Botham vs Flintoff

[Richard]

I think there's an element of truth in what you're saying about English attitudes towards SA, but it hasn't stopped Barry Richards being regarded in the same light as Viv (despite virtually no opportunity to merit it at the highest level), so I'm not convinced that Kallis' reputation has really suffered unfairly. Donald & Pollock are regarded as world class performers by all right-thinking folks, for example.

I don't think Kallis has suffered anywhere near as badly as anyone, nor Donald and Pollock, but I do think all 3 have had some of the "uurgh, South African" mentality, even if not anywhere near as much as many others.
Barry Richards (as you pointed-out below) predated everything - the Apartheid ban, the Cronje affair, the lot. So he's free from it.

As for why the antipathy exists, I suspect there's a number of reasons. AFAICS in the 1990's several English cricketers didn't like the SA players at all, whereas they had no real problems with even the most obnoxious of the Australians, and followers of the game will have picked up on that. There was a real culture clash, for a number of reasons. Religion may have had something to do with it - our guys viewed some of the Saffies as sanctimonious, whereas they viewed some of ours as disrespectful - but I think it went beyond that. Maybe it had something to do with the period of exclusion. My guess is that some players who grew up in the 80's would have been affected by the widespread resentment at the situation, which in turn developed something of an "us against the world" mentality. Again, this wouldn't exactly endear them to anyone. I would imagine that's much less of an issue now, so if Smith gets a rough deal it's only because people don't like him. Don't over-analyse it!

If Smith gets a rough deal it's because people can't take the idea that someone so limited as him can be such a good player, from where I'm standing. Most people don't even realise his single weakness is his weakness, and think what are unerring strengths are weaknesses, so I struggle to take them seriously on the Smith front.
Some very interesting England-South Africa stuff there - but I still feel the Cronje affair exacerbated everything.

 

[Richard]

And why is it B beyond all question? A has made good on his chance much more than B. Granted he has been lucky to get that opportunity to show his worth. But given the opportunity, he has shown himself to be as good as B.

Because A has needed luck to get the opportunity.
Surely you can see that scoring runs before giving chances is better than scoring them after being let-off?

 

[Richard]

No It's not a small fault. It is a fundamental fault in the method because it treats the phase in the batsman's innings between two chances (or a chance and his dismissal) as equivalent to a fresh innings starting from 0. This is not at all reflective of the batsmans mindset.

For example, a batsman getting dropped on 110 doesnt bat like he's starting a fresh innings. He is very likely take a lot more risks in the knowledge that he already has a good score under his belt. As a result he would get unnecessarily penalised.

If he was out for 120, you mean?
I see what you mean, I always have, and it is a fault, but it's no more fundamental than the fault in the scorebook average where no luck is accounted for whatsoever.

 

[Richard]

Exactly. If a batsman scores 120, gets dropped, then gets dropped again on 122 and 130 and then gets out for 140, his first chance average is 35, despite the fact that he hit 120 without giving a chance. That's so appallingly unfair to the batsman it's just not funny.

No, his all-chance average is 35; his first-chance average would be 120.
And is it really that unfair? Shouldn't the batsman be penalised for playing so poorly as to give 4 chances in 20 runs?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, his all-chance average is 35; his first-chance average would be 120.
And is it really that unfair? Shouldn't the batsman be penalised for playing so poorly as to give 4 chances in 20 runs?

Yes, it is really unfair to treat a batsman as if he got out if he didn't. Simply put, you are out when the opposition is good enough to get you out. If you give a chance and it isn't taken, the opposition was not good enough to get you out, hence you keep batting.

 

[Swervy]

Yes, it is really unfair to treat a batsman as if he got out if he didn't. Simply put, you are out when the opposition is good enough to get you out. If you give a chance and it isn't taken, the opposition was not good enough to get you out, hence you keep batting.

'but why should the batsman get credit for poor fielding...blah blah' (said ad nauseum in high pitched whiney voice)

 

[marc71178]

Sobers not as good as Viv? Now, Viv was an amazing batsman without question and far better than Kallis, but there's only one batsman ever in test cricket who was better than Sobers.

Ramprakash?

 

[badgerhair]

Sobers not as good as Viv? Now, Viv was an amazing batsman without question and far better than Kallis, but there's only one batsman ever in test cricket who was better than Sobers.

