Page 50 of 69 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... LastLast
Results 736 to 750 of 1033

Thread: Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

  1. #736
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Will Scarlet
    - Umpires would have been frightened to give him out
    err wtf?

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Scarlet
    - Close decisions on run-outs, stumpings, and catches were all given in favour of the batsmen
    run outs and stumpings maybe(of course i dont really think that run outs can be used against anyones record, since it doesnt exactly require being outbowled or poor batting), catches however went the other way. if a fielder claimed to have taken a catch, he was given out....unlike now where the batsman can refer a catch to the third umpire.
    Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
    Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
    Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

  2. #737
    U19 Debutant Will Scarlet's Avatar
    Indiana Jones In Odd-World Champion! Jet Pac Stan Champion!
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, AUS
    Posts
    335
    Not taking anything away from Bradman but do you seriously think giving him out was an easy decision for an umpire in those days? The Australians would have crucified umpires for any marginal decisions against him.

    That aside, Bradman was great for the game with his polite manner and complete professionalism. I'm not saying he stood there and scowled at the umpires in a WG Grace manner.
    Last edited by Will Scarlet; 31-10-2004 at 09:17 PM.

  3. #738
    U19 Debutant Will Scarlet's Avatar
    Indiana Jones In Odd-World Champion! Jet Pac Stan Champion!
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, AUS
    Posts
    335
    run outs and stumpings maybe(of course i dont really think that run outs can be used against anyones record, since it doesnt exactly require being outbowled or poor batting), catches however went the other way. if a fielder claimed to have taken a catch, he was given out....unlike now where the batsman can refer a catch to the third umpire.[/QUOTE]

    That was not always true. Eg. Martin Snedden taking a catch in the WSC.

    Most TV decisions on catches are fairly conclusive, and when they are not the fielder's claims are often upheld.

  4. #739
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Will Scarlet
    Not taking anything away from Bradman but do you seriously think giving him out was an easy decision for an umpire in those days? The Australians would have crucified umpires for any marginal decisions against him.
    i dont really know what you are talking about, there was barely any technology in those days to crucify umpires for bad decisions, let alone marginal decisions.
    id say that there was considerably less pressure for people to give bradman out then than there is to give some of the indian players with their large fan base these days.


  5. #740
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Will Scarlet
    That was not always true. Eg. Martin Snedden taking a catch in the WSC.

    Most TV decisions on catches are fairly conclusive, and when they are not the fielder's claims are often upheld.
    that's debateable but the point is that if someone claimed to have taken a catch in bradmans era, it was given out . so i dont think there was any benefit of doubt given to the batsmen.

  6. #741
    U19 Debutant Will Scarlet's Avatar
    Indiana Jones In Odd-World Champion! Jet Pac Stan Champion!
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, AUS
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    i dont really know what you are talking about, there was barely any technology in those days to crucify umpires for bad decisions, let alone marginal decisions.
    id say that there was considerably less pressure for people to give bradman out then than there is to give some of the indian players with their large fan base these days.
    I'm talking simply from the view that the umpire had to have absolutely no doubt, as they should of course. If there was a faint noise, would an umpire have been convinced enough to end another innings by the greatest batsmen of that or possibly any time? Or a marginal LBW decision? Obviously Bradman's technique restricted the possibility but he was only given out LBW in 5 of his 70 dismissals! Only run out once and never stumped. He was generally caught or bowled, the easy decisions.

    I'm not speaking from the perspective that decisions can be scrutinised afterwards.

  7. #742
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Will Scarlet
    I'm talking simply from the view that the umpire had to have absolutely no doubt, as they should of course. If there was a faint noise, would an umpire have been convinced enough to end another innings by the greatest batsmen of that or possibly any time?
    nope it would take a very poor and biased umpire to do that. most umpires give the umpire out when they believe that he was out. and i would think that most umpires were english then, and given that england would have done anything to have bradman out, i would think that it worked the other way more often.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Scarlet
    Or a marginal LBW decision? Obviously Bradman's technique restricted the possibility but he was only given out LBW in 5 of his 70 dismissals! Only run out once and never stumped. He was generally caught or bowled, the easy decisions.
    as are most players!! its actually 6 out of 70 and if you look at someone like dravids dismissals you'll see that hes only been out lbw 17 out of 123 dismissals.

  8. #743
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Will Scarlet
    Neil, what you fail to realise - through ignorance or bias - was that because there was very little bowling support opposition batsmen frequently blocked out Hadlee and scored runs from the pie-throwers at the other end. This made Hadlee work bloody hard for his wickets.

