Greatest batting line up of all-time

[Richard]

Where is Richard to spice things up

Wait for and you'll get.

1. GA Kirsten
2. HH Gibbs
3. DJ Cullinan
4. JH Kallis
5. WJ Cronjé
6. JN Rhodes
7. MV Boucher
8. B McMillan
9. SM Pollock
10. P Symcox
11. A Rabbit

Certainly not advocating this as the best lineup of all time, but it shapes up pretty well.. Not sure if all nine played together at the same time.. Maybe if you replace Gibbs with Hudson they might have done

Kallis always batted three ahead of Cullinan whenever I watched; closest you'll get is the 1999\2000 series, by which time McMillan and Symcox had gone. If you want those two, you've gotta replace Gibbs with Liebenberg or Bacher. Klusener was in there all that time, though... replace that rabbit with him it'll help.
If, of course, you could call AAD a rabbit at all. And he could certainly hold a bat - just.

 

[Richard]

The West Indies in the early to mid fifties were a phenomenal batting side.
Stollemeyer
Holt
Worrell
Weekes
Walcott
Atkinson

What about the 1930's Australians?

Woodfull
Ponsford
Bradman
Kippax
McCabe
Jackson

Two that are all too easily forgotten... certainly up with the best IMO.
England of the 1930s too. amz has touched on it.
Who can conclusively assert that Gilchrist was better than Ames? Not many, I'd say.

 

[C_C]

its a folly to compare a bunch of amatuers with modern day cricketers who face tremendous pressures and competition.
I'll leave it at that, which is why with the exception of Bradman and a few others, i dont rate any of the pre 60s cricketers highly.

 

[Richard]

It's folly to think that a bunch of ameteurs had an ameteurish attitude or that they didn't face pressures and competition.

 

[C_C]

It's folly to think that a bunch of ameteurs had an ameteurish attitude or that they didn't face pressures and competition.

Its not folly, its fact.
For chissakes, they moane and whined about bodyline...a tactic that was commonplace in the 70s and 80s.

They didnt have the cutthroat attitude back then which is the fundamental essence of competition.
A bunch of podgy cricketers playing what today would be a tea party game.

No sport has been competitive in its infancy or amatuer days compared to their professional days. Several sport psychologists openly say that and even the accounts from those amauter days describe a game of leisurely pace and little in terms of cutthroat competition on the field.

Interestingly, most people i see defending the amatuer wishy washy players- be it here or on other boards- are in large part english.
Perhaps the fact that Eng didnt have a glorious team in the competitive era(they were very good till Trueman retired but didnt exactly dominate) and their subsequent players have vastly inferior numbers to their amauters plays a part in this ?
You will find this attitude amongst the Uruguyan soccer fans...who argue that Uruguay around WWII had a soccer team fit enough to take on Brazil at its might or modern day france/brazil.

I think its clearly a case of hero worship and justifying the unjustifiable- that a bunch of amatuers could be successful to the same extent today.

 

[Jono]

Several sport psychologists openly say that and even the accounts from those amauter days describe a game of leisurely pace and little in terms of cutthroat competition on the field.

Who? Which psychologists?

Names, sources, anything would be handy. If not provided its opinion, not fact.

 

[C_C]

Who? Which psychologists?

Names, sources, anything would be handy. If not provided its opinion, not fact.

The sports psychologist who worked with the WI team in 2003 or so (Was it Sandy Gordon? not sure on the name) said so in a detailed interview with the Barbados Nation.

Derek Berley quotes psycholgists in his book "A social History of English Cricket".

 

[Swervy]

Its not folly, its fact.
For chissakes, they moane and whined about bodyline...a tactic that was commonplace in the 70s and 80s.

.

wrong....the whole point of bodyline was the close leg side field setting.

hey and even if Bodyline was commonplace in the 70's and 80's..(it wasnt...continous short pitched bowling isnt the same)...plenty of plyers moaned about it...didnt Bedi basically concede a test because of it

 

[C_C]

wrong....the whole point of bodyline was the close leg side field settin

the whole idea of close leg side field thing is one of the biggest myths propagated when it comes to the terror of bodyline.
The bulk of the hue and cry was with short pitched bowling aimed at the head- a commonplace occurance in the 70s and 80s (till the bouncer rule kicked in). Not the field positions.
The importance of the field positions in the legside is further weakened when one considers that more wickets fell to catches on the offside than the leg.

hey and even if Bodyline was commonplace in the 70's and 80's..(it wasnt...continous short pitched bowling isnt the same)...plenty of plyers moaned about it...didnt Bedi basically concede a test because of it

That match at Sabina Park was probably at a FAR bigger intensity and quality of bowling than Bodyline....and bedi declared to protect his bowlers...not his batsmen, who faced the music. But the point is, in vast bulk of matches involving WI and AUS, bodyling bowling was commonplace.

The amatuers whined at short pitched stuff...something people were EXPECTED to handle well in the post 60s era.