Something he and Viv shared, but Sobers didn't, was ruthlessness. Sobers was there to give an exhibition of great batting and, like Victor Trumper, was prone to give it away once he'd had enough amusement. IVAR was there to put the fear of God into the opposition, exuding aggression and power as he swaggered to the crease, and inflicting maximum damage for as long as he could remain there. (It's that aura which doesn't come across on TV, for Richard's benefit)

I'm happy to agree that Sobers was a more talented batsman than Viv, and at his best had a genius which Richards didn't - but I knock just enough points off for having a bit too much of the happy-go-lucky about him to rate Viv higher overall.

I have something of a problem, for roughly similar reasons. with Jack Hobbs not being mentioned: that there were quite a few respectable people who regarded hm as better than Bradman shows that he was pretty damn awesome. Trying to choose between him and Viv is for me incredibly difficult - on the one hand you have sublime perfection of technique, on the other elemental power. I think it depends which side of bed I got out of.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[luckyeddie]

Put me in the 'Sobers is the greatest cricketer who ever lived' bracket, yet could even have been so much more. So much talent, the only thing he couldn't do was keep wicket to his own bowling.

 

[badgerhair]

Put me in the 'Sobers is the greatest cricketer who ever lived' bracket, yet could even have been so much more. So much talent, the only thing he couldn't do was keep wicket to his own bowling.

The only possible competition is from WG Grace, but unfortunately Test cricket hadn't been invented when he was at his peak.

I just don't think Sobers was the best batsman, the best bowler or the best close catcher, and that there were some people slightly better at each specialism.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I have something of a problem, for roughly similar reasons. with Jack Hobbs not being mentioned: that there were quite a few respectable people who regarded hm as better than Bradman shows that he was pretty damn awesome. Trying to choose between him and Viv is for me incredibly difficult - on the one hand you have sublime perfection of technique, on the other elemental power. I think it depends which side of bed I got out of.

Cheers,

Mike

Hobbs is in the same league as the other two, in my opinion. In an all-time XI, there are four automatic selections for me. They are Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers and Gilchrist. The rest can all be argued about, but those four are the best ever in their respective roles.

 

[C_C]

Was Hobbs EVER tested by quality pace bowlers in test cricket ?
If i recollect rightly, he played in an era when spin bowlers were dime a dozen.
I dont see how a player from the half-arsed amatuer era, who specialised in opening the batting against spinners would face up to rib ticklers from Macco,Lillee,Thommo, Imran or Whispering Death.

 

[luckyeddie]

Was Hobbs EVER tested by quality pace bowlers in test cricket ?
If i recollect rightly, he played in an era when spin bowlers were dime a dozen.
I dont see how a player from the half-arsed amatuer era, who specialised in opening the batting against spinners would face up to rib ticklers from Macco,Lillee,Thommo, Imran or Whispering Death.

This gets my vote for the most utterly preposterous, uninformed, arrogant, idiotic diatribe of the day.

Well done, you are a winner.

 

[C_C]

agree with what Badgerhair said to an extent.
Sobers really was sublime talent and the perfect 'smiling assassin'.
I rate Sobers in the top 5 batsmen ever list but i wouldnt rate him better than Bradman(ofcourse), Viv,Tendy and Gavaskar.
Simply because he was a bit too 'happy go lucky' and was not very successful against the best bowling attack of his time- the aussies.

Most likely the best exponent of the hook shot the game has ever seen, the quintessential 'Sobers shot' was both feet off the ground playing the hook shot and the ball travelling all along the turf. Was a bit vulnerable against swinging deliveries and had a propensity to play spinners from the crease on backfoot - something that caused Sobers a bit of problem against quality spinners.

 

[C_C]

This gets my vote for the most utterly preposterous, uninformed, arrogant, idiotic diatribe of the day.

Why dont you point out a few pacers from Hobb's era who could hold a candle or two against the likes of Pidge,Amby,Imran,Macco,Holding,Lillee,Akram etc....

Its a rather simple idea - a player who has never faced extreme high callibre pace bowling cannot be a 'garantee' for a world XI, especially considering that the most likely opposition team will involve a few extremely fast and/or crafty pacemen.
Thats like asking a slugger from Softball to play Baseball. I know it looks similar with similar rules but is apples to oranges.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Was Hobbs EVER tested by quality pace bowlers in test cricket ?
If i recollect rightly, he played in an era when spin bowlers were dime a dozen.
I dont see how a player from the half-arsed amatuer era, who specialised in opening the batting against spinners would face up to rib ticklers from Macco,Lillee,Thommo, Imran or Whispering Death.

