Tendulkar/Hobbs vs Marshall/McGrath

[shortpitched713]

I guess one thing that really bothers me about the old time players, as much as anything is how ridiculously one sided to the batting end of the story it all is.

Why don't people know about guys like Bill Whitty and Frank Foster, among a multitude of other exemplary bowlers off the top of my head? These guys were significantly better, and had a much greater impact on the results of formative years cricket matches than so many batsmen whom tomes are written about. But their lack of opportunities, longevities (outside of their control mostly) and whatever other nonsense biases means that we only have an incomplete narrative of the older days.

 

[Xix2565]

Tell that to the people constantly liking my posts and actually agreeing with me, anyone can read the debate and see how easily I put you on the leash little brother, no point coping about it.

That you might be worth reacting to elsewhere doesn't change my points about you in this thread. Though it is funny just how deluded you wish to be when you try.

 

[Johan]

You really think Hobbs or Barnes couldn’t have played in 1950s??

Peak Barnes would have run havoc in 1950s…

Barnes bowl in his 50s against Windies, they deemee him better than Larwood, Bowes, Voce and Constantine.

 

[Johan]

That you might be worth reacting to elsewhere doesn't change my points about you in this thread. Though it is funny just how deluded you wish to be when you try.

people liked my posts throughout this thread...looks like quite a few do agree, maybe they had reading comprehension, unlike you. No delusion from my part mate, you're the one who has been seeing things about lying and strawmanning all day, plus your blind to your own lying and strawmanning, selective blindness combined with schizophrenia is crazy.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Barnes bowl in his 50s against Windies, they deemee him better than Larwood, Bowes, Voce and Constantine.

Anyone as good as Barnes would probably have been fine in 1950s or 60s, if he could just roll his arm over without doing anything else.

 

[Johan]

Anyone as good as Barnes would probably have been fine in 1950s or 60s, if he could just roll his arm over without doing anything else.

we have Alec Bedser and Fazal Mahmood to see as what far inferior variants of Barnes did in those times so

 

[sayon basak]

No player or writer ever entertained the notion that greats from the previous era would not survive in their era. But yeah, these people 100 years later coming up with such idea know better.

 

[shortpitched713]

And yet when pre WWI Barnes gets put up against pre WWI Hobbs, Hobbs somehow comes out on top. Because of the bias associated with media and his name, I guess?

It's silly. You put Lara against any of the top 5 post 1970s pacers and everyone goes for the bowler, so what changed? One side of the ball simply didn't matter back in the early 1900s?

 

[Johan]

And yet when pre WWI Barnes gets put up against pre WWI Hobbs, Hobbs somehow comes out on top. Because of the bias associated with media and his name, I guess?

It's silly. You put Lara against any of the top 5 post 1970s pacers and everyone goes for the bowler, so what changed? One side of the ball simply didn't matter back in the early 1900s?

Hobbs is quite a bit more popular than Barnes

 

[Xix2565]

No player or writer ever entertained the notion that greats from the previous era would not survive in their era. But yeah, these people 100 years later coming up with such idea know better.

There's a difference between doing well and doing better than the players being compared to. Something lost on quite a few people.

 

[Johan]

It's silly. You put Lara against any of the top 5 post 1970s pacers and everyone goes for the bowler, so what changed? One side of the ball simply didn't matter back in the early 1900s?

also, there were plenty of well known bowlers at the time, Sydney Barnes is obvious, Wilfred Rhodes, Aubrey Faulkner, Bert Vogler, even before Federick Spofforth, Charlie Turner, Alfred Shaw, William Lillywhite, George Lohmann, Monty Noble and so forth but tests were just played less and bowlers get injured faster and if you get injured in 1895 you're probably not returning.

 

[shortpitched713]

Hobbs is quite a bit more popular than Barnes

But he's not "better". Greater due to longevity, but certainly not better. And as a batsman, had less impact than Barnes of the same time period.

So many similar examples from the earlier decades of cricket. It's just sad how imbalanced the whole thing was.

 

[sayon basak]

But he's not "better". Greater due to longevity, but certainly not better. And as a batsman, had less impact than Barnes of the same time period.

So many similar examples from the earlier decades of cricket. It's just sad how imbalanced the whole thing was.

The pitches were considerably harder for Batsmen back then.

 

[shortpitched713]

The pitches were considerably harder for Batsmen back then.

Nah, this doesn't account for it. There's still going to be (and were) bowlers who performed relatively better than their peers on those pitches.

And of course it's not like the players, viewers, and writers of the time knew that the pitches were going to become significantly more batting friendly as a rule throughout the future of the game.

One side of the ball was simply downplayed in importance, at least from a human narrative focus, for a multitude of overlapping reasons.

 

[sayon basak]

One side of the ball was simply downplayed in importance, at least from a human narrative focus, for a multitude of overlapping reasons.

