Streetwise
Banned
smashing the australians, he only passed 50 twice, never scoring a hundred and scoring mostly 20's and 30's. I think its pretty safe to say Hick failed miserably against australia all the time.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Players of the past who would have better/worse records
- Thread starter Ilovecric
- Start date
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
Beware of Ken Barrington!
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
It's tough to tell, because players tend to do what works. If something doesn't work they try something else. Barnes has been brought up for example - he used his talent to bowl the way he bowled because it was effective. It wouldn't have been as effective today so he wouldn't tried something else; he'd most likely be a completely different bowler.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
This, this, a thousand times this. I refuse to believe that the truly great players could not or would not have adapted their games to suit different conditions and opponents. They were generally products of their time, but I firmly believe their skill and determination would have seen them succeed -albeit, as Prince says, in a different manner - in eras other than their own. There may be players who fall a rung or two below the truly great who succeeded in their era to a level they perhaps would not have in some others, and vice versa (Graham Yallop is an example I can think of here) but by and large I think those examples are both a) rare and b) exaggerated.
Statistically, of course, there will always be variances due to laws, conditions and the like - were George Lohmann playing today he would certainly average a lot more than 10.75, but what made him one of the very greatest of his generation would IMO make him one of the very greatest today as well.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not really. In 1993 and 1994/95 he showed no sign of being overawed and smashed a couple of inperturbable knocks at The Oval and SCG.
And incidentally, though 1998/99 was an unreserved failure for the most part, his knock at The WACA was one of his best.
Streetwise
Banned
I guess you are talking about some big hundreds then and not some very slow 50's. When you say he smashed the Aussies I gather you dont mean some innings where he slowly scored at a snails pace.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
He certainly scored quickly enough at The Oval in 1993 (80 off 107 balls) and The SCG in 1994/95 (ended-up with 98* off 166 balls, after slowing-up considerably - it was that slowing-up that persuaded Atherton to declare on him).
He also scored a run-a-ball 81* at The Oval in 1994 against one of the finest attacks Test cricket has seen, Allan Donald, Fanie de Villiers, Craig Matthews and Brian McMillan.
He also scored a run-a-ball 81* at The Oval in 1994 against one of the finest attacks Test cricket has seen, Allan Donald, Fanie de Villiers, Craig Matthews and Brian McMillan.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Over-rating it a little I think Rich, though I would agree that it was a very fine line-up.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Name me 20 better then.
That is, 20 which were quite clearly better. No need for them to have played more than 4-5 Tests together (precious few combinations of four bowlers have ever played more than that), though more than 1 would be a neccessity.
Last edited:
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Ha ha fair enough mate, if by "one of the finest attacks Test cricket has seen" you mean "one of the top 20 or so groups of exactly four bowlers who have played a couple of series together" then I can let you have that.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Obviously it can be four or five - I'd have thought that was a given, bearing in mind that attacks of more than five or less than four bowlers is almost unheard-of. But yeah, what did you think I meant by "one of the finest attacks Test cricket has seen" if not one of the best ~20 attacks in history?
As I say, precious few attacks play together for more than a series or two. Even the two who I'd tend to rate the best two ever (Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall and McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Warne) played for no more than a few months. About the only truly superlative attacks I can think of which played together for more than a few months were the West Indians of 1979/80-1981 (Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft) and Australians of the late-1940s (Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Toshack) - even they hardly stuck around for all that long.
As I say, precious few attacks play together for more than a series or two. Even the two who I'd tend to rate the best two ever (Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall and McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Warne) played for no more than a few months. About the only truly superlative attacks I can think of which played together for more than a few months were the West Indians of 1979/80-1981 (Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft) and Australians of the late-1940s (Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Toshack) - even they hardly stuck around for all that long.
Last edited:
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah probably a misunderstanding on the terminology - insofar as I think an attack of say Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and AN Other would have been been at least their equal if not superior, given that the quality of the first three rendered meant that the fourth and/or fifth bowler was borderline meaningless. Likewise the Lindwall-Miller-Johnston attack of the late-40s and early-50s was an all time great lineup regardless of the fourth bowler, whether it was Johnson/Toshack/McCool whoever.
As I say though, whether I rate that SA quartet quite as highly as you do, they were still a damn fine bowling attack.
