How should pre-WSC cricketers be judged?

[subshakerz]

It is fair to say the World Series Cricket revolutionized cricket. Beyond the focus on day/night games and limited overs cricket, what strikes me is how everyone involved mentioned the rigor and intensity of the game. I think the revolution began before that, in the mid 70s when Ian Chappell's team introduced a new level of aggression in cricket, seemingly influenced by baseball.

Is it fair to think that prior to that era, test cricket simply lacked the professionalism and intensity for which high quality cricket is normally associated with? Were pre-WSC as tested as cricketers have been in decent decades? Is it fair to perhaps favor post-WSC cricketers with similar statistical achievements as higher simply for playing in a more competitive era? This of course leaves aside the statistical anomalies like Bradman and Sobers who can transcend eras.

 

[HookShot]

The question Is not whether pre-WSC cricketers could succeed in the post-WSC era, but rather the other way around.

 

[HookShot]

Justin Langer was a fine opening batsman, but I don’t think that he had the necessary technique to survive pre-helmet Test Cricket. Ducking into a Ntini bouncer at 133 kph (without looking!) with protective equipment is one thing; but facing up to Advock and Heine circa 1950s is another completely different thing altogether.

Hutton and Compton could do it, but Langer would be dead.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Motorcycle helmets were invented in 1914. Pretty crazy it wasn't until several decades later before someone had the idea of wearing one out to bat.

 

[subshakerz]

The question Is not whether pre-WSC cricketers could succeed in the post-WSC era, but rather the other way around.


View attachment 35216

Well, I think post-2000 cricketers are different from the cricketers of the 70s, 80s and nineties.

And rating the bowlers is also different.

 

[Ali TT]

I think cricket, like most sports, has evolved over history. WSC probably sped up the process for parts of the global game, especially Australia and the Windies but less so elsewhere. Many of the "inventions" of WSC still took a very long time to become mainstays of the game across the world - nearly 40 years for D/N cricket to reach the test game, for example.

In cricketing terms, while the Windies went from strength to strength immediately after WSC, both England and Australia got significantly worse afterwards. Would the Aussie side of the mid-80s really be ahead of the those that played under Benaud, let alone the Invincibles? And many of Botham's finest Ashes achievements occurred when he was still pissed up from the night before.

 

[HookShot]

Well, I think post-2000 cricketers are different from the cricketers of the 70s, 80s and nineties.

And rating the bowlers is also different.

Cricket obviously changes through the decades, but while Close, Edrich, Simpson and Harvey could quite easily adapt to playing during the 2020s I’m not sure that David Warner would last very long against Michael Holding in 1976 with a skinny bat, less padding, no helmet and Umpires who are willing to wait an eternity before telling the bowler to cool it.

Are contemporary cricketers more clever and skilful than 40+ years ago. Probably. But
in terms of temperament and specific skills like surviving a spell of hostile fast bowling, then I think that previous generations had a definite edge.

So yeah a 21st century ‘ramp shot’ requires special skill, but by the same token so does playing a bulk standard hook-shot off a 140 kph delivery 2 feet from your face with no helmet.

 

[Burgey]

Justin Langer was a fine opening batsman, but I don’t think that he had the necessary technique to survive pre-helmet Test Cricket. Ducking into a Ntini bouncer at 133 kph (without looking!) with protective equipment is one thing; but facing up to Advock and Heine circa 1950s is another completely different thing altogether.

Hutton and Compton could do it, but Langer would be dead.

Justin Langer played like that because he grew up wearing helmets. If he grew up pre-helmets, he’d have played differently but he still would have been a fine player, because good players adapt.

He might have averaged a couple of points less or a couple of points more, but he would have been the same tier of player as he was in the 90s and 2000s. The idea that he couldn’t have coped with bowling in the 70s or earlier is just intellectually lazy.

The opposite applies too. Good players from old eras would adapt because they’re good players. It’s really that simple

 

[Coronis]

Pre WSC cricketers should be judged for not wearing colourful uniforms to catch the eye of the kids.

Justin Langer played like that because he grew up wearing helmets. If he grew up pre-helmets, he’d have played differently but he still would have been a fine player, because good players adapt.

He might have averaged a couple of points less or a couple of points more, but he would have been the same tier of player as he was in the 90s and 2000s. The idea that he couldn’t have coped with bowling in the 70s or earlier is just intellectually lazy.

The opposite applies too. Good players from old eras would adapt because they’re good players. It’s really that simple

A concept many find hard to grasp, sadly.

 

[HookShot]

Justin Langer played like that because he grew up wearing helmets. If he grew up pre-helmets, he’d have played differently but he still would have been a fine player, because good players adapt.