Outside of CW, Sachin, or even Viv Richards is unanimously seen as being better than Marshall as a cricketer. So nothing changed, it seems.

 

[shortpitched713]

I mean, it's not as extreme as it used to be, but the bias still lingers.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Outside of CW, Sachin, or even Viv Richards is unanimously seen as being better than Marshall as a cricketer. So nothing changed, it seems.

Tbf as cricketers, I can see why.

 

[Johan]

By any chance, can you do a similar breakdown using Brian Lara (including vs Shane Bond).

alright, coming back to this

Glenn McGrath
24 matches, 2,041 runs @ 46.38, 6 hundreds, 7 fifties in 46 innings.

Allan Donald
10 matches, 681 runs @ 34.03, 0 hundreds, 6 fifties in 20 innings

Shaun Pollock
15 matches, 1,245 runs @ 42.93, 2 hundreds and 8 fifties in 29 innings

Wasim Akram
7 matches, 394 runs @ 30.30, 0 hundreds and 2 fifties in 13 innings.

Waqar Younis
6 matches, 354 runs @ 32.18, 0 hundreds and 2 fifties in 11 innings.

Shane Bond
4 matches, 237 runs @ 39.50, 0 hundreds and 2 fifties in 6 innings

Shane Warne
20 matches, 1,837 runs @ 54.02, 5 hundreds and 7 fifties in 36 innings.

Muttiah Muralidharan
9 matches, 1,166 runs @ 77.73, 5 hundreds and 2 fifties in 16 innings.

never played against Shoaib and Steyn weirdly

 

[capt_Luffy]

also, there were plenty of well known bowlers at the time, Sydney Barnes is obvious, Wilfred Rhodes, Aubrey Faulkner, Bert Vogler, even before Federick Spofforth, Charlie Turner, Alfred Shaw, William Lillywhite, George Lohmann, Monty Noble and so forth but tests were just played less and bowlers get injured faster and if you get injured in 1895 you're probably not returning.

Tom Richardson, Bart King, Bill Lockwood, Frank Foster, JJ Ferris, Bill Whitty, Tibby Cotter, George Hirst, Ernie Jones, John Wisden just among proper fast pacers on top of my head. And it was a spinners Era, Hugh Trumble, Colin Blythe, Bobby Peel, Johnny Briggs, Ted Peate, Joey Palmer, Reggie Schwarz, Jack Saunders, Ranji Hordern, Bernard Bosanquet, again on top of my head. If anything, I would argue before WWI especially Golden Age, there are more well bowlers than batsmen.

 

[Johan]

alright, coming back to this

Glenn McGrath
24 matches, 2,041 runs @ 46.38, 6 hundreds, 7 fifties in 46 innings.

Allan Donald
10 matches, 681 runs @ 34.03, 0 hundreds, 6 fifties in 20 innings

Shaun Pollock
15 matches, 1,245 runs @ 42.93, 2 hundreds and 8 fifties in 29 innings

Wasim Akram
7 matches, 394 runs @ 30.30, 0 hundreds and 2 fifties in 13 innings.

Waqar Younis
6 matches, 354 runs @ 32.18, 0 hundreds and 2 fifties in 11 innings.

Shane Bond
4 matches, 237 runs @ 39.50, 0 hundreds and 2 fifties in 6 innings

Shane Warne
20 matches, 1,837 runs @ 54.02, 5 hundreds and 7 fifties in 36 innings.

Muttiah Muralidharan
9 matches, 1,166 runs @ 77.73, 5 hundreds and 2 fifties in 16 innings.

never played against Shoaib and Steyn weirdly

now for the final round...Viv Richards

Dennis Lillee [WSC included]
12 matches, 2,032 runs @ 53.47 with 5 hundreds in 40 innings.

Imran Khan
14 matches, 1,074 runs @ 46.69 with 2 hundreds and 7 fifties in 24 innings.

80s Imran Khan
9 matches, 817 runs @ 58.35 with 2 hundreds and 5 fifties in 15 innings.

Richard Hadlee
7 matches, 387 runs @ 43.00, with 1 hundred and 2 fifties in 10 innings

Prime Ian Botham
9 matches, 719 runs @ 71.90, with 3 hundreds and 2 fifties in 11 innings.

Bob Willis
9 matches, 969 runs @ 88.09 with 3 hundreds and 4 fifties in 12 innings, all games in England where Willis averaged 21.28 when not bowling to Viv.

Wasim Akram
4 matches, 355 runs @ 50.71, with 1 hundred and 1 fifty in seven innings

Indian Spin Quaret combination (Bedi + Chandra)
7 matches, 710 runs @ 64.54, with 3 hundreds and 2 fifties in 12 innings.

Chandra+Bedi+Prasanna
4 matches, 296 runs @ 49.33, with 1 hundred and 1 fifty in 7 innings.