This obsession with how batsmen would do against all-time great dream lineups...

[GIMH]

Don't agree with some bits

For example:

Say you play table tennis in a competition
You do well against the players there
But then you play in another competition which is of a higher standard and therefore you don't do as well

Have you simply tailored your game to play against the lesser players and succeed at that level or does your game actually have flaws in it? Thus, it's not unreasonable to assume that (some) batsmen who play against poorer bowlers might not have done so welll against better bowlers/bowler friendly conditions, assuming that such batsmen has examples of failing in conditions during his career that would have suited bowlers of the past.

Not quite the same, though, is it. If the OP had come out and said that batsmen who do well in state cricket should be thought of as highly as Test cricketers, then fair enough. But clearly the point is that the top echelon of Test cricketers are always brought down with the 'was better back in the day' routine, and it's not really fair.

 

[GotSpin]

Not quite the same, though, is it. If the OP had come out and said that batsmen who do well in state cricket should be thought of as highly as Test cricketers, then fair enough. But clearly the point is that the top echelon of Test cricketers are always brought down with the 'was better back in the day' routine, and it's not really fair.

I think it is fair sometimes - Regardless of whether said modern day batsmen has 'tailored' his game to score runs in the present. Technical flaws aren't going to recover themselves regardless of era.

ftr - I don't think all modern day batsmen should be brought down. I still believe (in most instances) that if you're good enough to play in one era, you'd probably be good enough in another. However, there are definitely cases where a modern day batsmen has greatly benefited from a lesser supply of quality bowling line ups and bowler friendly wickets that have covered up technical weakness that would otherwise have been exposed. Sure, said batsmen might have been able to cover these flaws up had he been forced to play in such an era, but I still think his average would have been brought down with it.

 

[Flem274*]

But the point is the batsmen shouldn't be brought down by designing their techniques to play on what's in front of them. If Sehwag began in a different era, being the hard worker he is (and he is, he's obviously honed his game to perfection), probably would have gone about building his technique differently.

If the wickets today were predominantly green or turners or whatever, the batsmen would change accordingly. You either adapt or fail, and batsmen are always working on new ways to make themselves better to play what's in front of them. It's why you see young players who fail initially in tests returning with some adjustments.

 

[GotSpin]

But the point is the batsmen shouldn't be brought down by designing their techniques to play on what's in front of them. If Sehwag began in a different era, being the hard worker he is (and he is, he's obviously honed his game to perfection), probably would have gone about building his technique differently.

If the wickets today were predominantly green or turners or whatever, the batsmen would change accordingly. You either adapt or fail, and batsmen are always working on new ways to make themselves better to play what's in front of them. It's why you see young players who fail initially in tests returning with some adjustments.

And if a player like you mentioned had to retune his technique completely couldn't it therefore be argued that his average would drop by a couple runs because he couldn't play his naturally expansive game that rests on dominating the attack through the covers?

 

[Flem274*]

And if a player like you mentioned had to retune his technique completely couldn't it therefore be argued that his average would drop by a couple runs because he couldn't play his naturally expansive game that rests on dominating the attack through the covers?

Nah, because if he designs his technique appropriately then he should be sweet. If you're good through the covers, then you design your technique to keep that advantage while not getting out. Plenty of old schoolers were awesome through the covers, so I don't see why a modern player couldn't adjust.

Likewise plenty of old schoolers were expansive. Maybe not to the extreme extent of some players today when they have a hot streak (though Viv didn't seem to have too many issues) but they did take the attack to the bowlers and succeed. Sehwag does block the delivery when he deems it appropriate. He just doesn't deem it appropriate very often. He's a freak.

 

[Flem274*]

How about we reverse it? I'm pretty sure many old timers bowling averages would bump up if they had to enjoy bowling on the flat decks around today. I think there's a few bowlers around the world that, if they played in a previous era, would be seen in a better light because they got helpful conditions more often.

But it doesn't matter because it's all hypothetical. What does matter is some bowlers are much better at bowling in this era than others.

 

[GotSpin]

Nah, because if he designs his technique appropriately then he should be sweet. If you're good through the covers, then you design your technique to keep that advantage while not getting out. Plenty of old schoolers were awesome through the covers, so I don't see why a modern player couldn't adjust.

Likewise plenty of old schoolers were expansive. Maybe not to the extreme extent of some players today when they have a hot streak (though Viv didn't seem to have too many issues) but they did take the attack to the bowlers and succeed. Sehwag does block the delivery when he deems it appropriate. He just doesn't deem it appropriate very often. He's a freak.