We've been over this before. YES, Hobbs faced quality pacers in his own era, he just didn't face as many of them as might be usual for an opener, because the state of the game and tactical trends at the time led there to be a huge raft of spin bowlers in every test team. You can hardly blame him because he didn't often open against teams with nothing but out-and-out quicks, given that he could only play the opposition available. When he did face quick bowlers he played them better than anybody else around, just like he did with spinners, and when belittling the achievement of averaging well into the 60s for the bulk of his career against said spinners, consider the different nature of the wickets (particularly early in Hobbs' career... through the 20s they flattened out more) and how difficult many modern batsmen find facing just a couple of decent spinners on turning pitches.

The fact is, when Hobbs finally retired at the start of the 30s at an age far beyond what most people could reasonably be expected to maintain their standard to, he had close to twice as many test runs as the next most prolific batsman, and his average of 56 opening the batting, impressive enough on its own, does not reflect the true brilliance of a man with almost 200 FC centuries and who's test average didn't drop below 60 until he was approaching his 47th birthday.

 

[C_C]

Hobbs faced quality pacers in his own era

So what you are telling me then, is pacers from the formative years of cricket, like Tip Snooker, tibby cotter, jimmy blackenberg etc. compare very favourably to Imran,hadlee,McGrath,Marshall,Lillee etc.

Hell, in that case, i am sure the best batsman from 1700s is equivalent to Bradman and best underarm spinner from the 1750s is equivalent to muralis and warnes of the world.

His average, his achievements etc. are irrelevant due to the modernisation of the game.
Why do you think back in those days practically every tom **** and harry played test cricket till the age of 40 while only the most physically sturdy make it past 35 over the last 40-50 years ?
Were they all fitter ? the answer is no - very few of those players were as athletic as players today.
Was it better diet ? the answer is no - the diets of players since the 60s are very well regulated and controlled.
Perhaps then, it was less competitive spirit and a more benign atmosphere ?

I really scratch my head in disbeleif when people say that Hobbs = Gavaskar, Sobers = Grace, Spofforth = Marshall.

Afterall, we wouldnt be making those comparisons in any other field - its no boast that i know more about science than newton did, a biologist today knows more about biology than JC Bose did, a nuclear physicist knows about nuclear science far more than Rutherford did.
Hell, i dont see many people claim that the best baller from the 20s is equivalent to Zenedine Zidane or that Bill Tillden could compete with Sampras. Or for that matter, nobody really compares Alexander's tactical skills with Erwin Rommel.

Everything develops and everything achieves a higher standard through time- that is one constant in human history.
200 years from now, Tendy or Lara or mcGrath would be cannon fodder for those 'super players', just like Hobbs would be cannon fodder to Holding or Imran.

Am i being unfair to Alexander, Newton, JC Bose, Rutherford, Grace or Tillden ?
Maybe- if they were born today, they would've trained differently. They probably would've developed their disciplines to a modern level. Or maybe they would've been exposed with one massive flaw or another, given the extreme analytical nature of today's existance.
Either way, we dont know.
What we do know is how they performed empirically in their era and how people perform empirically today.
As such, there is simply no comparison. Apart from a few 'super talents' like Bradman, Xerxes, babe ruth', no one was that far ahead to challenge the contemporaries today.

The simple fact of the matter is, Hobbs did not face anyone remotely as fast, crafty, wily or hostile as Holding,Macco,Lillee,Imran,Hadlee, Pidge etc.
As such, i would be inclined to believe Trescothik being more successful than Hobbs against those players

 

[luckyeddie]

Why dont you point out a few pacers from Hobb's era who could hold a candle or two against the likes of Pidge,Amby,Imran,Macco,Holding,Lillee,Akram etc....

Its a rather simple idea - a player who has never faced extreme high callibre pace bowling cannot be a 'garantee' for a world XI, especially considering that the most likely opposition team will involve a few extremely fast and/or crafty pacemen.
Thats like asking a slugger from Softball to play Baseball. I know it looks similar with similar rules but is apples to oranges.

How do you know there weren't? And how do you know that they wouldn't be able to handle them? Do you rate Bradman - and if so, why?

Anyway, a moment's thought and the following names pop up...

Tom Richardson
Bill Lockwood
Charles Kortright
Frank Foster
Sid Barnes
William Burns
Neville Knox

That's just a few of the English ones. Would you like me to raqttle off half a dozen Aussies from the same era? All were considered to be extremely hostile, and HATED batsmen. Like the West Indian pace attack of the 1970's and 80's, they hunted in packs.