As I say though, whether I rate that SA quartet quite as highly as you do, they were still a damn fine bowling attack.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Hmm, see for me a weak-link fourth-prong along the lines of Brett Lee, MacGill or McCool counts for a fair bit. I honestly would generally prefer a four-man attack where one is among the best ever (Donald), the second is a top-class merchant (de Villiers) and the other two are workmanlike workhorses from the higher class of that particular denomination to a three-man clan of excellence and a fourth not-Test-class prong.
Toshack was a bit better than that though so shame on me for forgetting him.
But I'd have Donald-PSdeV-Matthews-McMillan over most of the West Indian attacks of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, as there was more often than not one weak-link (be it a spinner, Julien, Baptiste, Walsh [was a weak-link in his debut series], Patterson [was a weak-link after his debut series], Winston Benjamin [was a weak-link later in his career though certainly not earler], Thompson or whoever). And that's saying something, because Roberts-Holding-Garner \ Marshall-Holding-Garner was quite some threesome.
Toshack was a bit better than that though so shame on me for forgetting him.
But I'd have Donald-PSdeV-Matthews-McMillan over most of the West Indian attacks of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, as there was more often than not one weak-link (be it a spinner, Julien, Baptiste, Walsh [was a weak-link in his debut series], Patterson [was a weak-link after his debut series], Winston Benjamin [was a weak-link later in his career though certainly not earler], Thompson or whoever). And that's saying something, because Roberts-Holding-Garner \ Marshall-Holding-Garner was quite some threesome.
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Really don't understand this. You're saying you'd rather have one all time great, one very good bowler, and two decent bowlers, compared to two all time greats, one very good bowler, and one decent bowler. Give me McGrath-Warne-Gillespie-Lee/MacGill anytime, thank you very much.
At the end of the day, he played 65 games and finished with an average of 31. 65 Tests is more than enough to assess how good a player is at that level.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
As I say, it's a question of what you'd prefer. But Lee and MacGill were not, by any stretch of the imagination, "decent" Test bowlers in my book - more "very poor" (with occasional bursts, more often in MacGill's case than Lee but shorter-lived, of excellence).
There was a notable weak-link in Australia's attack of 2001-2002/03, in Lee (occasionally Bichel\MacGill), where there was none in the SAfrican attack in question. As I say, in my book there's much to be said for an attack which features no weak link whatsoever; in yours, there is much to be said for one that features two of the best there's ever been, and that's fair enough. Your paradigm is different to mine.
Of course it is, and Hick came-up short (very short in fact) for more of his Test career than not. Where on Earth was I suggesting otherwise?
The question is could he have come-up trumps at another time (in this case, stipulated as after 2001/02)? My suggestion is, yes, he could have done. And I use the fact that there was a lengthy period, even in his own time where things were much tougher, where he in fact did come-up trumps, sandwiched between the two periods where he failed dismally, to strengthen the case that he could have done.
Last edited:
Streetwise
Banned
It took me a while Richard but I picked up on your joke about Mcmillan being a better bowler than Lee. You are one funny dude.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
McMillan was better than Lee for the vast majority of Lee's Test career. That isn't, quite, the same as being better than Lee as a whole (he might very well have been that too BTW) but for the purposes of this comparison it's completely irrelevant, as the Lee in question is the one of 2001-2002/03, bowling alongside McGrath, Gillespie and Warne.
Nonetheless, for one so virtually incapable of recognising that a non-Australian player can be > an Australian, you naturally have some nerve describing anyone as a joker. Tell me - would you accept that Allan Donald and Fanie de Villiers were better Test bowlers than Lee?
Nonetheless, for one so virtually incapable of recognising that a non-Australian player can be > an Australian, you naturally have some nerve describing anyone as a joker. Tell me - would you accept that Allan Donald and Fanie de Villiers were better Test bowlers than Lee?
Last edited:
Streetwise
Banned
You are loosing it Richard, what has non-Australian got to do with it. McMillan managed to take 24 wickets in 17 test matches away from home @ 44 in 6 years. You made a joke man learn to laugh at your own jokes.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
FTR McMillan also played in home Test matches, and away Test matches are not the only ones that count.
McMillan in his entire career was a considerably better bowler than Lee was between 2001 and 2005. That is no joke, that's something anyone with a basic understanding of how cricket works would tend to recognise - if, that is, they were capable of realising that those who are not Australian can be superior to those who are.
McMillan in his entire career was a considerably better bowler than Lee was between 2001 and 2005. That is no joke, that's something anyone with a basic understanding of how cricket works would tend to recognise - if, that is, they were capable of realising that those who are not Australian can be superior to those who are.