Early era batsmen

[archie mac]

Were there any notable deviations from the Laws or playing conditions in WSC?

Not that I remember, not in the super Tests anyway. I don't think they even had fielding restricions in the ODI from memory

 

[kyear2]

WE tend to forget that prior to WW2, they were only two decent teams, they were no testing combats in vastly different conditions againts varied opposition. They were balls with smaller or neglegible seams, no second new ball, smaller stumps, batsman friendly LBW rules and out side of a rainy day or S.A matting pitches, the pitches were not that bad. Most of the reputation was based on county cricket, and I suspect that Hobbs speaking of lower quality of bowling after the war was more aimed at county cricket where he was able to dominate well after his 40th birthday. As far as the test arena was concered he was regarded as the more succesful, and agressive batsman before the war, being more of an accumulator after.
With ragard to Syd Barnes, no one alive has seen him bowl, there is no footage and most still cannot agree what he even bowled (I though am convinced he was a spinner, ala O'Reilly and Verity), he was also a minnow pitch and wet bully who seemed to be ordinary on the test level otherwise. Don't rate for the most part.

 

[Daemon]

Such extreme positions being taken here..

 

[watson]

WE tend to forget that prior to WW2, they were only two decent teams, they were no testing combats in vastly different conditions againts varied opposition. They were balls with smaller or neglegible seams, no second new ball, smaller stumps, batsman friendly LBW rules and out side of a rainy day or S.A matting pitches, the pitches were not that bad. Most of the reputation was based on county cricket, and I suspect that Hobbs speaking of lower quality of bowling after the war was more aimed at county cricket where he was able to dominate well after his 40th birthday. As far as the test arena was concered he was regarded as the more succesful, and agressive batsman before the war, being more of an accumulator after.
With ragard to Syd Barnes, no one alive has seen him bowl, there is no footage and most still cannot agree what he even bowled (I though am convinced he was a spinner, ala O'Reilly and Verity), he was also a minnow pitch and wet bully who seemed to be ordinary on the test level otherwise. Don't rate for the most part.

The greatness of SF Barnes is verified by his Test match stats plus an enormous list of contemporary batsman from each Test playing nation who stated categorically that he was the best of his generation.

When the testimony is consistently good, even by the opposition, then that evidience is good enough to draw a reasonable conclusion - SF Barnes was a bowling genius with a superb technique (probably).

 

[Migara]

look lets not be chucking insults now

Let's not be abusing them as well.

 

[Kirkut]

Early era batsmen were softies, I'm quite sure had Akhtar bowled to Bradman, his batting average would have reduced from 99.94 to 9.9!!!

 

[the big bambino]

Were there any notable deviations from the Laws or playing conditions in WSC?

Nothing from memory. However a number of the players mention the sub standard nature of the pitches. In fact there is an article interviewing Ian Davis on cricinfo very recently. Might still be a front page item. Its a good read and tells in one instance how a poor pitch increased the menace of an aging John Snow and Davis suffered a broken thumb as a result.

 

[the big bambino]

WE tend to forget that prior to WW2, they were only two decent teams, they were no testing combats in vastly different conditions againts varied opposition. They were balls with smaller or neglegible seams, no second new ball, smaller stumps, batsman friendly LBW rules and out side of a rainy day or S.A matting pitches, the pitches were not that bad. Most of the reputation was based on county cricket, and I suspect that Hobbs speaking of lower quality of bowling after the war was more aimed at county cricket where he was able to dominate well after his 40th birthday. As far as the test arena was concered he was regarded as the more succesful, and agressive batsman before the war, being more of an accumulator after.
With ragard to Syd Barnes, no one alive has seen him bowl, there is no footage and most still cannot agree what he even bowled (I though am convinced he was a spinner, ala O'Reilly and Verity), he was also a minnow pitch and wet bully who seemed to be ordinary on the test level otherwise. Don't rate for the most part.

Sorry but while some of the facts you present are true (some; not all) your conclusions are universally incorrect. For a start county cricket had recovered by around 1925 and Hobbs' career ended in 34. He faced many a good and test bowlers and still accumulated a mountain of runs.

