Victor Trumper - why?

[adharcric]

I will say I don't put too much stock in stats, I would rather watch Mark Waugh or David Gower, than Steve Waugh and Jaques Kallis, and could not care if the side with the latter two won every game. That is what makes cricket the best of all games.

And if all people care about is the result and not the beauty they are missing out on Cricket

That's fine. In short, cricket is about entertainment as well as scoring runs and taking wickets. Are we judging entertainment value or cricketing accomplishments?

 

[Richard]

I will say I don't put too much stock in stats, I would rather watch Mark Waugh or David Gower, than Steve Waugh and Jaques Kallis, and could not care if the side with the latter two won every game. That is what makes cricket the best of all games.

And if all people care about is the result and not the beauty they are missing out on Cricket

Absolutely. Couldn't have put it better. If all that mattered was the result no-one would watch cricket.

However, when assessing sheer ability to contribute to the winning of matches (which is the most common thing that's assessed, though obviously not the only one) the two should not intrude on each other.

 

[Richard]

Except Lillee clearly had more than enough substance to qualify as an all-time great. Still not convinced about Trumper's claim.

Oh, indeed. The case is different, but the reasons for bias of testimony are similar.

 

[archie mac]

One year? Many great players have had a great year. What happened in the rest of the decade?

Fair enough. That is very convincing but I doubt the "throwing his wicket after making 100" claim. Did he do that in test cricket as well?

Some of those things could be said about someone like Afridi today, right?

Mind you, I still believe that Trumper is an all-time great. He falls into my Aussie all-time XI but I am questioning why he is considered an all-time great. Just playing devil's advocate and nobody has explained why his average is not higher yet.

I thought I said he threw his wicket away when he reached 100. Also Trumper would not be tied down, and if he recieved the same ball twice in a row, he thought it wrong to play the same shot to each ball.

It is hard to imagine a modern player with this idea of batting

 

[archie mac]

That's fine. In short, cricket is about entertainment as well as scoring runs and taking wickets. Are we judging entertainment value or cricketing accomplishments?

Both I hope

 

[silentstriker]

I will say I don't put too much stock in stats, I would rather watch Mark Waugh or David Gower, than Steve Waugh and Jaques Kallis, and could not care if the side with the latter two won every game.

But if we are discussing who you'd rather watch, there is no need for stats. This debate isn't who you'd love to watch, or who you'd pay most to see, or who'd bring the most entertainment.

 

[archie mac]

But if we are discussing who you'd rather watch, there is no need for stats. This debate isn't who you'd love to watch, or who you'd pay most to see, or who'd bring the most entertainment.

I thought we were rating the best batsman?

Do you go on stats, or do you rate the batsman that can play every shot with perfect timing? And who can do things with a bat that no one else can?

 

[Richard]

I thought I said he threw his wicket away when he reached 100. Also Trumper would not be tied down, and if he recieved the same ball twice in a row, he thought it wrong to play the same shot to each ball.

It is hard to imagine a modern player with this idea of batting

It says a huge amount about the attitudes of the day, and it is one of the reasons it's so dangerous to compare the 1900s to the 1990s. Something that would be quite wonderful in one might well be deplorable in the other.

 

[Richard]

I thought we were rating the best batsman?

Do you go on stats, or do you rate the batsman that can play every shot with perfect timing? And who can do things with a bat that no one else can?

What's the use in playing every shot if you can't pick the right ball to play them?

Batting as regards winning games is about scoring as many runs as possible and not often a great deal else.

 

[adharcric]

I thought I said he threw his wicket away when he reached 100.

You sure? Out of his test centuries, there are three scores under 125: 104*, 113 and 113. All three came in the first innings - don't see why you would be sure of a win and throw away your wicket (that too, after scoring another 13) in the first (out of four) innings of a test. Don't know about that tbh.

 

[archie mac]

What's the use in playing every shot if you can't pick the right ball to play them?

Batting as regards winning games is about scoring as many runs as possible and not often a great deal else.

It has to be said that I don't put much stock on winning Test Matches, I would rather watch Aust. lose a great game with all the skills on display, then Aust win with a scoring rate of 200 runs aday.

I remember something Jack Fingleton wrote 'as I get older I care less about the result and more about the quality of the match'

I did not think at the time (I was about 19) that, that would ever happen to me, but it has

 

[Richard]

It has to be said that I don't put much stock on winning Test Matches, I would rather watch Aust. lose a great game with all the skills on display, then Aust win with a scoring rate of 200 runs aday.