He might have averaged a couple of points less or a couple of points more, but he would have been the same tier of player as he was in the 90s and 2000s. The idea that he couldn’t have coped with bowling in the 70s or earlier is just intellectually lazy.

The opposite applies too. Good players from old eras would adapt because they’re good players. It’s really that simple

I was thinking more along the lines of “he is what he is”. So you take a peak 2000s Langer and hypothetically ask him to open the batting in 1954 against Adcock and Heine using only 1954 equipment.

If Langer had grown-up, and developed his batting during the 1940s and 1950s then he wouldn‘t be the real Justin Langer, he’d be a completely different individual and cricketer…….thus defeating the whole point of our ‘thought experiment’.

But yeah, I get your idea completely.

 

[Burgey]

I see where you're coming from but I'm just not sure that's overly fair to players across any era, but if that's the way we're doing t all good.

I think the advent of the helmet is easily the biggest driver of changes to batting techniques in cricket history, far more than T20s, ODIs or even covered pitches. It utterly transformed batting.

Looking at highlights of pre-WSC era players, you see they play a hell of a lot more off the back foot to good length and fuller balls than what players do today, which meant they generally played later, but also meant the ball could swing or deck more than if you're default movement from a stance on the crease is to take a big step forward.

All just opinion, but I think the latter approach limits you in swinging and seaming conditions because you can't adjust from playing down the first line (see Hayden in England compared with say Smith, Border or SWaugh who all play(ed) much, much later) but it allows you to monster bowlers if the ball isn't doing as much through the air. And not having to worry about having one put up your nostril also allows you to plonk on the front foot much earlier.

 

[social]

I played against some top players from the pre-WSC days albeit towards the end of their careers in the 80s and think that it’s safe to make the generalisation that a top player then would be a top player now

Obviously, some things have changed with general fitness and equipment being at the top of the list but talent spans generations

Here’s some examples

Colin Cowdrey couldn’t pass a beep test but would still catch anything within reach

Derek Underwood would not bowl on uncovered wickets but was no worse a bowler than Jadeja anyway

Doug Walters would fail a breathalyser but good luck bowling at him when he got in

Viv Richards pounded some of the fastest bowlers in history while wearing a cap

Then you have players who spanned both eras like AB, Hadlee, Gower, Imran, many Windies dudes etc

They were good before & after

 

[Coronis]

I played against some top players from the pre-WSC days albeit towards the end of their careers in the 80s and think that it’s safe to make the generalisation that a top player then would be a top player now

Obviously, some things have changed with general fitness and equipment being at the top of the list but talent spans generations

Here’s some examples

Colin Cowdrey couldn’t pass a beep test but would still catch anything within reach

Derek Underwood would not bowl on uncovered wickets but was no worse a bowler than Jadeja anyway

Doug Walters would fail a breathalyser but good luck bowling at him when he got in

Viv Richards pounded some of the fastest bowlers in history while wearing a cap

Then you have players who spanned both eras like AB, Hadlee, Gower, Imran, many Windies dudes etc

They were good before & after

Phew I couldn’t pass a beep test either.

I was thinking more along the lines of “he is what he is”. So you take a peak 2000s Langer and hypothetically ask him to open the batting in 1954 against Adcock and Heine using only 1954 equipment.

If Langer had grown-up, and developed his batting during the 1940s and 1950s then he wouldn‘t be the real Justin Langer, he’d be a completely different individual and cricketer…….thus defeating the whole point of our ‘thought experiment’.

But yeah, I get your idea completely.

I mean, grab any modern bat and time travel chuck em on a sticky with a twig in their hands and they’ll struggle. Just don’t thunk thats the best way of judging players tbh.

 

[HookShot]

I see where you're coming from but I'm just not sure that's overly fair to players across any era, but if that's the way we're doing t all good.

I think the advent of the helmet is easily the biggest driver of changes to batting techniques in cricket history, far more than T20s, ODIs or even covered pitches. It utterly transformed batting.

Looking at highlights of pre-WSC era players, you see they play a hell of a lot more off the back foot to good length and fuller balls than what players do today, which meant they generally played later, but also meant the ball could swing or deck more than if you're default movement from a stance on the crease is to take a big step forward.

All just opinion, but I think the latter approach limits you in swinging and seaming conditions because you can't adjust from playing down the first line (see Hayden in England compared with say Smith, Border or SWaugh who all play(ed) much, much later) but it allows you to monster bowlers if the ball isn't doing as much through the air. And not having to worry about having one put up your nostril also allows you to plonk on the front foot much earlier.

I guess the well-rounded and highly adaptive techniques of Smith, Border and Waugh is why folk consistently rate them so highly, and Hayden not so much.