I don't really want to bring Sehwag into this tbh - ole can of worms. While players of todays game would probably be able to adjust, I think some of them - apart from the elite e.g Gillespie, Ponting and Lara - would definitely suffer an average drop of a couple runs.

-edit . This is not to say they are lesser players, they would have just played in a tougher game

 

[Flem274*]

I don't really want to bring Sehwag into this tbh - ole can of worms. While players of todays game would probably be able to adjust, I think some of them - apart from the elite e.g Gillespie, Ponting and Lara - would definitely suffer an average drop of a couple runs.

I can see the point you're trying to make, but it's so arbitrary there's not much point in trying to decide who would be affected how. For all we know...who's another hated "flat track bully"?....Herschelle Gibbs would have decided to go Mark Richardson style and end up averaging 60.

Gillespie would still be 1337 though.

 

[GotSpin]

I can see the point you're trying to make, but it's so arbitrary there's not much point in trying to decide who would be affected how. For all we know...who's another hated "flat track bully"?....Herschelle Gibbs would have decided to go Mark Richardson style and end up averaging 60.

Gillespie would still be 1337 though.

Oh yeah I agree. I'm just trying to say that you can't pluck a batsmen from todays game and say if he'd simply 'tailored' his game differently he would have done just as well in another era. There's a reason why the 00s average is higher than the 90s average.

All hypothetical of course - Which really makes any discussion pointless

 

[Shri]

How about we reverse it? I'm pretty sure many old timers bowling averages would bump up if they had to enjoy bowling on the flat decks around today. I think there's a few bowlers around the world that, if they played in a previous era, would be seen in a better light because they got helpful conditions more often.

But it doesn't matter because it's all hypothetical. What does matter is some bowlers are much better at bowling in this era than others.

Like Vettori regularly bowling on uncovered wickets?

 

[Migara]

How about Kumble bowling on a wet track?

Even the sound of it makes me gulp.

 

[honestbharani]

This line of thought happens in all sports.

AFL: "How good would Ablett have been in the era of flooding"
Tennis: "How good would Federer and Sampras have been with wooden racquets"

People love to compare the greats, and also people love to say that the current greats aren't that good. People say we elevate our contemporaries too high, but an equal amount of tearing our contemporaries down because of some nostalgia happens as well.

Sehwag, Kallis and Ponting cop this a lot I reckon.

Kallis really cops it for an entirely different reason though..


Sehwag, Hayden and Ponting would be more apt.. Throw in likes of Jayawardene and Sangakkara too while we are at it...

 

[Jono]

Hayden actually was someone I was supposed to say as well, good point.

 

[vcs]

I think batsmen of the past, even if they faced better attacks on the whole, it wasn't as if they were always up against 4 ATGs with no respite.. there probably were a few weak links even in those attacks that could be targeted. People sometimes seem to forget that.

 

[aussie]

Is it unique to cricket fans? I mean, I don't often see football fans discussing how Maradona would do against a defence consisting of Maldini, Baresi, Thuram and Cafu for example. But I'm not a particularly die-hard football fan either, so maybe they do.

The point is, how important is it in practice, to be able to survive and score at an average of 50+ (or whatever determines greatness) against an attack of Marshall-Lillee-Hadlee-Warne(insert your own dream lineup here)? Now I'm not suggesting that minnow-bashing should be enough to bestow greatness on an individual, but really, how often do you come up against an all-time great bowling lineup in adverse conditions?

Football fans do to a degree. But football isn't such an analysis driven sport like cricket.

But i disagree with this thread. Since as i always say on CW there is large section who subscribes to PEWS theory of:

A batsman's job - or responsibility if you like - is to find a technique that optimises his scoring in his own era; not develop a technique that'd work in any era at the expense of maximum output in current conditions just to satisfy people who wish to compare him with former players.

Which i & others (memembers who no longer are on CW these days) disagree & have argued to the death. While many others as the responses to this thread indicates ATWA PEWS notion. Quite obviously who believe that aren't going to change (at least on this site), nor will people like myself who subcribe to the complete opposite, since a start ideological gridlock has developed with this matter & no middle-ground can be found at least on this site.

 

[aussie]

How about we reverse it? I'm pretty sure many old timers bowling averages would bump up if they had to enjoy bowling on the flat decks around today. I think there's a few bowlers around the world that, if they played in a previous era, would be seen in a better light because they got helpful conditions more often.

