richards, yes' i'd rather have him than sehwag but sehwag gets the opener's slot and richards is not an opener. and nobody except gillchrist- not even richards was capable of absolutely smashing the bowlers as much as sehwag. that sehwag did it first up, makes it even more mindboggling imo.
Last edited by OverratedSanity; 03-03-2014 at 01:31 AM.
No, i did say that the only position where a low strike rate may be excused is that of an opener, since taking the shine off the ball is scoring 'invisible runs' by making the job easier for your middle order. which is why i'd always pair a fast scoring opener with a steady one. i wouldn't want two steady ones if there is a candidate available that is exponentially faster for a little less runs on average.
You are arguing against yourself here - if a high SR batsman is always better than you should want two of them opening rather than just one of them.
but as far as the other 4-5 batsmen go, its the higher strike rate for the same average every single time.
Yeah I guess the only thing that will settle this will be if I cbf to do the actual calculation. But what you are saying tells me you misunderstand the calculation I did.disagree. majority of tailenders are low average, high strike rate guys but there are tailenders like Gillespie, McGrath, Walsh, Murali, who are low average and extremely low strike rate as well. IMO the gap would actually close because the tailenders who are low average/low strike rate are disproportionately slower than their low average/high strike rate counterparts ( even though the latter group is of majority).
Next i will mention that true fast bowlers have existed since the 1890s and maybe even earlier. Kortright and a few others come to mind and im sure that they took many a wicket of the bouncer. Kortright to this day remains the only bowler to bowl six byes, which gives you an idea of his pace. It doesn't even matter if these guys were only 130, the likes of Hobbs and Huttons had techniques up there with the best ever, if the bowlers were 10-15k faster there is no reason they wouldn't have been able to adapt.
Last edited by ohnoitsyou; 03-03-2014 at 01:46 AM.
These guys looked like Lara/Sachin in FC cricket against the likes of Ambrose, Walsh and other ATGs only to crap the bed badly in the Test arena. Barry Richards, sadly, is a case of unproven callibre to me.
As far as Hobbs or Sutcliffe goes, there are videos of them playing cover drives with both feet in the air. Tells you about their technique, doesn't it ?
Hobbs, from the few grainy videos I've seen of him, seems like a classic Indian FC bully technique. Too much front foot, too open a stance after delivery and a preponderance to play away from his body. That is the perfect technique to play against spinners and medium pacers against whom you got time but death against 90mph head-hunters.
As for being fast- i didn't say there wasnt a single fast bowler back in their time. I said they were rarer than they were in the post 1960s era by a significant margin and those that existed, bowled the occasional bouncer, they did not go around head-hunting as it'd be completely against the gentleman's spirit of those times.
Its one thing negotiating a 140kph bowler bowling in the channel or to the wicket, throwing the occasional bouncer in the midst. Its another thing totally to play against one who is bouncing the heck out of you, trying to hit your nose three balls outta six the entire spell. That is a given in the last 40 years. Those were non-existant in Hobbs-Sutcliffe era.
In summary, i am not at all convinced that anyone except maybe Bradman had the technique to survive against head-hunters in the modern game. Those batsmen were product of their times, much as ours are of this time. What i will give those batsmen, is that they were far, far more competent playing spin and slow-medium stuff than today's batsmen are.
Bodyline was a one-off and not played by Hobbs or Sutcliffe. Bodyline bowling is the norm of the 70s/80s era though.
Because i do not believe in the magic of adaptability. Adaptation is a chance, its not a given. One simply cannot assume that X would adapt to a different era carte blanche.Then why are you holding them to modern standards of batsmanship when rating them?
And the modern game is harder than the amatuer era, so the probability of adaptation is far lower for the older generation (Pre WWII) than the modern ones adapting to their era.
I evaluate batsmen for what they are. If Hobbs played cover drives with both feet in the air (which I've seen footage of), I have no reason to conclude that he would simply, by default, adapt to keeping his feet strictly attached to terra ferma against other bowlers. I'd rather see what empiric skills one has and compare them, than indulge in the 'X would've adapted' type of legacy-pacifying ideas that have little or no merit in reality.
Or, y'know, you could make judgements on how good players were based on how they performed in their eras against what was put in front of them.
Especially since the entire discussion is a theoretical abstraction and not 'empiric' in the slightest. It's not rocket science.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)