So, Bradman's Invincibles or Waugh's unbeaten team of the early 00s?

[the big bambino]

Didn't Langer get Slats spot?

 

[mr_mister]

yeah i cbb looking up the details but for most of 99/00 Langer and Slater were both in the team as 3 and 1 with Blewett/Hayden fighting over 2


It took Slater actually leaving the top 6 for Martyn to crack into it permanently and not just through a Steve Waugh injury

 

[watson]

Red Hill I could post some Martyn innings that look just as good


doesn't prove a thing

Good luck in finding an innings as good as Mark Waugh's 116 against South Africa at Port Elizabeth in 1997.

Australia were chasing 270 for victory when he came to the wicket at 2 down for 30 with both Taylor and Hayden back in the pavillion. He then proceded to take control in his usual phlegmatic way - "pure class on a difficult wicket" said the commentator when he passed 100. I would tend to agree.

 

[Burgey]

The Mark Waugh clip to leg/ leg glance is as elegant as any shot 've ever seen on a cricket field. It's like the ball apologises to his bat for coming within range and delicately moves itself off to the boundary.

 

[Athlai]

Provided that the bats and equipment are the same for both sides then I can't see Waugh's team beating Bradman's team.

While Warne was a novelty during the 90s his impact against 1948 batsman would be minimal because they would encounter quality leg spinners all the time in Shield Cricket.

As classy as McGrath and Gillespie were they can be played successfully with a good straight technique and hold none of terrors found in a quartet consisting of Holding, Roberts, Garner, and Marshall. Brett Lee would be carted all over the park.

On the other hand, Hayden wouldn't last 30 minutes against Toshak who would simply take him apart. Slater had real problems against the swinging ball. He would not fair well against Lindwall and Johnston.

Langer, Waugh, Waugh, Ponting and Gilchrist is very strong. But it really isn't much better than the opposing middle-order. It would be interesting to see Ponting and Gilchrist take on Lindwall and Miller, but I think that they would end up having problems against the inevitable bouncers. It's all very well hooking and ducking the likes of Gough. But Lindwall wasn't nicknamed "Killer" for nothing, and Miller would be more unpredictable than any bowler they would have encountered before.

3-2 to Bradman's side as Bradman was every bit as ruthless as Waugh.

I disagree with this strongly. I think people drastically underestimate the progression of skill and fitness that has occurred in sport over time. The longer the distance the more likely the contemporary sportsman would utterly dominate the forbear from a different era.

I don't think this is any true sleight on the skill of the men at the time, their skill and millions of hours in training and billions of dollars in development have lead to the ever increasing squeezing out of ability in the contemporary athlete.

Jesse Owens, one of the greatest athletes of all time, took home 4 gold medals in both track and field events in those famous Olympic games.That same Jesse Owens wouldn't even qualify for the Olympics in 3 of those 4 events today, and I doubt the US would settle for his long jump qualifying best. Would modern technology improve his performance for this year's Olympics if he popped out of a time machine tomorrow at the age of 23? Possibly, but we're talking a very very minimal gain on what you'd get from his overall performance.

I'd suspect that outside of Bradman the Invincible's would appear as first class quality at best compared to Waugh's team. I am not trying to get a rise out of anyone when I say that I realistically believe Bangladesh would beat them if they played tomorrow.

 

[viriya]

Overrated based on his average? Cos there was a fair bit more to MWaugh than his average.

Average is just one part of the story. In ODIs, he isn't overrated but in Tests he is. The quality of bowling attacks argument is overdone imo - it's just one factor to consider.

 

[viriya]

It is. Martyn was never preferred in a direct choice btwn the two.

Doesn't make the decision right.

 

[the big bambino]

Don't be arrogant. Selectors aren't stupid and know more than you. If the choice was wrong they'd have noticed and changed. They didn't bcos they were right.

 

[GotSpin]

I disagree with this strongly. I think people drastically underestimate the progression of skill and fitness that has occurred in sport over time. The longer the distance the more likely the contemporary sportsman would utterly dominate the forbear from a different era.

I don't think this is any true sleight on the skill of the men at the time, their skill and millions of hours in training and billions of dollars in development have lead to the ever increasing squeezing out of ability in the contemporary athlete.

Jesse Owens, one of the greatest athletes of all time, took home 4 gold medals in both track and field events in those famous Olympic games.That same Jesse Owens wouldn't even qualify for the Olympics in 3 of those 4 events today, and I doubt the US would settle for his long jump qualifying best. Would modern technology improve his performance for this year's Olympics if he popped out of a time machine tomorrow at the age of 23? Possibly, but we're talking a very very minimal gain on what you'd get from his overall performance.

I'd suspect that outside of Bradman the Invincible's would appear as first class quality at best compared to Waugh's team. I am not trying to get a rise out of anyone when I say that I realistically believe Bangladesh would beat them if they played tomorrow.