    Hadlee only played against quality opposition, unlike Murali who has plundered BAN, ZIM, and WI wickets in recent times. Not sure he ever played Zimbabwe. New Zealand's batting during his era was never dominant, so he didn't have the luxury of defending large totals that created pressure on the opposition batsmen.

    For these reasons, and his excellent average, I believe Hadlee was the greatest bowler in cricketing history. It is ridiculous to say Bradman was more than 40% better than any bowler, as these are totally different skills.

    While I agree Bradman was the greatest cricketer of all time, he played in an era where the following occured:

    - Umpires would have been frightened to give him out
    - Close decisions on run-outs, stumpings, and catches were all given in favour of the batsmen
    - Playing long tours (6 tests) against the same opposition (usually England with the same bowlers) allows great players to build such prolific averages
    - Very few GREAT bowlers during his period
    (partially due to his dominance)

    I believe Viv Richards or Greame Pollock may have achieved a similar average under such conditions.
    There is absolutely no basis for these assertions.

  9. #744
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,674
    It certainly is an interesting viewpoint though.
    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.

  10. #745
    U19 Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    There is no basis whatsoever for these assertions
    The game has evolved from those days and players are more skilled and better trained.From the footage ive seen of those days,the game was decidedly amaturish compared to the modern era,just in the way tennis was in those days compared to todays game.Even bradman himself doesnt look very good when compared to todays players.
    The bowlers probably fare even worse when compared to the great of the modern era.
    The likes ambose,wasim,waqar,mcrath would of scalped whole teams singlehandedly back in those days.

    If you want to compare bradman to modern players just ask yourself whether bradman playing today would of averaged 99.
    I doubt any serious cricket follower would think he would even come close.

  11. #746
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    It was easier to score runs then, but at least it isn't like that now.

  12. #747
    Hall of Fame Member Smudge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Deep, deep south
    Posts
    16,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Dydl
    It was easier to score runs then, but at least it isn't like that now.
    What about uncovered wickets?

  13. #748
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,261
    Lets take all these claims one by one
    - Umpires would have been frightened to give him out

    There is no mention anywhere in history of umpires being intimidated by Bradman and adjudging in his favour. Cricketers who played with him have been alive (some still are) till very recntly and there is more written about the DON than any other cricketer (bar WG I suppose) and a lot of it is not very complimentary for a man of his stature did attract all kinds of negative emotions also but no one talks of this.

    Secondly, he played a very large part of his cricket in England where his record surpasses his record elsewhere (including in Australia). On all the tours 1930, 34, 38 and 48 ( the last at the ripe old age of 48) he scored runs that one wouldnt dream of writing about in a schoolboy heroes fictional accounts. Surely, you are not claiming that the English umpires were scared of him too ??


    - Close decisions on run-outs, stumpings, and catches were all given in favour of the batsmen

    Says who ? Yes there was an unwritten law (and still is) on the benefit of the doubt going to the batsman. It has been so down the ages. You might be refering to the recent use of the third umpire but it is too recent to have affected most of the later day greats batting averages the way you are talking. It is preposterous to suggest that Pollock (who never played with a third umpire) or Richards ( who played very little) would have had their averages affected dramatically by this !!

    - Playing long tours (6 tests) against the same opposition (usually England with the same bowlers) allows great players to build such prolific averages

    Just shows how some people will use anything including imagined/fabricated information masquerading as facts to 'prove' their fixed notions !!

    1. Bradman NEVER played in a six test series !!

    2. The proposition that somehow longer series are easier to handle is a load of poppycock. Go and ask any test cricketer and he will tell you that exactly the opposite is true. To maintain a high average in a three (or less tests series) is surely easier than a longer one spread over months when injury as well are more likely to affect your performance. His career series averages of
    66.9, 139.2, 74.5, 201.5, 56.6, 94.8, 90.0, 108.5, 97.1, 178.8 and 72.6 show that he was remarkable in his consistency over twenty years. The fact that these were 5 test series makes the figures more remarkable not less !!

    3. To say that the same opposition England and that this devalues his performance only reinforces what I said above about selective use of information.
    a) England were NOT an easy opposition. They were the oldest cricketing nation (alongwith Australia and had therefore, a huge pool of experienced and gifted cricketers coming from a mature cricketing environment and a well established first class domestic cricket set up. Today the cricketers are better off with having some new (and struggling minnows always available to hammer and inflate there averages).

