• 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.

Best England team, ever?

a massive zebra

International Vice-Captain
Camel56 said:
Average alone doesnt tell the full story. I think wisden putting Warne in the team of the century does though. Warne well and truely better than Laker.
No Warne being in the Team of the Century just shows the bias most people have towards modern players over those they have not seen. Had Warne played in the 50s and Laker in the 90s it would be the other way round.
 
Last edited:

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I understand what you're saying Rich but even though I'm a bowler (and this hurts to say), I think LBW's are given a little too readily by umpires in Tests these days. I don't think the standard is high enough, personally. For mine I see too many LBW's given out when the ball as clearly pitched outside the line of the stumps, etc.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Typical of you, pay attention to the minority and hide your eyes from the majority.
Uncanny resemblence to the First-Class-Test thing, here...
Do explain this comment then..
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Top_Cat said:
I understand what you're saying Rich but even though I'm a bowler (and this hurts to say), I think LBW's are given a little too readily by umpires in Tests these days. I don't think the standard is high enough, personally. For mine I see too many LBW's given out when the ball as clearly pitched outside the line of the stumps, etc.
It ain't fair to compare everyone to Harold Bird. It's simply not possible for everyone else to have the Umpiring talent he did.
The fact is, most Umpires make mistakes with a regularity that is most un-ideal. It's probably the case that this has been true throughout the game's history, we just don't know because the stuff that can reveal mistakes has evolved rapidly in the last 4 or 5 years.
So why don't we use the stuff that reveals the mistakes to avert them? Well, that would make sense, wouldn't it - we've got to wait for the decision that makes sense for... well... it took 220 years for no-balls and wides to be counted in themselves, rather than just only if the ball is a dot-ball.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Do explain this comment then..
It means that you ignore the fact that I'm wrong very rarely and concentrate on the tiny number of times that I'm not right.
 

Camel56

Banned
a massive zebra said:
No Warne being in the Team of the Century just shows the bias most people have towards modern players over those they have not seen. Had Warne played in the 50s and Laker in the 90s it would be the other way round.
What absolute rubbish. That comment reaks of uphill gardening in every sense of the word.
 

Camel56

Banned
Finally some sense. Warne makes Laker look like an absolute plodder. Its taken Australia's leading social commentator to do it but its finally been cleared up.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
It means that you ignore the fact that I'm wrong very rarely and concentrate on the tiny number of times that I'm not right.
"Wrong very rarely" - OK, I'm trying to remember some of your not wrong comments, but am struggling.
 

Sussexshark

Cricket Spectator
Camel56 said:
Finally some sense. Warne makes Laker look like an absolute plodder. Its taken Australia's leading social commentator to do it but its finally been cleared up.
Oh dear oh dear! It is a universally held wisdom that the great bowlers would be great bowlers no matter era they played in; the same goes for the batsmen, although I do wonder how well some of today's batters would have coped on a true sticky, which is why I would always have Sir Jack Hobbs as one of the openers. Laker was a great bowler, I don't give a fig what any of the rest of you might say. So OK, Richard has a point in that there was a change in the 70s (or maybe earlier) from leaving wickets uncovered to covering them at the slightest hint that the skies might just spit on them, but that does not invalidate the performances of the likes of Laker, Verity, Freeman, Lock (when he wasn't chucking), Fleetwood-Smith, O'Reilly, Benaud and countless others. As to the argument that Ashley Giles would have been as good as Laker if Ash had bowled in Laker's time, well I have to have serious doubts. I'm not anti-Giles (well, I was, but his performances this summer surprised many doubters), it's just that I don't think his style would have brought any more success then than it has up to now in this era.

But, really, it really is invidious, unfair, to try and compare now and whatever 'then' you wish to take. Everything is and was so completely different, including, as some have said, the umpiring. Having said that I have been more than surprised at some of the decisions made in recent series. (Is the system of neutral umpires only succeeding in lowering standards? A topic for another discussion, I know.)

Forza cricket

Peter
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Sussexshark said:
Oh dear oh dear! It is a universally held wisdom that the great bowlers would be great bowlers no matter era they played in; the same goes for the batsmen, although I do wonder how well some of today's batters would have coped on a true sticky, which is why I would always have Sir Jack Hobbs as one of the openers. Laker was a great bowler, I don't give a fig what any of the rest of you might say. So OK, Richard has a point in that there was a change in the 70s (or maybe earlier) from leaving wickets uncovered to covering them at the slightest hint that the skies might just spit on them, but that does not invalidate the performances of the likes of Laker, Verity, Freeman, Lock (when he wasn't chucking), Fleetwood-Smith, O'Reilly, Benaud and countless others.
It certainly doesn't invalidate the performances of O'Reilly, Benaud and Grimmett (how you could discount him I don't know) but I'm afraid it just cannot be coincidence that no non-subcontinental fingerspinner has been an especially good bowler - never mind a great one - since the days of Underwood in the '60s.
Freeman, Rhodes, Verity, Lock, Laker, etc. (don't really know why you put in Chuck Fleetwood-Smith - he of 10 Test-matches and an average of 37.38) were great bowlers in their era, but that era has gone now - fingerspinners can no longer be great bowlers (unless they are picked only on turning pitches - impossible, since you can't know for certain beforehand whether or not a pitch is going to turn appreciably). All the best spinners of the modern era (Qadir, Mushtaq Ahmed, Kumble, Murali, Warne) are wristspinners - as wristspin acquires a new dimension. All these are accurate to a degree previously left for dreams - and for Grimmett, O'Reilly and Benaud. Only in exceptional hands has wristspin ever been a true threat. Fingerspin, meanwhile, has had it's time - unless we do indeed go back to uncovered wickets, it'll never again be so.
As to the argument that Ashley Giles would have been as good as Laker if Ash had bowled in Laker's time, well I have to have serious doubts. I'm not anti-Giles (well, I was, but his performances this summer surprised many doubters), it's just that I don't think his style would have brought any more success then than it has up to now in this era.
His performances in the middle 3 Tests (that's all it was) didn't surprise me in the slightest - the pitches were turners, and he's almost always done well on turners. Had he played in an era where turners were far, far more common, I think it makes sense to guess that he'd have done rather better than he has in the days when they occur once in a blue moon - and in the subcontinent mostly.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
"Wrong very rarely" - OK, I'm trying to remember some of your not wrong comments, but am struggling.
When have I ever been shown quite clearly to be wrong - and refused to admit it - about a player whom I said I did not believe capable of taking cheap wickets with good deliveries, or a batsman capable of scoring chanceless runs?
Not very often, is it?
Just because you and a few others won't accept my methods of judging, I have to be wrong all the time in your estimation.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Slip of the keyboard, very thought of the dream chord.
And, as you can now see, just malicious misquoting. :p
 

Top