This is such a poor argument. You judge players from different eras according to their peers, not if they are magically teleported to play against a modern team

In the same time, Miller, Bradman etc lost years from their prime to WWII whilst not to mention that they actually had to work for a living. There's just no way to adequately compare eras. In the same token, how would the players of today handle it if they had no access to resources or support staff, or had to work another job. This doesn't even touch upon the technological differences. How would modern day players cope without protective equipment or pitches, that you know, actually have a lot in for the bowlers.

Ultimately, if you wish to cut down the performances of Miller and co, then apparently the rest of those players from that era wouldn't make 5th grade.

 

[viriya]

Don't be arrogant. Selectors aren't stupid and know more than you. If the choice was wrong they'd have noticed and changed. They didn't bcos they were right.

I've never seen the argument for a batsman over the other being "the selectors didn't pick the other". History shows that selectors have kept players with past reputations for too long in numerous occasions. I don't see why they are above criticism.

I realize mine isn't a popular opinion since his batting looked so good - but I think the main job of a batsman is to make runs though and looking good doing it is secondary. Just focusing on the time period of Mark Waugh's career (1991-2002) and just his Australian teammates during the same period (so the bowling attack argument wouldn't work):
cricrate | cricinsight

^ From this I think at least it's suggestable that he wasn't clearly better than Martyn. I'm just saying that Martyn holds his own.

 

[Athlai]

This is such a poor argument. You judge players from different eras according to their peers, not if they are magically teleported to play against a modern team

In the same time, Miller, Bradman etc lost years from their prime to WWII whilst not to mention that they actually had to work for a living. There's just no way to adequately compare eras. In the same token, how would the players of today handle it if they had no access to resources or support staff, or had to work another job. This doesn't even touch upon the technological differences. How would modern day players cope without protective equipment or pitches, that you know, actually have a lot in for the bowlers.

Ultimately, if you wish to cut down the performances of Miller and co, then apparently the rest of those players from that era wouldn't make 5th grade.

I'm absolutely fine with your logic but that's not what I responded to

 

[GotSpin]

To be fair I was just referring to one of your points then I decided to just roll with it

 

[Athlai]

To be fair I was just referring to one of your points then I decided to just roll with it

Yeah I absolutely agree with your hypothetical of the modern player only having the means of development available then and being worse off for it.

A lot of people just seem to ignore the progression in sport outside the shape of a bat or shoe.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can you and Mr Mr get your stories straight? Was Waugh dropped for Martyn or Boof? A comparison of batsman is made everytime a test team is selected. There's a reason Waugh was preferred on almost every time he was available. Hint - its bcos he was better. Oh **** I've given it away.

Can't really understand what you're saying here, but I was referring to your earlier post where you said Martyn was never preferred between the two, which is incorrect. In fact when Waugh was dropped his position was taken by Martyn the very next game.

And the reason Waugh was preferred over Martyn for most of their careers is because he was significantly older and more advanced in his career. So that argument, even if it was correct, which it absolutely is not, would be completely irrelevant anyway.

Hope this helps.

i already stated he was riding on the reputation he had built in the 90s by then. there were calls for him to be dropped for most of the '00s


He was eventually dropped for Boof IIRC since Martyn was already in the team, but if Martyn hadn't broken thru in ashes '01 coz of Slater unexpectedly being tossed to the kerb(so Langer moved from middle order to opener, freeing up a spot) then I reckon Waugh would have had to step down for Martyn

This is true. Mark Waugh was always under selection pressure for the last 1.5-2 years of his career. Martyn was a far superior player during this time.

Waugh actually had a very good 2001 Ashes, but unfortunately very little else after.

 

[vcs]

Don't be arrogant. Selectors aren't stupid and know more than you. If the choice was wrong they'd have noticed and changed. They didn't bcos they were right.

Classic appeal to (dubious)authority. It's not as if selecting 11 people out of a system with Australia's depth of talent that they possessed in that period is an exact science.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Don't be arrogant. Selectors aren't stupid and know more than you. If the choice was wrong they'd have noticed and changed. They didn't bcos they were right.

and they chose Martyn . . .

 

[andruid]

What about Boof? No love for Darren Lehmann?

 

[watson]

I disagree with this strongly. I think people drastically underestimate the progression of skill and fitness that has occurred in sport over time. The longer the distance the more likely the contemporary sportsman would utterly dominate the forbear from a different era.

I don't think this is any true sleight on the skill of the men at the time, their skill and millions of hours in training and billions of dollars in development have lead to the ever increasing squeezing out of ability in the contemporary athlete.

Jesse Owens, one of the greatest athletes of all time, took home 4 gold medals in both track and field events in those famous Olympic games.That same Jesse Owens wouldn't even qualify for the Olympics in 3 of those 4 events today, and I doubt the US would settle for his long jump qualifying best. Would modern technology improve his performance for this year's Olympics if he popped out of a time machine tomorrow at the age of 23? Possibly, but we're talking a very very minimal gain on what you'd get from his overall performance.

