All-Time World XIs: Discussion Thread

[Johan]

I will be going for Barnes [1], Ambrose [2], Imran [3], Murali [4], Kallis [5] and Hammond [6] attack btw

 

[centurymaker]

I really can't think of a real reason why people they think 1970s Cricket was different than what came before, really the only reason I can think of is them having a weird fantasy of overrared hacks like Viv or Lillee bending them over the coffee table, ****ing their brains out raw until morning and leaving without aftercare, otherwise I have zero explaination for the 70s Bias phenomenon.

It was different. You could pad the ball all day if you liked (LBW rules pre 1971 - a big joke). And there were fewer elite sides i.e. cricket was simply less competitive before.

There was a massive surge in population post WW2. More kids, more economic growth, more competition = better cricketers. (Those post WW2 kids end up playing in the 1970s).


Football is similar, people don't take Pele seriously and he retired internationally in 1971. Standards across all sports went up and up post WW2. And you have to draw the like somewhere. Somewhere around 1970s (or even 1980s) is reasonable.

 

[kyear2]

Kyear3 best Kyear.

That just hurts.

 

[Thala_0710]

It was different. You could pad the ball all day if you liked (LBW rules pre 1971). And there were fewer elite sides i.e. cricket was simply less competitive before.

There was a massive surge in population post WW2. More kids, more economic growth, more competition = better cricketers. (Those post WW2 kids end up playing in the 1970s).


Football is similar, people don't take Pele seriously and he retired internationally in 1971. Standards across all sports went up and up post WW2. And you have to draw the like somewhere. Somewhere around 1970s (or even 1980s) is reasonable.

I think lot of it is to do with getting TV sets for the first time as well

 

[kyear2]

Yes Wasim Akram would have been just as good a pick.

Finally, yes. Wasim is the ideal pick for so many reasons.
Adds, variety, balance and speciality to an attack.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

I will be going for Barnes [1], Ambrose [2], Imran [3], Murali [4], Kallis [5] and Hammond [6] attack btw

Grace [5] Kallis [6] Hammond [7] Root [8]

 

[Johan]

It was different. You could pad the ball all day if you liked (LBW rules pre 1971 - a big joke). And there were fewer elite sides i.e. cricket was simply less competitive before..

untrue on all ends here, the big LBW change came in 1935 and not in 1971, the 1971 just eliminated the body needing to be in line with stump to stump, plus, it didn't change anything anyway, the same batsmen who were scoring heaps in 60s were scoring heaps in 70s and 80s. Clive Lloyd and Geoffrey Boycott being examples, even in 1930s the law changed nothing, if anything people like Sutcliffe and Wyatt increased their output after the law was implemented, the implementation was marginal and irrelevant.

There was a massive surge in population post WW2. More kids, more economic growth, more competition = better cricketers. (Those post WW2 kids end up playing in the 1970s).

This is not true either, the gaps were marginal, England was in 40 mil range in the 1930s, it did not become 50 until 1990, meaning not even a proper 20% growth till decades after the second world war. The idea that one was the most devastating events in human history led to developement of Cricket is so hilarious racist but I do not expect much more from East Asia.

Football is similar, people don't take Pele seriously and he retired internationally in 1971. Standards across all sports went up and up post WW2. And you have to draw the like somewhere. Somewhere around 1970s (or even 1980s) is reasonable.

Nah, it's the single most illiterate thing about Cricketing debates, the full might of the Greatest West Indies pace attack couldn't even bust through a 40 year old Cricketer who debuted in 1964, Lillee couldn't do much to a late 50s Cricketer from 1957 in Edrich, hell even Cowdrey with a destroyed achillies heel and completely bad form made 151* against Lillee and he's from 1952. There's really no difference between standard of Cricket between 1950 or 1990.

Anyway can put whatever cut off point they want, I can put a 2015 cut off point and dismiss all the records of McGrath and Sachin and yada yada yada.

 

[centurymaker]

I think lot of it is to do with getting TV sets for the first time as well

This too. But 1970s onwards is when the bounce barrage reallly began. So thats when I feel cricket went up a couple of levels.

Even if we were to assume that pacers then were a tad slower than they have been in the last 30 years, this bouncer barrage with no helmets is something that significantly raised the intensity of the sport. You got to take cricket from that phase onwards more seriously.

