Deceased XI vs. Living XI

[SJS]

How can anyone in their senses back the dead cricketers? Dead men don't talk nor do they play cricket.

 

[Athlai]

How can anyone in their senses back the dead cricketers? Dead men don't talk nor do they play cricket.

Bradman is a zombie.

 

[Manee]

DWTA.

At least your honest

Agree with everything you said, esp the first sentence.

Thanks

Haha, I like you alot Manee but this post is so off the mark it's not funny.

Thank you. I literally spoke my mind for this post with little regard for anything else.

Just to touch on your first comment, to say 'The fact that everyone wishes to say that the Dead XI will win in a flash is proof that people are more appreciated after they die. It is a sad truth.' is pretty much an insult to those who have spent time reading and analysing cricket and its history, so for you to just dismiss it as being biased to the past is unfair to say the least.

This is an interesting statement but I feel that people are subconsciously biased toward the past generation. As touched on by someone in another thread, I am sure Mcgrath will be remembered in 100 years as being able to land the ball on the spot 10 times out of 10.

If anything I will counter your cliche with another one that heroes of yesteryear are easily forgotten and people are biased with what they see right in front of them, easily forgetting what went before.

Good point, people are products of their generation but on cricketweb, people are more partial toward the past and youngsters rarely let personal preferences get into it.

The past generations where a lower standard? Lol, which matches are you watching Manee? The current bowling attacks are the worst of all time, when some of these players manage to get two balls that aren't wides in a row they have cause for celebration. Bowling standards are at an all time low and you're saying pretty much the opposite!

By generation, I mean a 20 year period (the living period) and we have just past (passed?) an age of brilliant fast bowling with Ambrose, Walsh, Mcgrath, Gillespie, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar and further back, Lillee and Thommo.

Imagine Bradman taking on Jimmy Anderson and Sajid Mahmood, Jack Hobbs vs AA!

Touched on above but we all know that Hobbs could not handle AA's late inswing

Seriously though, you and I both know that neither should have been near international cricket.

You say that Bradman could be mastered by video technology? Well that's what happened, they figured out that leg-theory might be his weakness so it should be employed against him. And it worked to an extent. But then you also know what happened? He began to figure it out, and conquerer it so by the time the series was over, many were saying that if it went on for another few matches Bradman would have been its master. Because that's what champions do, they adapt.

The beauty of video technology is that a whole tactic can be worked in a day thanks to the dozens of people you have videoing all the action from different views employed by the national boards/coaches. 'Leg Theory' could not qualify as a bowling plan these days as it is easy to adapt to, especially with the resulting new rules to prevent it. The sort of plans I am talking about is field placings in correlation with bowling. E.g. Full balls outside off stump with a packed cover region; since Bradman played with the flexible elbow, I would imagine the cover and mid on regions his favourite when driving and then maybe chuck in the off cutter.

Believe it or not, Bradman wasn't able to score so heavily because of luck or he just happened to get so many good scores. He did it because he had brilliant timing, footwork, skill and hand eye coordination on top of super human concentration, an unparreled batsman. These things mean he would have been the best ever if he played in any generation, let alone todays with the lower level of standard of bowlers.

I have grown to understand that he had superhuman concentration, maybe my bit about him was pushing it abit.

And if we transported the dead here and gave them all these luxuries how much better would they do? If we allowed them access to best technologies, bigger bats, better medical treatment. If they could have a laptop to watch their innings and help work on their flaws! And if we transported the living back and denied them such things. And put them on stickies! You see the argument has another side Manee.

Your points are really good but I must hasten to add that the Dead made international level WITHOUT these luxaries and so, in a fair match, they would play with what they mastered. As for the arguement of playing on 'stickies', we will never know since pitches are covered but just as it would be more difficult for the Living batsmen on stickies would it be difficult for the Dead bowlers on covered pitches.

I could go on, but I fear I'm starting to ramble. Hope I didn't sound to harsh but it's a terrible thing, in my opinion to dismiss sportsmen of the past, especially cricket with such a glorious history, just like that. And to dismiss people who study it as biased to them is just as unfair.

Ah, you get me wrong. I am not dismissing them, I am dismissing the claims that they would proverbially kick the bejesus out of the living team, score 700 in the first innings and then bowl them out for 100 twice.

NB II - I'm Lee's biggest fan, but jeez.

You really make good points and it is good that you have taken the time to read my post and respond. I feel you get my intentions wrong, I am not here to completely write off the Dead but I will write off that the Dead would destroy the Living XI, five times out of five since there are far too many possibilities for pitfalls for the Dead to fall into due to the advancement of the game of cricket.

Once again, thanks for the responce.

 

[Manee]

So your points are:

Lee and Akhtar would make fools of the dead XI
The dead XI couldn't deal with Murali or Warne
That cricketers are somehow better today
That the living XI would find a way to "work out" Bradman??

You bring up Tyson being one of the fastest bowlers ever, and deal with that predicament by merely stating "I refuse to believe he was that fast"?