I don't know why you even offer an opinion about Barnes. If you haven't seen him then logic would dictate that accept the testimony of those who have, right? What if we transferred those observations on tablet? Would you find that acceptable? Barnes could bowl at fast medium and medium. He could use the new and old ball. He was much faster than Verity and the same pace as O'Reilly when using the old ball. Those who played with him and saw Eddie Barlow later said he bowled at that man's pace with the new ball. He took most of his wickets on shirt fronts against the best opponent of his time.

Btwn the wars SA fielded a strong side competing well with Eng. The WI and India had fine players and NZ strong batting. Compare with the case now or even in the mid 90s. The world only had ONE nation ahead of the rest: Aust 1st then SA now. Besides playing almost exclusively against the your best opponents actually adds lustre to your achievements as they aren't artificially boosted by gimmes like Zim, BD and NZ...

 

[uvelocity]

Were there any notable deviations from the Laws or playing conditions in WSC?

played at night in pyjamas and crash helmets iirc

 

[the big bambino]

Early era batsmen were softies, I'm quite sure had Akhtar bowled to Bradman, his batting average would have reduced from 99.94 to 9.9!!!

Akhtar! Surely you jest. He is the ultimate example of a cricketing softie. I think Bradman could have played him at age 99.94. Or age 9.9.

 

[Howe_zat]

Akhtar! Surely you jest

nah the 3 laughing smileys is a sign of absolute seriousness

 

[Dan]

No we are not saying that Shane Watson is a better batsman than WG. Indeed, no one has suggested that. Rather we are suggesting that Hobbs and Hutton are significantly better batsman because they succeeded against some splendid bowlers and are probably technically better. We are comparing great with great, and Shane is not a great by any measure.

The same principle applies for Afridi V McCabe. I agree that it is intrinsically silly to compare these two batsman because even Afridi himself would deny that he is a great batsman. However, it is not silly to compare McCabe with Macartney or Greg Chappell. This is often done and is a worthwhile comparison.

In general, Greg Chappell comes out on top because he faced a wider range of skillful fast bowlers and still managed an excellent batting average. This estimation is not a pure guess, but involves rational consideration of bowlers like Snow, Roberts, Holding, and Willis.

In short, it is possible to make comparisons of players from different eras that are coherent. But only a fool would make any dogmatic assertions with an air of certainty. We use words like 'maybe', 'possibly' or 'probably' for good reason.

I think that you provided one too many 'straw man' arguments in you post Dan.

I was directing that primarily at AN, who doesn't rate Grace at all (and I threw Watson in as a modern equivalent in terms of not dissimilar stats and playing role). It isn't having a conversation around the relative merits of great batsman that I take issue with - indeed I fully support it - it's the writing off of anyone pre-1980 because of a lack of video, preconceived ideas or this notion that we're comparing in absolutes.

I think in attacking the examples (which is fair enough) you may have missed the underlying point of my post - which is pretty similar to your second-to-last paragraph. We can compare, but it always comes down to being relative to the player's peers in that era. We can never know for certain if Larwood and Lee's pace is similar in absolute terms, but relative to the era it definitely was - and if Larwood was 30% quicker than the standard bowler of his era, he goes down as one of the quickest in history regardless of whether he was bowling 160 or 135. (That could well be another useless example, but forgive me, I just woke up)

But in the end, what I'm trying to say is we can't hold C19 players to modern standards (and vice versa).

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I haven't written anyone off pre 1980, and there were videos around back then.

In fact I concur with general opinion that Bradman is the greatest cricketer. And I haven't mentioned anything about Watson or Afridi being better than anyone else.

I haven't exactly written of Grace, since in a previous post I did say that I am willing to believe he would average pretty well in today's standards, however I am of the opinion that in today's game he wouldn't equal Sachin or Lara, since they have been playing the modern game for years.

And I think 3 months isn't long enough for someone to get used to a game that is completely different to how it was 120-130 years ago.