But it doesn't matter because it's all hypothetical. What does matter is some bowlers are much better at bowling in this era than others.

SMH. Another one of the old arguments again..

This is not true at least for the truly great bowlers. At least not for the truly great bowlers.

For example not because McGrath averaged 20 witht he ball in this FTB era, means his average means more than Imran, Marhsall, Hadlee, Ambrose, Donald, Lillee who played in era of more helpul pitches. All of those bowlers had unique skills to to bowl on flat pitches too & if they had to bowl on the roads of the last 10 years i dont see why they wouldn't have had equal success like McGrath.

But as i said, this has been argued before & it is going around in circles again. I expect the calvary to come in to call this "era bias" or of something of the sort in a few..

 

[aussie]

How about Kumble bowling on a wet track?

Even the sound of it makes me gulp.

This is not a hypotetical scenario worth considering. Since batsmen according shouldn't have to bat on wet wickets.

 

[Prince EWS]

How about Kumble bowling on a wet track?

Even the sound of it makes me gulp.

I reckon Swanneh would do particularly well on a wet track as well.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think it is fair sometimes - Regardless of whether said modern day batsmen has 'tailored' his game to score runs in the present. Technical flaws aren't going to recover themselves regardless of era.

ftr - I don't think all modern day batsmen should be brought down. I still believe (in most instances) that if you're good enough to play in one era, you'd probably be good enough in another. However, there are definitely cases where a modern day batsmen has greatly benefited from a lesser supply of quality bowling line ups and bowler friendly wickets that have covered up technical weakness that would otherwise have been exposed. Sure, said batsmen might have been able to cover these flaws up had he been forced to play in such an era, but I still think his average would have been brought down with it.

Well no-one's saying that averaging 60 in an era where the average batsman averages 35 is more impressive than averaging 55 in an era where the average batsman averages 25. Not at all. Your utility during your era is determined by how well you play relative to the rest the world, not the rest of time.

What I disagree with though is picking out someone like Sehwag and saying he'd suffer a much larger average drop in another era than someone like Dravid, and using it to make a case for Dravid being better the batsman. Firstly I don't think it's necessarily true, but more importantly, even if it is correct, I just find the whole concept completely and utterly irrelevant to a batsman's quality. Sehwag and Dravid honestly don't give a **** how they'd do in different eras and neither do the bowlers bowling to them, the selectors that pick them or the punters who bet on them. They've both done their best to adapt their techniques to the conditions and the bowlers they face today, not to satisfy the whim and fancy of people like us who want to compare them to Greg Chappell.

It is possible to compare players between eras, but the only way to do it with any real context is to compare players' output relative to their contemporaries. Guessing who'd do well in different eras based on technique is admittedly quite an interesting theoretical conversation but IMO it shouldn't really have a baring on how highly we rate the players in question.

 

[tooextracool]

I think the point that people have completely ignored here is not that players are a product of their own generation etc. Yes I am all for players having techniques that suit the style of pitches on which they routinely play during their generation and it is unfair to compare them to previous generations. However, the point about FTBs is a valid one.

To explain this let me use an example from Tennis. Lets say we have 2 hypothetical players and lets call them 'Federer' and 'Nadal'. Federer goes through tournaments beating all inferior opponents 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 etc to reach the final. Nadal on the other hand gets through to the final winning some games in 4 sets and being really tested throughout the tournament. Yet when they get to the final, Nadal wins in 5 sets and maintains an overall favorable win-loss record against Federer. Should we subscribe to the notion that Federer is better simply because he managed to completely obliterate all those inferiors who never had a chance against them while Nadal couldn't do the same? Or should we say that Nadal is superior because in the greatest of adversities and against the very best he usually comes out on top?

I think I would go for Nadal on that one. I think this analogy can be used in cricket. Matthew Hayden for example bullied every single mediocre bowling attack he could find in unprecedented fashion. And yet when he came up against a strong pace bowling outfit in bowler friendly conditions (such as in the 2 Ashes series in England) the guy could barely lay bat on ball. No matter how much we try to ignore them, seamer friendly conditions still exist in cricket and anyone who cant score runs in those conditions needs to have his record looked at under the microscope. When I look at a player like Thorpe, who IMO is one of the most criminally underrated cricketers from the last 2 decades, I will always consider him to be a better player than Hayden. I couldn't care less if Hayden averages 50+, when he was put in unfavorable conditions, he was not even half the batsman as Thorpe was.