Why do you think that many batsmen of today can handle short stuff? It's nothing at all to do with technique, rather that they don't think there's a chance that they might get killed by one which flies off a length (wickets in Hobbs's day were relatively unprotected, and many of them were certainly under-prepared compared to the manicured lawns and drop-in perfection of today) and clobber them on the equally unprotected noggin.

Gloves with little dimples on the back which offered scant protection, no thigh pads, no chest guards, no arm guards and most of all no helmets - it's a miracle that these incompetents who are unworthy to kiss the ground that the Tendulkars and Laras and Pontings walk on were able to hold a bat.

Incidentally, what makes you think that any of today's batsmen would have been able to last more than a few balls from the likes of Hedley Verity or Tich Freeman? Are Murali and Warne the greatest spin bowlers of all time - or just a couple of journeyman plodders who would have struggled to get a game in a county 2nd XI in Jock Hobbs's day?

Cricket of yesteryear wasn't all cucumber sandwiches and tea with the vicar - it tended to be a nasty business with more bookies than you could shake Hansie at.

 

[C_C]

How do you know there weren't? And how do you know that they wouldn't be able to handle them? Do you rate Bradman - and if so, why?

I rate Bradman because he was so far ahead of his contemporaries that i dont think he would have any trouble remaining # 1 in this era-or any.
But i do not, for a moment, believe that he would average anywhere close to 99 - i think it wouldnt cross 70 actually.

And how do i know they wernt ? because :

1. I have read extensively about that era.

2. Little(if any) fitness training, gross exgaggerations, players taking it in an amatuer spirit rather than 'kill or be killed' competition of the modern era.

Like i said, EVERYTHING progresses to a point where something in the distant past is insignificant.
Like i said, i can give Newton lessons in Physics - one of THE physicists till 1500s and i know more than him. Why ? Because physics has far progressed beyond Newton and problems that Newton considered tough is mincemeat for Univ. students.
Same goes for any other academic fields or any other field for that matter.
What they did in their era is irrelevant.
What is relevant is, if you time-warped them to the modern era, Newton would probably fail 3rd year physics(based on his knowledge), Babe Ruth would struggle to get 50 home runs, Alexander would be clueless, McArthur would run rings around Nelson and Hobbs would be a sitting duck for these bowlers who have no compunction bowling short pitched aimed at the body of the batsmen ( something Hobbs NEVER had to face - bowlers those days dilligently avoided targetting the batsman's body- and they didnt attempt it at any level until the year before Bodyline).

And like i said, why stop at Hobbs ? Why not compare mr XYZ from 1770s when it comes to cricketing skills ?
Afterall, he was 'the best of his era'.

All these 'Hobbs = Tendulkar, Grace = Sobers, Barnes = McGrath' statements have one essential assumption - that the game hasnt progressed to a higher level since their days, that human fitness and attitude has remained constant and that the best of each and every era equals the best of each and every era.
Examine that line of thought a bit.
By the same logic, mr professor today is exactly equal to the teachers/gurus 3000 years ago and tendulkar/Lara will always remain comparable to the numero uno batsman 2000 years into the future.

That logic is fundamentally flawed and categorically wrong with history in perspective.
EVERYTHING has developed to a higher plane than what it was a long time ago and the general trend is upwards. Not a flat-line but upwards.( mind you, this doesnt mean that each and every point in time is superior in quality to all points preceeding it- instead of a straight line going diagonally upwards, try visualising a stock-market curve from 1900 to 2005- there are dips and there are jumps but the overall trend is upwards).

I fail to see why cricket has 'miraculously' remained stagnant in skills and mental intricacy while practically every other human discipline has improved over the past.

Afterall, if Hobbs = Gavaskar, simply because 'Hobbs was the best of his era', why not pick the best cricket team from 1700s and go up against the aussies of today ?
Or hell, since everything remains constant indefinately, why not go to a doctor with the same proficiency in medicine as an alchemist from 1300s instead of an MBBS ?

 

[badgerhair]

Why dont you point out a few pacers from Hobb's era who could hold a candle or two against the likes of Pidge,Amby,Imran,Macco,Holding,Lillee,Akram etc....

Eddie's right. You're an idiot.

Gregory and Macdonald for a start.

Cheers,

Mike