archie mac
International Coach
Not that I remember, not in the super Tests anyway. I don't think they even had fielding restricions in the ODI from memoryWere 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 memoryWere there any notable deviations from the Laws or playing conditions in WSC?
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.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.
Let's not be abusing them as well.look lets not be chucking insults now
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.Were there any notable deviations from the Laws or playing conditions in WSC?
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.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.
played at night in pyjamas and crash helmets iircWere there any notable deviations from the Laws or playing conditions in WSC?
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.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!!!
nah the 3 laughing smileys is a sign of absolute seriousnessAkhtar! Surely you jest
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.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.
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.nah the 3 laughing smileys is a sign of absolute seriousness
One of the more heroic posts this forum has ever seen.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.
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.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?
Ok.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.
Lol, Bradman is the ULTIMATE softie!!!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.