I'd suspect that outside of Bradman the Invincible's would appear as first class quality at best compared to Waugh's team. I am not trying to get a rise out of anyone when I say that I realistically believe Bangladesh would beat them if they played tomorrow.

Cricket is not like running or swimming where fitness and training is everything. Obviously fitness and training are important aspects of cricket but it is primarily a sport based on specific skills. In fact you could liken cricketers to craftsman and artisans because their skills are so highly specific.

That's why I showed the video of Keith Miller bowling a perfect outswinger on the off-stump. It doesn't matter whether you are WG Grace, Walter Hammond, Len Hutton, Graham Gooch, Greg Chappell, or Virat Kohli, a perfect outswinger on the off-stump travelling at > 130 kph is going to get you out a good percentage of the time. In other words, specific cricketing skills transcend time and apply to all decades.

I would agree that cricketers from the 19th century would struggle against modern teams on modern wickets because their techniques were still going through an evolutionary stage. Plus their techniques were significantly hampered by the appalling state of many wickets. If you look at the stance of WG Grace it is reasonably clear that he is getting ready for a possible 'daisy cutter'. There was no need for a quick like Malcolm Marshall because the wicket did much of the work for the bowler. However, given a season or two in a modern competitions I'm sure that the likes of WG Grace, Arthur Shrewsbury, or Charles Turner would gradually rise to the top to be champions in both their time and ours.

I think that it's reasonably obvious that by the 1920s cricketers were just as skillfull then as they are now. Give Bradman a modern bat and equipment then he would more than likely be the best batsman in the world inside a couple of months of practice. Morris would be every bit as good as Warner, if not better.

Bradman's 1948 side would easily beat a modern Bangladesh team after a few warm-up matches with modern bats and equipment. In fact, I doubt that it would be much of a contest.

 

[the big bambino]

I've never seen the argument for a batsman over the other being "the selectors didn't pick the other". History shows that selectors have kept players with past reputations for too long in numerous occasions. I don't see why they are above criticism.

I realize mine isn't a popular opinion since his batting looked so good - but I think the main job of a batsman is to make runs though and looking good doing it is secondary. Just focusing on the time period of Mark Waugh's career (1991-2002) and just his Australian teammates during the same period (so the bowling attack argument wouldn't work):
cricrate | cricinsight

^ From this I think at least it's suggestable that he wasn't clearly better than Martyn. I'm just saying that Martyn holds his own.

Well that's true selectors aren't above criticism but I'll get to that in responses below. It is certainly justifiable to quote selectorial preferences though as they are the ones who judge the merits of players. Martyn and Waugh competed for selection in the same era and Waugh was clearly the better candidate in that time and that fact will be verified in selection. I also favour Waugh bcos I believe the bowling he faced in the 90s was better than Martyn's opposition in the early to mid naughties.

Classic appeal to (dubious)authority. It's not as if selecting 11 people out of a system with Australia's depth of talent that they possessed in that period is an exact science.

What do you offer as an alternative? Your opinion? Which doesn't even come with a fact, stat or argument that would recommend it. Look you are entitled to your opinion. You should care that it is also respected. You have to accept that what you say will be refereed by impartial facts. Martyn struggled to keep his place in FC cricket let alone the test side for a long time while Waugh was a virtual regular. Selectorial decisions can be offered as support for an opinion. They are after all operating within their area of expertise, are experts in their field and their choices not controversial. All contradictory to the qualifications defining an appeal to authority and contained in the 1st sentence of your link: Did you actually read it?

and they chose Martyn . . .

Not throughout the 90s bud. Note to yourself: Must qualify remarks.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not throughout the 90s bud. Note to yourself: Must qualify remarks.

I did, thoroughly and extensively In the previous post which you quoted & ignored.

Note to yourself: The arrogant and insolent wording being used in your posting in this thread is bad enough without the further embarrassment of being completely wrong and refusing to accept it.

If I were you I'd try and fix both of these errors in character.

edit: I'll quote the "qualifying remarks" for you in case you have trouble finding them:

Arguing for Mark Waugh on the basis of fielding is fair enough, but this thread is proving that this is correct



Not really relevant as they're peaks didn't overlap at all, however actually was anyway.

When Mark Waugh was dropped Martyn directly took his number 4 position

Can't really understand what you're saying here, but I was referring to your earlier post where you said Martyn was never preferred between the two, which is incorrect. In fact when Waugh was dropped his position was taken by Martyn the very next game.

And the reason Waugh was preferred over Martyn for most of their careers is because he was significantly older and more advanced in his career. So that argument, even if it was correct, which it absolutely is not, would be completely irrelevant anyway.

Hope this helps.

This is true. Mark Waugh was always under selection pressure for the last 1.5-2 years of his career. Martyn was a far superior player during this time.

Waugh actually had a very good 2001 Ashes, but unfortunately very little else after.