4 & 5

[Lillian Thomson]

I would personally take Richards and Tendulkar. But if Lara and Smith turned up instead I think I could live with the disappointment.

 

[stephen]

I would personally take Richards and Tendulkar. But if Lara and Smith turned up instead I think I could live with the disappointment.

Now I'm imagining them playing park cricket and their fat captain complaining because they got the lazy looking one and the dorky looking one instead of the beefcake and the vet.

 

[honestbharani]

The Prince ain't looking lazy ever...

 

[kyear2]

Your example is an utter non sequitur. See Warner is you dont understand what I am talking about. Or 2000s Lanka.

There is a reason why Smith is rated ahead of, for example, AB, and it is the fact that he averages 20 more at home. The fact that Smith played in a tougher era notwithstanding, nobody would sensibly rate Smiths away performances ahead of ABs. What would Smith have averaged at the age of 21 if, instead of being dropped, he had been forced to open like AB? 10?

Would AB have averaged 68 home in Smiths boots? I doubt it, but it would have been a big number. Would Smith have averaged 47 in ABs? Who knows, but it would have been nowhere near 68.

And I am using an example of a player not considered even good enough to make this poll.

Smiths real peak was 4 calender years when he averaged something like 60 away. Kallis had a peak 4 calender years averaging about 80 away, and still ended with an overall average for the period a couple of runs lower than Smith. I'm not going to pretend I think Kallis peaked as hard as Smith (bowling quality, flat away pitches, pacing an innings etc.), but you cant handwave the home conditions advantage away.

Not taking sides in this discussion, but there are some valid points in this argument. Not saying these factors should be held against him, but they should be considered.
In another thread, it was illustrated how great Wasim was in the 90's, but because of his slow start and then late dip, he wouldn't be regarded as being among the absolute top tier. Sobers commenced his career at 17 and started batting at no. 9 as a spinner and it took him 4 years moving between opening to no 8 to score his first century.
Re the dead pitches, I can note the AB comparison, but everyone could only bat on what they are given and the rest sadly.is a bit of conjecture, and he still had to score the runs. And his overseas record evens that out anyways.

Edit: post was made before reading the last 4 pages, and really not even sure how relevant it is anymore.

 

[h_hurricane]

It hasn't been discussed here, but Smith is now quietly gaining longevity, without playing any tests recently.

 

[Gob]

It hasn't been discussed here, but Smith is now quietly gaining longevity, without playing any tests recently.

I know this is tongue in cheek but this was also what made those pre war greats, greats.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It would have been interesting to see what The Don would have done without the War intervening. I think it's fairly certain he wouldn't have spent his 40th year touring England. By all accounts he initially had no intentions of playing Test Cricket again after the War ended.

 

[Coronis]

Doubt Hammond or Headley would have played as long as they did either.

 

[kyear2]

Doubt Hammond or Headley would have played as long as they did either.

While missing years of their prime.

Double whammy

 

[The Sean]

Hammond was 36 by the time the war came, so didn't really lose his peak years - though to be fair his form in 1938 and 1939 had been exceptional.

Headley, on the other hand, had only just turned 30. And by the time he got to play another Test he was nearly 39...

 

[The Sean]

Bradman was very close to Headley in terms of age, and lost opportunity. Bradman was just 29 - still a month short of his 30th birthday - when he made 103 and 16 at Headingley in Australia's last series before the war.

The next time he walked out to bat in a Test match, he was 38.

 

[Coronis]

Hammond was 36 by the time the war came, so didn't really lose his peak years - though to be fair his form in 1938 and 1939 had been exceptional.

Wouldn’t surprise me if he’d had a decent few years left in him at all.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Only the one bloke was still amazing at Hammond’s post war age.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Speaking of war interruptions jesus imagine Hobbs’ numbers without WWI.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Why did Bradman retire? Should have played until his mid 50s at least. He would be competing with Sobers for the best batsman title in 1960s.
First batsman to reach 10 K runs.. Or even 15 k
First to reach 50 tons..
May be Still leading in both.

110 tests 80 avg.. Not bad at all.

 

[kyear2]

Hammond was 36 by the time the war came, so didn't really lose his peak years - though to be fair his form in 1938 and 1939 had been exceptional.

Headley, on the other hand, had only just turned 30. And by the time he got to play another Test he was nearly 39...

Was primarily referring to Headley, he was fully coming into his own just when cricket was cancelled and the world as they knew it came to a halt once again.

 

[ma1978]

Was primarily referring to Headley, he was fully coming into his own just when cricket was cancelled and the world as they knew it came to a halt once again.

headley never had to come into his own. He was already incredible. He is an ATG and underrated in these parts (every bit in the discussion of his great contemporaries (Hammond etc) and for the greatest WI bat (Sobers and Richards)

but your point is taken that he never saw his prime years

I love CLR James chapter on Headley in Beyond a Boundary

 

[TheJediBrah]

Why did Bradman retire? Should have played until his mid 50s at least. He would be competing with Sobers for the best batsman title in 1960s.
First batsman to reach 10 K runs.. Or even 15 k
First to reach 50 tons..
May be Still leading in both.

110 tests 80 avg.. Not bad at all.

Yes because that's why sportsmen play, to build their stats. No other reasons.

seriously though not everyone is Sachin

 

[_00_deathscar]

seriously though not everyone is Sachin

That’s why they’re all **** though

 

[h_hurricane]

Yes because that's why sportsmen play, to build their stats. No other reasons.

seriously though not everyone is Sachin

What PFK meant was, Bradman could have played another 10 years, 60 tests and averaged 60 through his 40s, taking his overall average to around 80. He could have contributed above replacement level for that period. Yet, he retired in 1948 to protect his near hundred average. What a selfish ****.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What PFK meant was, Bradman could have played another 10 years, 60 tests and averaged 60 through his 40s, taking his overall average to around 80. He could have contributed above replacement level for that period. Yet, he retired in 1948 to protect his near hundred average. What a selfish ****.

this is a joke right

 

[h_hurricane]

this is a joke right

Yeah, I don't think anyone seriously holds it against a bloke who retired at 40, regardless of how good he still was. Also interesting to note that he still averaged around 105 post WW 2.
I do think though that, had he chosen to continue for another decade, he would still have been one of the best, if not the best of 1950s.