BTW, is there any recorded evidence for bowling speeds for the pre-war period?

 

[the big bambino]

nah the 3 laughing smileys is a sign of absolute seriousness

Is that SRT in his avatar? Because if he wants I can show him stats that SRT can be portrayed as a flat track bully who has been pwned by the better bowlers he has faced. McGrath's bitch for one. In fact his career could be said to be flattered by ordinary bowling on featherbed wickets. Just sayin' if he wants to play the SRT is better than the whole game of cricket crap some seem to believe.

 

[benchmark00]

Is that SRT in his avatar? Because if he wants I can show him stats that SRT can be portrayed as a flat track bully who has been pwned by the better bowlers he has faced. McGrath's bitch for one. In fact his career could be said to be flattered by ordinary bowling on featherbed wickets. Just sayin' if he wants to play the SRT is better than the whole game of cricket crap some seem to believe.

One of the more heroic posts this forum has ever seen.


Wait, wait, hang on you can show stats??

 

[the big bambino]

Yes well all I'm saying is that you can cherry pick to put anyone down SRT included. I thought that was clear in my previous post but obviously not. You are not thick. I didn't make it clear enough.

All my fault.

Not yours.

OK?

 

[benchmark00]

At what point in time was someone cherry picking stats here?

Kirkut was saying how ridiculous it is to think Akhtar would trouble Bradman.

Ease up boi.

 

[watson]

I haven't written anyone off pre 1980, and there were videos around back then.

In fact I concur with general opinion that Bradman is the greatest cricketer. And I haven't mentioned anything about Watson or Afridi being better than anyone else.

I haven't exactly written of Grace, since in a previous post I did say that I am willing to believe he would average pretty well in today's standards, however I am of the opinion that in today's game he wouldn't equal Sachin or Lara, since they have been playing the modern game for years.

And I think 3 months isn't long enough for someone to get used to a game that is completely different to how it was 120-130 years ago.

BTW, is there any recorded evidence for bowling speeds for the pre-war period?

There was an excellent thread on WG Grace several months ago. It contained only one short video, but there were plenty of photos of Grace demonstrating his technique - forward and back defence, square-cut, pull-shot, off-drive, on-drive, and so forth.

The point being that I took those photos to mean that Grace had an orthodox and sound technique even by modern standards. The feet were in the correct place and his head would have been over the ball. I literally couldn't see anything wrong with his shots.

Therefore, I reckon/guess that 3 months in modern match conditions would be enough for him to be able to participate in an ATG Test match against bowlers like Marshall or Lillee with reasonable success.

Of course I can't prove that Grace would adapt to modern cricket in any definitive sense, let alone a during a 3 month interval. But by the same token I believe that my opinion is reasonable given the photographic evidence, and the fact that he was so far ahead of any contemporary batsman.

But you're right AN to assume that if Grace were to be plucked out of 1880, and then suddenly dropped onto the wicket at Lords with Gooch as his batting partner in a 1984 ENG V WI Test match, then he would lucky to survive the half-hour against Marshall.

 

[the big bambino]

At what point in time was someone cherry picking stats here?

Kirkut was saying how ridiculous it is to think Akhtar would trouble Bradman.

Ease up boi.

Ok.

I said stats can be cherry picked.

I think you need to read his post again.

I'm as easy as a Sunday morning.

You're initial post quoting mine suggested a touch of Mondayitis.

Lets move on shall we?

 

[Kirkut]

Is that SRT in his avatar? Because if he wants I can show him stats that SRT can be portrayed as a flat track bully who has been pwned by the better bowlers he has faced. McGrath's bitch for one. In fact his career could be said to be flattered by ordinary bowling on featherbed wickets. Just sayin' if he wants to play the SRT is better than the whole game of cricket crap some seem to believe.

Lol, Bradman is the ULTIMATE softie!!!

He was SCARED of wet pitches, and only had the intestines to play on flat decks. Stan McCabe and Victor Trumper are DAYLIGHTS ahead of Bradman when it comes to playing challenging bowling attacks.