• 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.

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

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


  • Total voters
    23
  • This poll will close: .

Spark

Global Moderator
The point people make in regards to that is more that the average pace has gone up, no? Like thommo was probably as fast as nortje, or wood, or anyone like that, but the 10th fastest bowler red ball bowler in 1960 probably isn't as fast as the 10th fastest red ball bowler now. Athlete's have also just gotten taller and have access to better information on the opposition.
I think the fact that the vast majority of Test quicks, no matter how quick they were to start off with, always end up settling into that rfm sweet spot of mid-to-high 130s suggests there are fundamental biomechanical reasons for that being the most comfortable speed to bowl at which don't change that much with time so long as your action is a good one.

The point about bowlers - and, like, people - being taller on average now than a century ago is a good one though.
 

kyear2

International Coach
How would you rate Murali/ Warne if he played in an era where he was far and away the best bowler in the world from debut to 8 ish year and then War starts?
I wasn't saying O'Reilly shouldn't be rated, was just making a point that the reason Laker isn't rated as highly had nothing to do with the number of tests he played, because Tiger played less and is still rated highly.
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
it's an indictment on the game that greatest ever bowling figures were achieved by a right arm finger spinner

sorry what were we discussing
 

kyear2

International Coach
I think there's a fair case to be made that the late 19th century and very early 20th century stuff represents a fundamentally different game to the modern stuff. From what I've read and heard, the fundamentals of what we recognise as cricket today were more or less all in place by the 20s and 30s, in particular after 1935 and the rewording LBW law coming into place. A good batsman after that was a good batsman for basically all the same reasons batsmen are good today and the same for bowlers. Sure there have been advances in tactics and technology but the fundamentals have remained more or less unchanged from what I've read.
The 30's (around 1935ish) is where I also generally believe that the game definely started to look like the one we play today and comps are viable.

Not a popular view, but that's how I've seen it for a while.
 

Yeoman

U19 Captain
I think there's a fair case to be made that the late 19th century and very early 20th century stuff represents a fundamentally different game to the modern stuff. From what I've read and heard, the fundamentals of what we recognise as cricket today were more or less all in place by the 20s and 30s, in particular after 1935 and the rewording LBW law coming into place. A good batsman after that was a good batsman for basically all the same reasons batsmen are good today and the same for bowlers. Sure there have been advances in tactics and technology but the fundamentals have remained more or less unchanged from what I've read.
I would take it further back, and date the start of modern cricket to around 1890, at least in the English context. It is around then That wicket preparation improves with wider use of marl and the introduction of the heavy roller. Better seeding and mowing also made for smoother outfields. This gave batsmen greater confidence in the surface and required bowlers to develop more inventive techniques. It should be said though, from a statistical perspective, that batting averages and the success of different types of bowlers still depended much on weather trends - whether the summer was wetter or dryer than usual. This is often remarked upon in Wisden summaries in the 1890-1914 period.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I never saw him play and I appreciate that he was marked down by his contemporaries for being stodgy however the lack of recognition for Barrington in England is remarkable given his record. His average is hugely superior to any English batsman who debuted post-war.
Barrington's best performances were away in places in like India which wouldn't help. Fewer of the usual set to see them. But he also had a reputation for disliking fast bowling (and Charlie Griffith in particular, though because Griffith threw).
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
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.
Do people seriously rank Laker as high as Ashwin though?

If so, they are wrong.
 

Socerer 01

International Captain
I think the fact that the vast majority of Test quicks, no matter how quick they were to start off with, always end up settling into that rfm sweet spot of mid-to-high 130s suggests there are fundamental biomechanical reasons for that being the most comfortable speed to bowl at which don't change that much with time so long as your action is a good one.

The point about bowlers - and, like, people - being taller on average now than a century ago is a good one though.
this isn’t strictly true is it? there are more bowlers that can bowl above 140 now than ever and most importantly bowlers can bowl at that sort of speeds for longer on average than before due to the increased fitness standards. the trundlers who frequently lost a yard or two of pace the further they bowled in a spell if anything being magnified more than ever before like Robinson shows how much higher the standards are now
 

Socerer 01

International Captain
Don't think a single person did that.
:huh:


Yeah I counted them as well, almost 70.

That's just way too much to be an exclusive club for me. Let's see if u can recall and list mine in order.


Tier 3


Barrington / Verity / Laker/ Botham / Root / Anderson

Ashwin / Kumble / Dravid / Bedi / Dev / Bumrah*

Of course, because I believe Laker is qualitatively better than Ashwin as he is better home and away. We just genuinely disagree on whether Ashwin's longevity makes up for this. I don't think Ashwin belongs in an ATG conversation anymore than Anderson.
 

Socerer 01

International Captain
Dude, those were the guys that didn't make it and listed by country. Plus the highlighted ones are the ones closer to said consideration.

Deceptive editing as well.
uh what? the only “editing” i did was cut out the rest of the post because it was big, here it is in full


Yeah I counted them as well, almost 70.

That's just way too much to be an exclusive club for me. Let's see if u can recall and list mine in order.

Tier 1
Bradman / Sobers / Marshall / Hobbs / Hadlee / McGrath / Tendulkar

Tier 2
Richards / Steyn / Warne / Imran / Muralitharan / Smith / Lara / Hammond / Hutton / Kallis / Gilchrist / Gavaskar / Ambrose

Tier 2 was difficult enough to rank (and please don't come at me, was harder than expected) so tier 3 in alphabetical order.

Tier 3
Chappell / Donald / Garner / Holding / Headley / Knott / Lillee / O'Reilly / G. Pollock / Ponting / Sangakkara / Sutcliffe / Trueman / Wasim

Arguments for (will try to keep it short)

Border / Miller / Waugh / Cummins / Lindwall / Davidson / Grimmett / Harvey / Benaud

Barrington / Verity / Laker/ Botham / Root / Anderson

Ashwin / Kumble / Dravid / Bedi / Dev / Bumrah*

Miandad / Waqar / Younis

G. Smith / S. Pollock
/ Tayfield / Richards* / Procter* / deVilliers

Walsh / Greenidge / Worrell / Walcott / Weekes / Roberts / Gibbs / Lloyd

Williamson / Crowe

Jayawardene / Herath

Way too much and took too long, will cut down over time.


I will add though, that with only 4 openers and 3 spinners making the cut, that in itself does provide a boosted argument for the likes of Smith and Ashwin, as it's apparently ****ing hard to break through at those positions. Added to that Ash brings his batting and Smith his catching. Border's captaincy and battling through the '80's adds to his case as well.
you’ve listed those players according to tiers and placed Laker in the same as Ashwin, on an individual basis you may rank Laker behind or ahead of Ashwin but its fair to say you see them similarly and you said nobody said that in the other thread when there’s 2 egs of it
 

Top