I wouldn't take the time out to make it if it could be summarised so quickly. The point is that cricket has advanced so much that there are pitfalls that the Dead could fall into and it is not possible in my opinion that the Dead XI could outclass the Living XI as much as people are saying - with the exception of Sir Don of course.

 

[Manee]

There's no solid evidence for any of this. It's all supposition.

Of course there is evidence that humans have advanced physically in the last 50 to 100 years, look at 100m record times for one. Habana is a big South African rugby star and 70 odd years ago, he could have broken the 100m world record.

 

[Pratters]

I don't think you are isolated in your view, Manee. A small minority of cricket fans do believe that the standards in general have improved drastically and hold a similar notion to what you do. I haven't read your responses but have read your initial post and a bit of the retorts. It is good that you speak your mind. It is not a charecteristic every one can claim to have.

 

[Manee]

I don't think you are isolated in your view, Manee. A small minority of cricket fans do believe that the standards in general have improved drastically and hold a similar notion to what you do. I haven't read your responses but have read your initial post and a bit of the retorts. It is good that you speak your mind. It is not a charecteristic every one can claim to have.

Thank you. I wasn't exactly saying that standards have necessarily increased drastically but there are so many different areas where standards could have increased.

I was just getting sick of people saying that the Dead XI would cruise it.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Believe it or not, the World's Fastest Bowler competition showed that likely only Thommo in his prime (of that generation) could scale 150kph, keeping in mind he bowled in that competition after his back injury. He is regarded by many as the fastest ever and likely around about the same pace as the express bowlers of the past. How would they fair against Lee and Akhtar, both in their primes, chucking (sorry Richard) them down at 150kph every ball with quite decent accuracy and the know-how to swing the ball both ways and reverse swing the ball.

Holding,Imran,Hadlee,Wasim etc could all bowl 150+ KPH.

 

[Manee]

Holding,Imran,Hadlee,Wasim etc could all bowl 150 KPH.

I am talking about the time prior to that competition and IIRC, Holding and Hadlee were both in that competition and did not even near 145kph.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I am talking about the time prior to that competition and IIRC, Holding and Hadlee were both in that competition and did not even near 145kph.

I'm not sure which competition you're refering but the in the one that I know Imran did bowl 150 KPH+.

 

[anoop4real]

I'm not sure which competition you're refering but the in the one that I know Imran did bowl 150 KPH+.

Hey its not just the pace that matters na?

 

[Olwe]

for the dead XI; my sugestion would to play Alec Bedster

he just bowled and bowled without complaing and took load of wickets , not only for surrey but for england too, and Jim laker was as effeicent as well with his memorable bowing of 19 wks in a match against Australia

 

[Lillian Thomson]

for the dead XI; my sugestion would to play Alec Bedster

There's only one tiny flaw in that suggestion..................Alec Bedser isn't dead.

 

[neville cardus]

If Barnes is one of the greatest fast bowlers ever then Murali is also one of very best spinners ever.So,I don't understand how is that not arguable?

Employing your peculiar logic (with which I don't agree one bit), it's not arguable because Barnes wasn't a fast bowler.

 

[neville cardus]

This is an interesting statement but I feel that people are subconsciously biased toward the past generation. As touched on by someone in another thread, I am sure Mcgrath will be remembered in 100 years as being able to land the ball on the spot 10 times out of 10.

Such claims were not made even for primordial giants like Shaw and Attewell. The most that the former ever managed -- and this is a verifiable fact -- was four in succession, and we're talking exactly the same spot here; I believe that it was a coin or something.

The beauty of video technology is that a whole tactic can be worked in a day thanks to the dozens of people you have videoing all the action from different views employed by the national boards/coaches. 'Leg Theory' could not qualify as a bowling plan these days as it is easy to adapt to, especially with the resulting new rules to prevent it. The sort of plans I am talking about is field placings in correlation with bowling. E.g. Full balls outside off stump with a packed cover region; since Bradman played with the flexible elbow

You are forgetting Bradman's ostensibly unparalleled surgical precision.

 

[silentstriker]

Employing your peculiar logic (with which I don't agree one bit), it's not arguable because Barnes wasn't a fast bowler.

If you don't think Murali is one of the best spinners ever, you really need to re-evaluate how you view cricket.

 

[Perm]

If you don't think Murali is one of the best spinners ever, you really need to re-evaluate how you view cricket.

Indeed. The only basis you could have for not considering Muralitharan as one of the best spinners of all-time is if you strongly beleive he is a chucker. But we don't need to get into that argument.

 

[neville cardus]

There's only one tiny flaw in that suggestion..................Alec Bedser isn't dead.

How old were the twins when, finally, they were separated? Older than eighty, I'm sure.

 

[neville cardus]

Indeed. The only basis you could have for not considering Muralitharan as one of the best spinners of all-time is if you strongly beleive he is a chucker.

I do.

But we don't need to get into that argument.

Indeed.

 

[neville cardus]

If you don't think Murali is one of the best spinners ever, you really need to re-evaluate how you view cricket.

I think that I'm far better placed than you to be deciding how I should view the game I love.