I remember something Jack Fingleton wrote 'as I get older I care less about the result and more about the quality of the match'

I did not think at the time (I was about 19) that, that would ever happen to me, but it has

There's a huge difference between the winner and the quality. I too would much prefer see a good match that England didn't win than a crap one where they did. But the demonstration of skill and the attractiveness of viewing are both intertwined and totally separate. Attractiveness of viewing is very personal - I myself don't really care much about the scoring-rate (as long as it doesn't get ridiculously slow or ridiculously fast) - some have a rigid view that the faster the scoring the more entertaining.

Attractiveness of stroke, however, is something that doesn't come into someone's matchwinnning ability. And I don't generally like to blur how much enjoyment someone gave to certain fans with how much they contributed to their team's performance.

 

[adharcric]

Top post Richard.

 

[archie mac]

There's a huge difference between the winner and the quality. I too would much prefer see a good match that England didn't win than a crap one where they did. But the demonstration of skill and the attractiveness of viewing are both intertwined and totally separate. Attractiveness of viewing is very personal - I myself don't really care much about the scoring-rate (as long as it doesn't get ridiculously slow or ridiculously fast) - some have a rigid view that the faster the scoring the more entertaining.

Attractiveness of stroke, however, is something that doesn't come into someone's matchwinnning ability. And I don't generally like to blur how much enjoyment someone gave to certain fans with how much they contributed to their team's performance.

Good post mate, but I do not think them seperate, I also don't mind a slow scoring game, if for instance the pitch is all in favour of the bowlers, hence why I don't enjoy ODI very much. Lets see who can score the most 4s & 6s, wake me up for the Test

 

[Prince EWS]

This is a very interesting thread so for.

For me, really, the best batsman is the one who is going to contribute the most for his team with the bat. As the opposition and the conditions become harder, the weighting of what they do with the bat increases. The one who could do it all for you, in all conditions, under the most pressure, the most consistently - there's your best batsman.

I think people are confusing "best" with "most naturally talented" or even "most pleasing to the eye of the general public." If I was going to follow swervy's logic and simply plug the cases of those who had the values I held high, I'd argue until my fingers were numb that Chopra and Ganga were infinitely better openers than Hayden and Gayle. I'd be convinced that Syed Rasel was a better bowler than Steve Harmison. And I'd be sure that Jacques Kallis and Sachin Tendulkar were the two best batsmen of all time. But, to put it simply, I know that's not true. As much as I'd like cricket to reward those batsmen - especially openers - with a good technique, and as much as I'd like cricket to reward bowlers who had good control and a good execution of all the different deliveries - it just isn't so. Syed Rasel has an excellent seam position for all his deliveries.. and he bowls the lot too - inswinger, outswinger, off-cutter, leg-cutter.. all with tremendous accuracy. But he's the slowest specialist seamer we've seen since covered pitches started, and he gets less bounce than a flat football, so he's quite useless in today's conditions and simply isn't as good as man mountain bowlers who have height, power and strength at their disposal - whether they can actually bowl the ball or not. The Chopras and the Gangas of the world, who bat with such discipline, patience and excellent techniques are esclipsed by guys who just biff the ball to all parts like Gayle and Hayden.

The cricket I like to see is not the always the cricket that produces the best results. That's the difference between the best cricketer, and the cricketer I'd have in my side. I do agree with Archie a lot in that the quality of the cricket is far more important to me than the result of any game - but that shouldn't actually creep into the debate of who is better - only who you'd rather watch.

 

[adharcric]

Damn it, I already selected the Afridi for this week.

 

[Richard]

This is a very interesting thread so for.

For what?

Syed Rasel has an excellent seam position for all his deliveries.. and he bowls the lot too - inswinger, outswinger, off-cutter, leg-cutter.. all with tremendous accuracy. But he's the slowest specialist seamer we've seen since covered pitches started, and he gets less bounce than a flat football, so he's quite useless in today's conditions and simply isn't as good as man mountain bowlers who have height, power and strength at their disposal - whether they can actually bowl the ball or not.

How fast is he? Never actually either seen him timed nor heard legend of his slowness.

He's a shortaess, yeah?

 

[Richard]

Damn it, I already selected the Afridi for this week.

Don't worry, there's gonna be a delay as my Awads (sic ) are gonna be a bit late due to circumstances which must remain top-secret (one person and only one will probably know what I mean here, and that way it shall stay for eternal CW), so you could change if you wanted to.

Alternatively, you could say we're now into the following week.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm sure I exaggerated the "slowest since covered pitches" part, but he bowls at about 115-120km/hr mostly. He will occassionally crank up a quicker one at 125-128km/hr as a surprise delivery.

And yes, he is quite short.

 

[Prince EWS]

Damn it, I already selected the Afridi for this week.

Well it's actually next week already, technically.