So while we could easily imagine Allan Border succeeding without a helmet on a dodgy pitch from the 1920s, we would have to make a bigger leap-of-faith to imagine Hayden not being taken apart by Ted McDonald during an over-cast morning at Old Trafford.

 

[Migara]

Cricket obviously changes through the decades, but while Close, Edrich, Simpson and Harvey could quite easily adapt to playing during the 2020s I’m not sure that David Warner would last very long against Michael Holding in 1976 with a skinny bat, less padding, no helmet and Umpires who are willing to wait an eternity before telling the bowler to cool it.

Are contemporary cricketers more clever and skilful than 40+ years ago. Probably. But
in terms of temperament and specific skills like surviving a spell of hostile fast bowling, then I think that previous generations had a definite edge.

So yeah a 21st century ‘ramp shot’ requires special skill, but by the same token so does playing a bulk standard hook-shot off a 140 kph delivery 2 feet from your face with no helmet.

On the flip side, put de Silva, Ponting or Inzamam against that barrage with or without helmet (de Silva and Inzamam wore ones with out the face protection), that line of bowling won't be MO for long. Put some one like Tendulkar, Dravid or Waugh against it, they will wear it out with or without helmets. These guys played bowlers of Holding's pace day and day out and rarely got hit. In fact in case of de Silva, he has never got hit on the head by a fast bowler. Probably true for Inzamam too.

What helmet brought was front foot pulling and pulling the ball infront of the face without moving back and across. The good batsmen always had time for this and unless pitch does something trash, they rarely get hit. It was the attacking play that helmets brought in.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Ponting batted without a helmet against Pakistan and got hit on the left chin area at 140kph. Nasty stuff.

 

[Ali TT]

On the flip side, put de Silva, Ponting or Inzamam against that barrage with or without helmet (de Silva and Inzamam wore ones with out the face protection), that line of bowling won't be MO for long. Put some one like Tendulkar, Dravid or Waugh against it, they will wear it out with or without helmets. These guys played bowlers of Holding's pace day and day out and rarely got hit. In fact in case of de Silva, he has never got hit on the head by a fast bowler. Probably true for Inzamam too.

What helmet brought was front foot pulling and pulling the ball infront of the face without moving back and across. The good batsmen always had time for this and unless pitch does something trash, they rarely get hit. It was the attacking play that helmets brought in.

It's not really the helmet that's the important factor as much that it was only in 1991 that restrictions on the use of the bouncer were brought in. Plus, the only side who had the resource to field a constant barrage of short-pitched fast-bowling was the Windies. The other test sides mostly had your standard share of fast-mediums.

 

[Migara]

It's not really the helmet that's the important factor as much that it was only in 1991 that restrictions on the use of the bouncer were brought in. Plus, the only side who had the resource to field a constant barrage of short-pitched fast-bowling was the Windies. The other test sides mostly had your standard share of fast-mediums.

Pakistan did have Wasim with Imran and Waqar on either side and all three were particularly brisk. Pakistani support cast were pretty aggressive too. At least Australia, West Indies and Pakistan had bowlers to keep chin music going for expended periods.

I don't thin bouncer restriction would meant much to good players of the short ball. Combined with mandatory over rates, bouncer barrage would have been difficult unless you had spinners who run off few paces and bowl like Pakistan.

 

[Migara]

Ponting batted without a helmet against Pakistan and got hit on the left chin area at 140kph. Nasty stuff.

These are fastest of the bowlers any batsman has played. 80s had probably a half a dozen express bowlers. 90s had plenty. On top of that support bowlers were pretty sharp too. You had McGrath and Gillespie seen off to see Brett Lee screaming in, Survived Donald and Schultz to see Brian McMillan hitting the splice of the bat, Wasim and Waqar followed by Aaqib Javed who was unbelievably aggressive for the pace he bowled. So no shame in getting hit once in a while. 90s and early 2000s fast attacks had so much of steam.

 

[Ali TT]

Pakistan did have Wasim with Imran and Waqar on either side and all three were particularly brisk. Pakistani support cast were pretty aggressive too. At least Australia, West Indies and Pakistan had bowlers to keep chin music going for expended periods.

I don't thin bouncer restriction would meant much to good players of the short ball. Combined with mandatory over rates, bouncer barrage would have been difficult unless you had spinners who run off few paces and bowl like Pakistan.

Well that's the thing, the authorities have regulated to minimise the effectiveness of the bouncer in test cricket. I'm not saying that Ponting or Tendulkar wouldn't have found a way in the 70s or 80s but they didn't have to face that type of bowling theory their careers. I think it said a lot that when they came across England's pace quartet in 2005 the bully-boy Aussie bats were intimidated for the first time in years. That type of attack hadn't really been around in test cricket for some time.