    All cricketing nations take time to become the equals of the existing ones. This is a slow process and in the mean time, players from the established countries benefit from it.

    Here are some revealing statistics of how countries have fared against Australia at the begining of their test matches.

    S AFRICA : Won only 1 test out of the first 30 against Australia spread over 50 years !
    WEST INDIES : : Won only one test in 17 over 30 years !
    NZLAND : Won only one test in first 36 years. (Had a pretty long break after the first test which they won.)
    INDIA : Won their first test after 12 years.
    PAKISTAN : Won only 1 test in first 20 years !
    SRI LANKA : Have won only one test in their 22 year history !

    Surely playing these countries(in their early years) only boosts the averages of modern cricketers.

    England on the other hand were the only worthy opponents to Australia all through history and this starts from the very early test matches !!

    19th Century : 56 test matches Australia won 20, England 26

    20th century upto 1928-29(Bradman's debut series) : 58 tests. Australia 26, England 20

    Clearly, England were no push overs !!

    But what happpened during Bradmans career is extremely revealing.

    ENGLAND WERE NO PUSHOVERS EVEN DURING BRADMAN'S HEY DAYS !!

    b) Of the 29 tests from 1928-29 series (in which Bradman made his debut (playing 4 of the 5 tests) till the outbreak of the 2nd world war, Australia actually won fewer matches (10) than England who won 13 !!

    Shocked ?? Well its a fact.

    Its only after the war, that a depleted England side with both the first class game and the test side suffering from the loss of young men and cricketers in the war, really proved no match to the Aussies. In the 10 matches played after the war, England did not win any and lost 7. Bradman whose combined average on his three pre world war tours of England was a mind boggling 113.4 actually dropped to a more Lara(or any modern great)-like 72.6 in his only tour after the war at the ripe old age of 40 !!

    Really me friend, you do not know your history .

    This is not all.

    Bradman did play the then minnows (West Indies)in 1930-31 in the only series in his playing days and averaged 74.5.

    Played India in at the age of 39 in the penultimate series of his career and averaged 178.8 !

    Played South Africa in 1931-32 (they had already been a test playing nation for 30 years and averaged 201.5. He did not travel to South Africa in 1935-36 due to business reasons other wise he would have perhaps had a three figure career average after all !

    c) Clearly if he had more opportunities against teams other than England his average would have been, if anything, even higher !!

    3. England couldnt possibly have played with same bowlers during his career !!

    For a career spread over 20 years (1928-1948) From the end of the Hobbs era in England to the beginning of the new age with the fifties, a generation of cricketers had changed and you claim he played the same England bowlers !!

    - Very few GREAT bowlers during his period

    Oh Really. I do not know how you classify a great bowler. Let me go by authority. Take out any of the half a dozen or so books on the gam's all time great bowlers, starting from Spoofforth to Imran or Marshall depending on when the book was written and there are a few names that you will find in all of them. I hope you too have heard of them

    - Harold Larwood
    - Bill Voce
    - Alec Bedser
    - Hedley Verity
    - Jim Laker
    - Maurice tate.

    These are six of the greatest bowlers in the entire history of the game.

    If you ever buy a book of all time great bowlers and it doesnt include these six, dont throw away good money on that book.

    In addition there were others whom many a test side ,today would welcome with open arms.
    - Ian Peebles
    - George Geary
    - Bill Bowes
    - RWV Robbins
    - Ken Farnes
    - Gubby Allen
    - DWP Wright

    Heard of them ? They were no pushovers too.
    Last edited by SJS; 01-11-2004 at 03:29 AM.

  14. #749
    School Boy/Girl Captain Western Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by Sehwag309
    Murali comes before Warne I believe
    I know its taking the thread back to its beginning (so to speak) but I have to disagree.

    Whether you consider it fair or not, Muttiah Muralitherans achievements will always be tarnished by the throwing allegations he had had to face throughout his career.

    Warne on the other hand, despite his off-field antics (smoking, phone sex, diet pills etc) has always been above reproach when it came to his bowling style.

    I think this is reason that Warne is always given the nod before Muralitheran, simply because of the purity of his bowling style, his wicket taking achievements and his almost single-handed resurrection of leg spin bowling.

    Go Warnie is all I can say!

  15. #750
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Dydl
    It was easier to score runs then, but at least it isn't like that now.
    An interesting theory, and not one I'd subscribe to.

Page 50 of 69 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •