Cricket Web All Time World XI

[steds]

Gavaskar, on the grounds that he wasn't a Yorkie.

 

[Blaze]

Wow Gavaskar is coming back big time. At one stage he was 3 behind and now he is 4 ahead of Sutcliffe with just over 5 hours left of voting.

13-9 ahead btw

 

[Natman20]

Sutcliffe

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I think every single player back in the amatuer era would struggle to keep their record intact if transplanted to the modern era,simply due to the fact that the professional era sees the game being played at a far more cerebral level, with a far fitter crew in charge.

In your scenario, a player like Sutcliffe would struggle because cricket has evolved over a 50-60 year period -- an evolution that Sutcliffe would have no benefit from. If he'd been born in a different era, there's nothing about his record, or the descriptions of those who saw him play, that suggests he wouldn't have succeeded as a batsman. He obviously thought a great deal about the game and how to bat; what's unclear is how he would've expressed himself had he been a modern batsman (i.e. the style of batsman he would've been.)

 

[superkingdave]

sutcliffe

 

[C_C]

In your scenario, a player like Sutcliffe would struggle because cricket has evolved over a 50-60 year period -- an evolution that Sutcliffe would have no benefit from. If he'd been born in a different era, there's nothing about his record, or the descriptions of those who saw him play, that suggests he wouldn't have succeeded as a batsman. He obviously thought a great deal about the game and how to bat; what's unclear is how he would've expressed himself had he been a modern batsman (i.e. the style of batsman he would've been.)

I believe that a direct comparison of one's already attained level of expertise is far more accurate probabilistically than the supposition of what they would achieve if transplanted to a modern era.
For with the evolution of the discipline, there is simply no garantee that a brilliant practitioner of the art form while it was in its infancy would still be able to maintain that level of brilliance when the art is far more evolved.

For example, take chess and me - i am a decent chess player but i get my butt whacked easily by experts. 150 years ago, my level of expertise would probably have been enough to get me into a moderately respectable level of chess-play. Today, i am a nobody in chess really.
Or yet another example- many highschool bright minds struggle in college and many indifferent students in highschool shine brightly in university.
It simply is a question of what your limitations are and with a highschool graduate ( one who hasnt pursued further education but was excellent in highschool) there is no garantee that he/she will do equally well in college. Likewise, with Sutcliffe or anyone from that era, there is absolutely no garantee that they would've been able to adapt to the modern game with same levels of expertise.
It is quite possible that owing to the much much detailed scrutiny attributed to the game today, where opposition players nitpick the flaws to a much finer detail, Sutcliffe or anyone else would've been exposed for having a major flaw to a certain type of delivery.
Which is why i dont indulge in 'if they were born today what would've been?' question - i compare their skills and level of play directly.
Just like any university professor in mathematics would be able to school Newton in math, most amatuer players would have much to learn from the professional ones.
It maybe unfair but that is the fundamental tenet of evolution- be it species or mere technologically/mentally - we are more competent today than people 100 years ago on average.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Who did Sutcliffe face? Did he face anywhere near the quality that Marshall and Holding was? Or are we just going on numbers again?

He faced Grimmett and O'Reilly.

 

[C_C]

He faced Grimmett and O'Reilly.

Yeah. And a whole hoarde of no-names.
I think it would be incredibly harder for me to average 50 runs in today's cricket as opposed to a field comprised of McGrath, Murali and our grannies.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Just like any university professor in mathematics would be able to school Newton in math, most amatuer players would have much to learn from the professional ones. It maybe unfair but that is the fundamental tenet of evolution- be it species or mere technologically/mentally - we are more competent today than people 100 years ago on average.

Yes, but a brilliant mind is still a brilliant mind.

If Newton learnt everything that's been discovered in mathematics since his time, who's to say he couldn't apply it? It's almost as though you're saying he couldn't comprehend it.

Even if you want to stick to direct comparisons, surely they must work both ways. How many batsmen in the modern era could play 54 Tests in 11 years and average over 50? How many could score runs in conditions like The Oval in 1926 and at Melbourne in 1929? What makes you think that a modern batsman could apply themselves in conditions they're not used to, or even suited to? Since when did a batsman's concentration become a matter of evolution as opposed to a defining characteristic?

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Yeah. And a whole hoarde of no-names.
I think it would be incredibly harder for me to average 50 runs in today's cricket as opposed to a field comprised of McGrath, Murali and our grannies.

Some of them were names in their day -- like Mailey. I wouldn't be surprised if a great deal of bowlers known to us become no-names in 80 years time.

 

[C_C]

Yes, but a brilliant mind is still a brilliant mind.

Not really.
Human brain capacity was approx. 5cc smaller just a 1000 years ago than it is today on average.

If Newton learnt everything that's been discovered in mathematics since his time, who's to say he couldn't apply it? It's almost as though you're saying he couldn't comprehend it.

There are several brilliant minds today who cannot grasp the cutting edge of mathematics or physics. All that shows is that everyone has their ceiling and knowledge gained incrementally through generations upon generations cannot be substituted by a crash course for a man 6000 years ago.
There is simply no garantee that Newton would be able to grasp partial differential equations or galois theory or its like.

Even if you want to stick to direct comparisons, surely they must work both ways. How many batsmen in the modern era could play 54 Tests in a 11 years and average over 50? How many could score runs in conditions like The Oval in 1926 and at Melbourne in 1929? What makes you think that a modern batsman could apply themselves in conditions they're not used to, or even suited to? Since when did a batsman's concentration become a matter of evolution as opposed to a defining characteristic?

Intensity of the game is very much a matter of the level of the game. Look at Hooper or Hick. Brilliant in less intense scenarios such as county cricket, mediocre in the toughest crucible of all- tests. Games back then were played with much much less intensity and as such, the mental abilities of players from that era to survive the intensity of professional cricket is in question.
I think modern batsmen, if directly transplanted to the 20s or 30s, would be able to handle the conditions much better than other way round, simply because modern batsmen prepare their games much more methodically and analytically- carefully trying to eliminate errors from their games, as well as being much much fitter on the whole.
The less methodical you are, the less likely it is that you will adapt.

 

[marc71178]

And IND/WI have played the game from 1920s/30s.
Very much in the blatantly racist period which you seem to imply didnt happen.

Regardless of what you posted, how did these sides receive such racially biased umpiring when they didn't even play there in the time?

 

[C_C]

Regardless of what you posted, how did these sides receive such racially biased umpiring when they didn't even play there in the time?

WI started playing the 20s,IND in the 30s.

 

[Autobahn]

I think i'll be different and choose Graham Gooch as my opener, he's got a healthy average against the west indians and was a attacking stroke-player against the new ball in his prime.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

There is simply no garantee that Newton would be able to grasp partial differential equations or galois theory or its like.

OK, I struggled with logarithms at school, so I have no idea what those things are, let alone whether Newton could cope with them.

I come from a film background, so I'm aware that some of the silent masters struggled with the advent of sound and others flourished. Therefore my inclination (and it's only an inclination) is that, in any sport, some of the past greats would adapt to the modern game and others wouldn't.

Games back then were played with much much less intensity and as such, the mental abilities of players from that era to survive the intensity of professional cricket is in question.

What makes you think they were played with less intensity? A Test such as The Oval in 1926 sounds like the most intense of cricketing situations, and from all accounts, Hobbs and Sutcliffe applied themselves as well as any batsmen before or since.

Sutcliffe showed a mastery over all conditions and over the best bowling of his time. He did so for a first class career of more than twenty years. In fairness, that is what he should be judged on.

I think modern batsmen, if directly transplanted to the 20s or 30s, would be able to handle the conditions much better than other way round, simply because modern batsmen prepare their games much more methodically and analytically- carefully trying to eliminate errors from their games, as well as being much much fitter on the whole.
The less methodical you are, the less likely it is that you will adapt.

This makes it seem like batsmen from the 20s and 30s didn't think about the game or develop their skills, but instead played instinctively, with a lack of inhibition or restraint. Yet some of these players were deep thinkers of the game, & indeed, if you're to acknowledge that Grimmett was a legend, then you must give Sutcliffe praise for being able to play Grimmett and discern between the legbreak, topspinner, googly and flipper. For if Grimmett was already beginning to master the variations of spin, then surely Sutcliffe was trying to pick the delivery; how to score and when to defend -- he hardly approached Grimmett with reckless abandon.

 

[33/3from3.3]

Gavaskar, on the grounds that he wasn't a Yorkie.

that, my friend steds is a great post fully true
just to clarify im voting for Gavaskar on the grounds of Headingly, Lords and behind the sightscreen of Egdebaston
also on the fact hes not aussie or yorkie

 

[roseboy64]

Sutcliffe.

 

[SJS]

What I meant to ask is whether Gavaskar's adjusted average is still the highest of any batsman against that West Indian attack... It seems to me that any player who had success against the Windies -- Gooch, Boycott, Chappell, Viswanath, Vengsarkar, Border and Lamb -- receives a career bump of either the Packer years or series where one or more of the West Indian quartet didn't play.

Okay here is the first.
Dennis Amiss had a great record against the Windies.

Career average against Windies : 70.6(10 tests)
Average in Individual series :
- 1973 (Home)........46.2(3).........Holder, Boyce, Julien, Sobers
- 1973-74 (Away)....82.9(5).......Andy Roberts, Holder, Julien, Boyce, Sobers
- 1976 (Home).......109.5(1)*........[B[Andy Roberts, Holding, Daniel[/B], Holder

* Just two innings in one test of 203 and 16.

Statistics

 

[SJS]

Another batsman with a great record against Windies pace attacks over time was Ian Chappell.

Career Average against Windies (17 tests) ......57.2
Series wise record :

- 1968-69 (5).....Home.......68.5.........Wes Hall, Charlie Griffith, Sobers
- 1972-73 (5).....Away........77.4........Holder, Dowe, Foster
- 1975-76 (6).....Home........44.7........Roberts, Holding, Holder, Boyce, Julien
- 1979-80 (1).....Away..........3.0........Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Border:

Career average against Windies : 39.46 (31 tests)
Average in Individual series :
- 79/80 (Home)........19.66(3).........Garner, Holding, Croft, Roberts
- 81/82 (Home)........67.20(5).........Holding, Garner, Roberts, Croft
- 83/84 (Away)........74.42(5).........Garner, Holding, Marshall
- 84/85 (Home)........27.33(5)........Marshall, Holding, Garner, Walsh
- 88/89 (Home)........32.25(5)........Ambrose, Marshall, Walsh, Patterson
- 90/91 (Away)........34.37(5).........Marshall, Patterson, Walsh, Ambrose
- 92/93 (Home)........33.11(5)........Ambrose, Bishop, Walsh

For what it's worth, he had a 53.06 average in the West Indies.