Do you believe in stats of pre 60s/70s players ?

[Sunil1z]

Do you believe that stats of older players( pre 60s/70s ) would be same if they played in modern era ? Or you believe that they are inflated and would become worse in modern era ?

 

[kyear2]

Watch Sobers's double hundred vs Lillee and co.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Doing all that stuff without a helmet and sometimes a box should be a glaring caveat.

 

[Sunil1z]

Watch Sobers's double hundred vs Lillee and co.

Sobers was a 60s/70s player . So was Lillee . I don’t think this thread was for them .

 

[kyear2]

****, didn't see the pre.

Apologies. Sobers did debut in the 50's though. Faced Lindwall and I think Miller, opening at that.

 

[Coronis]

No, they’re awful and overrated pieces of ****.

 

[Daemon]

I don’t. There was no cricinfo back then.

 

[shortpitched713]

Below post explains my reasoning on this topic. It's literally just down to one man, as to why between eras comparisons beyond a certain point become completely untrustworthy, imo.

I think the real answer to OP's question is also the most frustrating, which is "we can't know". Bowlers' approach and attempts to trouble batsmen were vastly different then compared to now, even before we look at the effect of "good" and "bad" pitches. General consensus seems to be that pitches were particularly "good" for batsmen in Bradman years, even accounting for the odd sticky, which we wouldn't possibly get to see in today's cricket. But that in no way explains Bradman's astronomical output. It must be some combination of pitch factor, poor bowling deliveries (just objectively measuring something like a speed gun pace / revs standpoint, not in comparison to it's own time), and an incredible ability and psychotic (in a good way) temperament of the man. There's no way to possibly pinpoint which of these components were most to explain for it, although putting more stock in the former two reasons unfortunately forces us to downgrade many of the achievements of all the players from earlier years as being in a context of inferior quality. And putting more stock in the latter forces us to believe in the existence of a literal demigod that walked the earth.

For me, I know which side of the spectrum I find more realistic and is generally easier for me to lean toward.

 

[_00_deathscar]

No - it was such a different time.

 

[kyear2]

Think Bradman benefitted from a perfect storm, the flattest of pitches an assortment of minnows and not the strongest era for English bowlers, but he's far from the only cricketer who benefitted from easier times. So while I don't believe he would have averaged in the '90's in the 80's or '90's I have no doubt he would have still been the best batsman in the world when ever he played.

Best ever, period.

 

[trundler]

Their stats aren't inflated as such but the same level of scrutiny isn't applied to cricketers who debuted before stats filters were a thing. Eg Laker benefited just as much from juiced up home pitches as Ashwin but almost no one levels the same charges of HTBing and getting dropped away when funnily enough, actual selectors during his career did think he was ineffective on true pitches and therefore didn't pick him to tour as much as you would expect.

 

[Ali TT]

What I find interesting is that the top end batting and bowling average have stayed pretty consistent for about a century now. It's not the same in other sports with similarly deep statistical records.

I generally find this argument a bit pointless. Players excel or fail in the era they played in and that's what we should judge them against. Conditions of the game shift too much over time to make meaningful comparisons (other than between adjacent periods) meaningless.

 

[kyear2]

I'll disagree and say Laker is just as critiqued. Just based on his average he should be up there with Warne and Murali and the fact that he isn't would speak to that?

Think everyone knows about the odd sticky wickets etc.

 

[srbhkshk]

stats are stats, they are a true reflection of the ability in the times they were achieved in.

Compared to modern players? Yeah they were absolute ****.

 

[trundler]

I'll disagree and say Laker is just as critiqued. Just based on his average he should be up there with Warne and Murali and the fact that he isn't would speak to that?

Think everyone knows about the odd sticky wickets etc.

That has more to do with how gargantuan the body of work each of Warne and Murali produced was. I've seen Laker mentioned as a competitor for those two here FTR but besides, he still gets rated a tier above Ashwin or Underwood. And if you disagree with that specific example, the same thing could apply to a whole host of players such as Trueman, May, or Harvey. We recognise that records against Packer-stricken sides have an asterisk next to them but Harvey and Morris filling their boots against war-ravaged England sides but then subsequently going missing once English cricket recovered flies under the radar. There's also the fact that from the 80s onwards you started seeing the best players play ~16 years which dents their averages a fair bit compared to those with 10-12 year careers, which was the norm back in the day. Consequently, t's not exactly fair to compare Davidson or Barrington who had relatively short careers to someone like Akram or Viv based solely on averages. So, on the whole, we tend to scrutinize modern players significantly more than old timers. Not me though, I do the due diligence.

 

[kyear2]

That has more to do with how gargantuan the body of work each of Warne and Murali produced was. I've seen Laker mentioned as a competitor for those two here FTR but besides, he still gets rated a tier above Ashwin or Underwood. And if you disagree with that specific example, the same thing could apply to a whole host of players such as Trueman, May, or Harvey. We recognise that records against Packer-stricken sides have an asterisk next to them but Harvey and Morris filling their boots against war-ravaged England sides but then subsequently going missing once English cricket recovered flies under the radar. There's also the fact that from the 80s onwards you started seeing the best players play ~16 years which dents their averages a fair bit compared to those with 10-12 year careers, which was the norm back in the day. Consequently, t's not exactly fair to compare Davidson or Barrington who had relatively short careers to someone like Akram or Viv based solely on averages. So, on the whole, we tend to scrutinize modern players significantly more than old timers. Not me though, I do the due diligence.

True, but with regards to Laker he isn't rated, but O'Reilly is, despite an equally small body of work. So a distinction is made.

Re the others I fully agree, but also don't think anyone except for @Coronis and @Prince EWS rates Barrington over Viv and don't think I've ever seen anyone rate Davidson over Akram, but your points stands. I however believe that most of us know how to make the distinction though.

 

[Coronis]

True, but with regards to Laker he isn't rated, but O'Reilly is, despite an equally small body of work. So a distinction is made.

Re the others I fully agree, but also don't think anyone except for @Coronis and @Prince EWS rates Barrington over Viv and don't think I've ever seen anyone rate Davidson over Akram, but your points stands. I however believe that most of us know how to make the distinction though.

If all goes horribly I could have Viv in my ATG XI as soon as September

 

[kyear2]

If all goes horribly I could have Viv in my ATG XI as soon as September

 

[Coronis]

Its really too bad you don’t follow NRL, interesting posts there.

 

[ataraxia]

No they're made up by the government IMO; it can be seen because whoever did it seemed to have a predilection with the name Andy. Andy Sandham randomly scoring the first test 300, Andy Ganteaume being dropped after scoring 112. They tried to conceal it with Alby Roberts, but left to the temptation willed into existence 2 Andy Robertses in the '70s. It's all a ruse.