate Waqar nay have destroyed NZ but he struggled against Australia. There are plenty of bowlers that DGB faced who did far better against Australia than Waqar ever did.

[social]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

So...The Don can't be any good bcos he didn't play an African American in baseball?

Ok. I disagree but I respect your right to say that.

I assume you mean Babe Ruth

I didnt say that he could not have been any good

What I said was that it was easy to pick holes in his resume such as the fact that he never played with or against any of the races that now dominate the sport

Given that we have no idea of how he would have fared if he had, it's best just to take his record at face value

[social]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

These are hardly insurmountable obstacles and you should acquaint yourself with some the SA sides of the 50s and fieldsmen like Davidson and Simpson. Much better than some of the slack fielding we have now.

Fielding is undeniably the one area of the game that has improved exponentially since Bradman's time and you are the first person I have heard dispute that

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

These are hardly insurmountable obstacles and you should acquaint yourself with some the SA sides of the 50s and fieldsmen like Davidson and Simpson. Much better than some of the slack fielding we have now.

[the big bambino]

I love the game now and its history. Someome here complained abt O'Reilly and Harvey dissing the modern generation. I agree. Its a pity then after making the complaint some indulge in a bit of modern era jingoism. Bcos there are some things said here that just aren't right.

I suspect that the deconstruction of DGB comes mainly from the sub con and for parochial reasons. Heady with their influence in the game today some Indian supporters seek to exaggerate their modern stars bcos they haven't achieved much as a team historically. So they put Sunny and Sachin ahead as greatest ever. Small problem. They have to explain away DGB's average and they come up with all kinds of non sensical qualifications like DGB didn't play in Multan and did he score a hundred against a Sri Lankan while suffering Dengue fever. As if the might of Rome is tarnished bcos they couldn't be bothered conquering the Shetlands. So with those justifications they suggest Sunny's 51 ave or SRT's 54 ave is superior to DGB's. But stripped away to its bare bones the argument is basically this: 51 and 54 are greater then 99! If you want to argue that then go ahead. But as they say in the classics, good luck with that one.

There are a few more misconceptions here. 1st that cricket wasn't professional back then. Yes it was. Particularly England and most especially Yorkshire. Neither does amatuer mean a complete novice. Back then it meant a player who didnot earn his living from cricket. Some of the best players were amatuer. Some amatuers included Jardine and Bradman. Neither were unprofessional.

I think I've effectively blown the ageism argument away with examples of modern batsmen and bowlers succeeding into their cricketing dotage. You'll note all of the players mentioned were champions. Such occurences are rare and are a commentary on the player's greatness not the ease of his opposition. I mean why are you surprised that cricketing immortals have such a long life?

Apparently DGB didn't face enough ATG bowlers. I've never heard of such a silly concept. ATG discussions are the preserve of nutters on cricket sites and have no meaning in the real cricket world. People like Hadlee, Dev and Walsh would have struggled to play even 10 tests in the 30s and accordingly would not have been called ATGs. Moreover the appelation is meaningless as batsmen would have found Waqar a much tougher opponent as an unknown 19 yo than later in his career when he was accorded ATG status. Bowling is either good or bad. No one cares about ATG status.

Neither was the 30s a period of flat batting piches. I adjusted a cricinfo comparison of runs per wkt by decade and the 30s came out very competitive once you removed DGB's contribution.

Then there's the belief that DGB didn't face much competition. Maybe after the war. However from 28-38 England won 13 tests to Australia's 8. Contrast that to the 1989 - 2004 period when we won 28 tests to 7. Right there that should tell you something. It tells you that Eng were more competitive despite the presence of DGB, Tiger and Grimmett. I believe that without Don we'd have struggled to win a test and would have definately lost the 36 and 38 series. Neither were SA minnows. They played the same Eng side Australia struggled against in 4 series and won 2 of them. Could you imagine an actual minnow like BD beating the modern SA in 2 series out of 4?

But now I read that DGB can't be rated bcos he didn't face the WI. Well I give up. Unlike Sunny Bradman had a pretty good reason being 30 years retired. But if you aren't convinced I have done a comparison btwn the fast bowlers DGB faced when playing Eng and compared them to the Eng teams of the 50s. The results show little difference btwn the 2 groups. However you could argue that the likes of Trueman couldn't really bowl and remain skeptical...

[the big bambino]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

You know - like Younis Khan whom you were fit to hang draw and quarter when he dropped Smith. Remember that?

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

You know - like Younis Khan whom you were fit to hang draw and quarter when he dropped Smith. Remember that?

Yes, nut younis is still better than the likes of salim malik and saeed anwar as a fielder. Pakistan's fielding has always been quite bad and taking younis as an example to prove that fielding standards have declined is ridiculous

[the big bambino]

Originally Posted by social

Fielding is undeniably the one area of the game that has improved exponentially since Bradman's time and you are the first person I have heard dispute that

I don't dispute it. I agree. The games standards have improved. I just think its irrelevant in comparing across eras. If you could transport a player from the modern era so that he was born to play in say the Golden age he would play to the prevailing, not modern standard. Despite the improved fielding stds (as an example) the best fielding I've seen has come from the Aussie and WI sides of the 70s and 80s. So while stds generally improve it doesn't negate the possibility that fielding in the past could be excellent. Besides some of the biggest scores ever recorded in the game have come in the last 10-15 yrs despite the improvement in fielding.

[the big bambino]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

Yes, nut younis is still better than the likes of salim malik and saeed anwar as a fielder. Pakistan's fielding has always been quite bad and taking younis as an example to prove that fielding standards have declined is ridiculous

So they haven't improved then?

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

So they haven't improved then?

With pakistan it is difficult to say

[the big bambino]

Anyway moving right along I once asked a statistician to give me the runs per wkt averages of Eng and Australia btwn the yrs 28-38 and then remove Bradman's contribution to get an idea of how much he distorted the initial statistic. The reason was to prove or otherwise the competitiveness of Eng's bowlers. I mean it is just possible that the bowlers he faced had such high averages bcos DGB alone blew them out. Since DGB is cricket's ultimate outlier it would be fair to compare the figures of the bowlers who faced him without his distorting contribution.

The initial stat showed Australia's bowlers conceded an extra 1.5 runs in obtaining their wkts. However when you took DGB's contribution out the difference extended to 8 runs a wicket. The chap who gave me this result said it was the biggest discrepancy in runs per wkt in any era of ashes cricket. What that effectively equates to is Eng scoring on ave 80 more runs an innings or 160 more runs a match.

Bradman alone almost made good that discrepancy.

It tells you that Eng's bowlers were far more efficient in dismissing the opposition than Australia's bowlers, O'Reilly and Grimmett notwithstanding. It tells you DGB faced a very competitive English side and he alone brought Australia to something resembling parity.

I also have a breakdown of the runs DGB scored against certain relevant English bowlers. When I find it I'll post a comparison I've done showing their figures with and without DGB's contribution and comparing it with certain English bowlers of the 50s.

I just have to find it first...