-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Hussey is the best ever
- Thread starter ColdSnow
- Start date
Shaggy Alfresco
State Captain
A case could be made. It'd be wrong, but it's not heresy.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not a chance IMO. Pitches of the 2001-2007 period > pitches of the 1930s, and bowlers of the 1930s > bowlers of the 2001-2007 period.
That said, Hussey keeps giving the "it's gotta stop sometime" impression and it keeps going, so before too long it's going to be a serious, serious question about why the hell he is the 2nd best since Braddles.
That said, Hussey keeps giving the "it's gotta stop sometime" impression and it keeps going, so before too long it's going to be a serious, serious question about why the hell he is the 2nd best since Braddles.
Shaggy Alfresco
State Captain
Actually, I'd argue that the 30's were a period of (almost?) as friendly batting pitches as we see in the present. And let's keep in mind that the LBW law was only changed in 1935.
social
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Plus width of wickets was reduced by over 10% in '39 (due to conditions being too batsman friendly) and lbw law changed markedly in 50s
social
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not a chance IMO. Pitches of the 2001-2007 period > pitches of the 1930s, and bowlers of the 1930s > bowlers of the 2001-2007 period.
QUOTE]
Urrm, care to name a couple of decent bowlers from the 30s?
Whoever they are, I'll raise you a Murali, Vaas, Pollock, Ntini, Bond, Kumble, Shoaib, etc etc. And notice I'm ignoring Australia so you'll have to choose from the multitude of countries that Bradman played against
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Hmm, well, there's... Tate, Verity, Constantine, Martindale, Francis, Griffith, Larwood, Voce, Bowes, Allen, Farnes, Nissar, Amar Singh... need I go on? That's ignoring the Australians, obviously, who had Ironmonger, Grimmett and O'Reilly.
Most of whom Hussey's never faced at all or more than once in any case, but none of these are really that outstanding due to either inconsistency, constant injuries and questionable attitude, living on past performances, or being over-hyped due to their ODI exploits. Or sometimes more than one of these.Whoever they are, I'll raise you a Murali, Vaas, Pollock, Ntini, Bond, Kumble, Shoaib, etc etc. And notice I'm ignoring Australia so you'll have to choose from the multitude of countries that Bradman played against
Also, is it really too much to ask that you please quote properly?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
In fine weather, undoubtedly, there was little between a 1930s pitch and a 2004 pitch. But any decent amount of rain, and that changed drastically.
Also, the lbw law change is massively, massively overrated. If it was more difficult to get an lbw in those days it was because it did not need to be easy - pitches (and maybe bowlers) allowed other ways of dismissal that did not allow batsmen to do any better than they did after the change.
sideshowtim
Banned
The pitches thing is a decent argument, but the idea that bowlers of the 30s are better quality is a bit of a cop out I feel. Bowlers these days dedicate their lives to bowling. I'd wager that they're better these days due to this alone.
I don't feel Hussey is anywhere near Bradman, but the idea that this era has poor bowlers is horrendously overplayed.
I don't feel Hussey is anywhere near Bradman, but the idea that this era has poor bowlers is horrendously overplayed.
ohtani's jacket
State Vice-Captain
Whoah, I thought Ponting was supposed to be the best Australian batsman since Bradman? Are you Aussies fickle in your Bradman comparsions?
Turbinator
Cricketer Of The Year
Agree with you, for once.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Richard, the 1930s is nothing short of legendary as a period of batting dominance. This is the era of 1000+ scores, triple centuries and 60+ averages, with pitches that had been prepared to a degree that removed all life from them. If there's one era you could compare to the 2000-2005 period in terms of dominance of bat over ball, the 30s is it. And that's ignoring the fact that Hussey didn't play test cricket in that period, but anyway...
If you are going to be pointlessly nostalgic and glorify the past, at least know something about it first.
If you are going to be pointlessly nostalgic and glorify the past, at least know something about it first.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
He's played two series away from home, three tests in South Africa and two in Bangladesh.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
And this current time is nothing short of legendary as a period of batting dominance too.
Have I not quite clearly stated - any number of times - that the 1930s beyond question had the least bowler-friendly (given fair weather) pitches before 2001\02?
Nonetheless, two things remain: wickets were still uncovered, and rain can and did turn even the flattest wicket into a minefield in some circumstances, and very often did turn a flat one into a much more level-field one; and there were, beyond question, more high-calibre bowlers in the 1930s than there are now - there have been a tiny number since 2001\02.
I am not arguing that the 1930s was more difficult for batting than the 1950s or 1960s, or 1970s, 80s or 90s. Merely refuting social's ridiculous statement that there have been more high-calibre bowlers around of late than there were in the 1930s.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
It's really not. Though I know from a recent thread you feel it is.
Do you really imagine, meanwhile, that bowlers did not put in serious dedication - in the 1900s, never mind the 1930s? Cricket was a profession - it was all a player had to earn his keep. Even for gentlemen (in a minority in the bowlers, very much so) there was a huge, huge stigma attached to being good at cricket. Do you really imagine they did not practice - one hell of a lot?
The best bowlers have always had to have incredible dedication in order to succeed. It's highly ignorant to believe this dedication is any greater now than it once was.
sideshowtim
Banned
Mate, cricket wasn't really a full-time profession until very recently. Domestic cricketers generally don't have to work a second job these days, but I know back in the 30s pretty much every cricketer still worked. I remember reading something about Bradman working on the morning of a Test match. I'm not suggesting the bowlers of the 30s were terrible or didn't put time into their art or anything of the sort, but today, Test bowlers are full professionals. They dedicate all of their time and effort to their bowling, I'd bet more than they used to in the 30s as they don't have a job and such to worry about. To me, the way to become a great player is to just continuously practice, and pretty much every Test bowler does this....It doesn't make sense that the bowlers of the 30s were so ridiculously better thant today's bowlers at all....
social
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sorry Richard, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous responses I've ever come across.
How the hell can you list a group of players (most with barely a handful of matches to their name) and compare to players that are world record holders and/or regarded as being amongst the best 2/3 in their country's history?
Your bias against the standards of today's cricket truly borders on the laughable