Bradman disliked that phase of cricket. He didn't think it was cricket. Understandable coming from someone who played in a semi-professional era.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I will be going for Barnes [1], Ambrose [2], Imran [3], Murali [4], Kallis [5] and Hammond [6] attack btw

Miller over Kallis imo. With Imran at 8, I would say Miller, Knott/Sanga and Imran is pretty WAG

 

[Johan]

This too. But 1970s onwards is when the bounce barrage reallly began. So thats when I feel cricket went up a couple of levels.

Even if we were to assume that pacers then were a tad slower than they have been in the last 30 years, this bouncer barrage with no helmets is something that significantly raised the intensity of the sport. You got to take cricket from that phase onwards more seriously.

Leg theory - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

literally existed in the very first test match where a series of George Ulyett bouncers injured Bannerman to get him out retired hurt. As always, 70s fans are the most illiterate breed on this site.

 

[Johan]

as always, @centurymaker gets clapped in an argument, reacts and runs. Like clockwork

 

[Johan]

Miller over Kallis imo. With Imran at 8, I would say Miller, Knott/Sanga and Imran is pretty WAG

Hmm maybe

Sutcliffe
Gavaskar
Hammond
Smith
Lara
Miller
Knott+
Imran
Ambrose
Barnes
Murali

 

[centurymaker]

Leg theory - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

literally existed in the very first test match where a series of George Ulyett bouncers injured Bannerman to get him out retired hurt. As always, 70s fans are the most illiterate breed on this site.

Excuse me, are you really this ignorant?

I said this is when it was widely adopted all over and it stayed that way for years.

Stop referencing isolated instances. Bouncer barrage was never the norm in any other era.

 

[centurymaker]

as always, @centurymaker gets clapped in an argument, reacts and runs. Like clockwork

You are obsessed with history. I am not.

You can elevate amateurs to the roof all you like but you can't convince the large majority of the cricketing public of that. Even the cricketing pundits won't buy your old stories of high quality cricket

 

[ataraxia]

I really can't think of a real reason why people they think 1970s Cricket was different than what came before, really the only reason I can think of is them having a weird fantasy of overrared hacks like Viv or Lillee bending them over the coffee table, ****ing their brains out raw until morning and leaving without aftercare, otherwise I have zero explaination for the 70s Bias phenomenon.

Such an anti-Johan take. I'm all for it since I hate Johan takes.

On the topic of takes can you guys just pick Imran now please so I can vote Shaun Pollock as first change?

 

[Johan]

Excuse me, are you really this ignorant?

I said this is when it was widely adopted all over and it stayed that way for years.

Stop referencing isolated instances. Bouncer barrage was never the norm in any other era.

Lol and here's a Cricketer from 1960s downright mocking 70s and 80s Cricket for putting restrictions on bouncer barrages.

good bowlers always did that, get over it, you're mythologised variant of 70s doesn't actually exist

 

[Johan]

stfu ignorant guy in his 20s. You are obsessed with history. I am not.

Not in my 20s but it'd be embarrassing for you to have such...tribalistic cricketing knowledge compared to a guy in his 20s

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hmm maybe

Sutcliffe
Gavaskar
Hammond
Smith
Lara
Miller
Knott+
Imran
Ambrose
Barnes
Murali

Sangakkara over Knott. Kept to Murali plenty too

 

[Johan]

You can elevate amateurs to the roof all you like but you can't convince the large majority of the cricketing public of that. Even the cricketing pundits won't buy your old stories of high quality cricket

Seeing how Bradman is universally regarded as the best batsman of all time and the same Cricketing pundits used to argue in the 1990s that Cricket hasn't changed since 1890s, I mean this site has Bradman, Hobbs and Hutton in top five too, it's you who is in the minority, Keep calling them amateurs all you want, here's the ultimate truth.

Argue Cricket as it is meant to be, Bradman and Hobbs are at top.

Argue Cricket with sports evolution logic, Smith and Root are at the top.

either way, it's Australia and England at the top, so why fight? You can try to devalue majority of Cricket in face of sad radical nationalism though, you're just never gonna convince anyone worth their salt that we should just ignore majority of Cricketing history to suck on Gavaskar's, Lillee's and Viv's dick.

 

[sayon basak]

Seeing how Bradman is universally regarded as the best batsman of all time and the same Cricketing pundits used to argue in the 1990s that Cricket hasn't changed since 1890s, I mean this site has Bradman, Hobbs and Hutton in top five too, it's you who is in the minority, Keep calling them amateurs all you want, here's the ultimate truth.

Argue Cricket as it is meant to be, Bradman and Hobbs are at top.

Argue Cricket with sports evolution logic, Smith and Root are at the top.

either way, it's Australia and England at the top, so why fight?

CW doesn't have Hutton in the top 5 probably.