 

[Richard]

I'm truly amazed you profess to have researched the matter with comments like that.
Still... at least your conclusions make more sense with each post, even if I find them equally mislead.

 

[C_C]

I'm truly amazed you profess to have researched the matter with comments like that.
Still... at least your conclusions make more sense with each post, even if I find them equally mislead.

enough research has gone into it and i've done ample readings on the infancy of sports and amatuer sports.
You will not find many sports psychologists who think the amatuer era compares to the professional era. But you will find MANY who think otherwise.

 

[Richard]

And have you taken any notice of the people who've told you about the fact that cricket was far from an "unpaid" sport, even for many ameteurs?

 

[C_C]

And have you taken any notice of the people who've told you about the fact that cricket was far from an "unpaid" sport, even for many ameteurs?

Every sport and activity generated some trinkets from day1.
It wasnt their livelyhood and the ATTITUDE was not professional....hence its the GENTLEMAN'S game.

 

[Richard]

Wasn't their livelihood?
Have a look at how many had other incomes that would pay all the bills.

 

[C_C]

Wasn't their livelihood?
Have a look at how many had other incomes that would pay all the bills.

Who went up against many who played cricket as an amatuer activity.
Thats akin to Sampras playing in the satillite tours and romping home.

 

[Gangster]

wrong....the whole point of bodyline was the close leg side field setting.

hey and even if Bodyline was commonplace in the 70's and 80's..(it wasnt...continous short pitched bowling isnt the same)...plenty of plyers moaned about it...didnt Bedi basically concede a test because of it

Bedi conceded a one-dayer because the bowlers repeatedly bowled balls that a 7 footer with a five foot long bat couldn't hit standing on his tippy toes, and the umpires, perhaps due to their being Pakistani, refused to call any of them a no ball. Not because the balls were simply short-pitched.

Also, CC is more than right. Do you seriously think any batsman from the 1920s or 1930s could even remotely compare to any batsman now? Bring in any of those guys, and bowlers like Dilhara Fernando would be bowling them with every other delivery. "Fast" bowlers from back then would be considered Medium now. Some, like Donald Bradman, seem to have that inhuman hand-eye coordination that would lend to success now, but c'mon, I'd take even the modern Bangladeshi side in a time traveling battle against Bradman's invincibles.

 

[Richard]

Hmm... another subcontinental dismissing the merits of more reticent batsmen.
And I'll say it again - there is no way you can know that, because no-one can compare speeds with anything vaguely approaching authority, before 1998 when in-match speed-guns were finally achieved.

 

[C_C]

Hmm... another subcontinental dismissing the merits of more reticent batsmen.

Just like yet another englishman trying to hold on to the glory days.

And I'll say it again - there is no way you can know that, because no-one can compare speeds with anything vaguely approaching authority, before 1998 when in-match speed-guns were finally achieved.

a rough estimation can be done and i've explained so how previously.....
a link-chain style comparison can be done to estabish a rough idea whether X today is faster than Y in the 50s ( compare X to someone of similar speed in the 90s..do the same for one in the 80s, do the same for the 70s all the way to the 50s)
And dont give the BS 'human eye cannot tell speed' argument again.
Human eye cannot accurately quantify speed. But it can guage VERY ACCURATELY whether X is faster than Y RELATIVELY.

 

[Swervy]

Bedi conceded a one-dayer because the bowlers repeatedly bowled balls that a 7 footer with a five foot long bat couldn't hit standing on his tippy toes, and the umpires, perhaps due to their being Pakistani, refused to call any of them a no ball. Not because the balls were simply short-pitched.

Also, CC is more than right. Do you seriously think any batsman from the 1920s or 1930s could even remotely compare to any batsman now? Bring in any of those guys, and bowlers like Dilhara Fernando would be bowling them with every other delivery. "Fast" bowlers from back then would be considered Medium now. Some, like Donald Bradman, seem to have that inhuman hand-eye coordination that would lend to success now, but c'mon, I'd take even the modern Bangladeshi side in a time traveling battle against Bradman's invincibles.

some people may think I am stupid for saying Flintoff is such and such..or Botham was better than Dev...but this has to be the most idiotic thing I have read on here

 

[Richard]

Just like yet another englishman trying to hold on to the glory days.

Nope, I've no reason whatsoever to think so.
It's a totally objective assessment.

a rough estimation can be done and i've explained so how previously.....
a link-chain style comparison can be done to estabish a rough idea whether X today is faster than Y in the 50s ( compare X to someone of similar speed in the 90s..do the same for one in the 80s, do the same for the 70s all the way to the 50s)
And dont give the BS 'human eye cannot tell speed' argument again.
Human eye cannot accurately quantify speed. But it can guage VERY ACCURATELY whether X is faster than Y RELATIVELY.

No, it can't - any optical specialist will tell you that.
One told me, for that matter.
And hence I've explained how you can't use a chain theorem.