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

[Silver Silva]

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 ?

It's a fundamentally flawed question ..

Every cricket player is shaped by their development, they were taught a certain way , exposed to certain conditions , laws , equipment etc that made them who they were, we can only judge them by their output.
We cannot quantify mankind's ability to adapt to his environment, we can't stop time, we can't age backwards or send people into a future timezone so all it would be is guesswork.

My great grandfather was a carpenter by trade , he did not have all the fancy technology we have today , that doesn't mean he would not be able to figure out how to use modern technology if he was from this Era. The key is to look at the person behind the numbers , because a genius will find a way no matter the circumstance.

 

[Yeoman]

The stats of past players would differ if they played in the modern era but would not necessarily be worse - there are advantages and disadvantages to batting and bowling in each era. If we say that one era was better for batting then it throws a better light on the stats of the bowlers from that era and vice versa.

 

[Yeoman]

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.

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.

 

[honestbharani]

I am not a fan of ranking players I have not seen. I mean, there are obvious ones like Bradman or Sobers where there is so much literature and consensus but other than that, like I told @Line and Length in another thread, I am usually happy to take people's words, at least those whose opinion I respect.

 

[ankitj]

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 ?

Stats of both batsmen and bowlers can't be inflated simultaneously in same conditions. If one is inflated, other is flattened.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

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

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?

 

[Line and Length]

I believe in these stats because they are a factual representation of performances. I accept some performances might have been against 'minnows' and/or been the result of conditions. This has happened throughout cricket history but the stats remain. Anything else is purely hypothetical.

 

[mr_mister]

I can reasonably believe that Bradman really was a freak of nature, and that Hammond, Hobbs and Headley's averages are just as worthy as that of Viv, Sachin and Lara's. If we say Hammond and Hobbs average of 60 was more like the modern equivalent of 40-45 or something, and the actual 40-45 averaging batsman of the era like Leyland, Taylor, Brown and Fingleton were more like 25-30, that's where it gets a bit dumb.


However - pre 1900 stats just seem very alien due to specialist bats averaging 25 and bowlers averaging like 10, so that is where I start to not really take it as seriously. Hobbs, Hill, Trumper, Faulkner and Sydney Barnes are the very first test ATGs IMO and from their test debuts onwards I value test stats pretty equally.

 

[GirthQuake]

As much as one must believe Jesus is son of god

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah they kept pretty accurate scorecards even back then.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah they kept pretty accurate scorecards even back then.

Was a 3 day game, IIRC. Tough first day but a glorious comeback and win by day 3.

 

[Spark]

I can reasonably believe that Bradman really was a freak of nature, and that Hammond, Hobbs and Headley's averages are just as worthy as that of Viv, Sachin and Lara's. If we say Hammond and Hobbs average of 60 was more like the modern equivalent of 40-45 or something, and the actual 40-45 averaging batsman of the era like Leyland, Taylor, Brown and Fingleton were more like 25-30, that's where it gets a bit dumb.


However - pre 1900 stats just seem very alien due to specialist bats averaging 25 and bowlers averaging like 10, so that is where I start to not really take it as seriously. Hobbs, Hill, Trumper, Faulkner and Sydney Barnes are the very first test ATGs IMO and from their test debuts onwards I value test stats pretty equally.

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.

 

[Spark]

This is a good time to remind everyone that LBW is an inferior dismissal and the law should be looked at again.

 

[Nintendo]

Kerry packer invented cricket. Anything before that is communism.

 

[Coronis]

Kerry packer invented cricket. Anything before that is communism.

I always thought SA was communist

 

[mr_mister]

And also, for all the talk of the old era batsmen not being able to handle modern pace if they were transported to modern day, is there ever much respect given to the fact that they could probably play spin and "swerve"(what Barnes bowled apparently) much better?

Barnes, O'Reilly, Grimmet, Ironmonger, Verity, Laker, Tayfield, Wardle and Gibbs all came before the '60s and make up a good 60-70% of the names considered to be the greatest ever slow/spin bowlers ever. That's a point in the old era batsmens favour surely

 

[Nintendo]

And also, for all the talk of the old era batsmen not being able to handle modern pace if they were transported to modern day, is there ever much respect given to the fact that they could probably play spin and "swerve"(what Barnes bowled apparently) much better?

Barnes, O'Reilly, Grimmet, Ironmonger, Verity, Laker, Tayfield, Wardle and Gibbs all came before the '60s and make up a good 75% of the names considered to be the greatest ever slow/spin bowlers ever. That's a point in the old era batsmens favour surely

Depends how older bowlers adapt to DRS, doesn't it? Even compared to spin bowling in the 90's and early 2000's, spinner's post DRS and lbw viewing on tv bowled differently because umpires where giving them alot more LBW's. AFAIK late career warne and murali adapted to it just fine, but it's hard to know.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And also, for all the talk of the old era batsmen not being able to handle modern pace if they were transported to modern day, is there ever much respect given to the fact that they could probably play spin and "swerve"(what Barnes bowled apparently) much better?

Barnes, O'Reilly, Grimmet, Ironmonger, Verity, Laker, Tayfield, Wardle and Gibbs all came before the '60s and make up a good 60-70% of the names considered to be the greatest ever slow/spin bowlers ever. That's a point in the old era batsmens favour surely

They would be able to play the moving ball a lot better in general IMO, especially on the nore difficult wickets

 

[Spark]

And also, for all the talk of the old era batsmen not being able to handle modern pace if they were transported to modern day, is there ever much respect given to the fact that they could probably play spin and "swerve"(what Barnes bowled apparently) much better?

Barnes, O'Reilly, Grimmet, Ironmonger, Verity, Laker, Tayfield, Wardle and Gibbs all came before the '60s and make up a good 60-70% of the names considered to be the greatest ever slow/spin bowlers ever. That's a point in the old era batsmens favour surely

The main point in favour of old batsman supposedly not facing extreme pace very often is that no one faces extreme pace very often these days either. Mark Wood is hardly the fastest bowler to grace Test cricket and yet he had batsmen in all sorts at Headingley.

 

[Nintendo]

The main point in favour of old batsman supposedly not facing extreme pace very often is that no one faces extreme pace very often these days either. Mark Wood is hardly the fastest bowler to grace Test cricket and yet he had batsmen in all sorts at Headingley.

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.