Tendulkar/Hobbs vs Marshall/McGrath

[Xix2565]

Sure but more valuable is not better cricketer.

You could make a similar argument on that as well though, even if it's not as convincing, though their value as cricketers isn't separate from their skills.

 

[shortpitched713]

Hobbs the odd one out here. Would get bounced into oblivion by the quicks, unlike Sachin.

 

[Johan]

Hobbs the odd one out here. Would get bounced into oblivion by the quicks, unlike Sachin.

Martindale, Constantine, Francis, Griffith and Larwood all tried that, did not turn out well for them.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think most people here rate Steyn higher than Donald and Wasim anyway right? So Tendulkar's superb record vs him should count for a lot.

 

[Johan]

I think most people here rate Steyn higher than Donald and Wasim anyway right? So Tendulkar's superb record vs him should count for a lot.

Up. It's one of the best records from.an ATG bat against an ATG bowler

 

[shortpitched713]

Martindale, Constantine, Francis, Griffith and Larwood all tried that, did not turn out well for them.

All many Kph slower than Marshall, smaller than McGrath, with inferior techniques.

Every other sport has changed, except ancient cricket batsmen are timeless, I guess.

 

[sayon basak]

Yeah, not this again.

 

[Coronis]

All many Kph slower than Marshall, smaller than McGrath, with inferior techniques.

Every other sport has changed, except ancient cricket batsmen are timeless, I guess.

And as I think has been repeatedly said that you need to assume past greats would be able to adapt to modern conditions, otherwise you can just stick to comparing players who played in the same era and have fun with that boring ****

 

[Johan]

All many Kph slower than Marshall, smaller than McGrath, with inferior techniques.

Every other sport has changed, except ancient cricket batsmen are timeless, I guess.

Probably slower than Marshall, not slower than McGrath, I don't think why their techniques would be very different.

that only works if you accept it going both ways, you can't critique Hobbs or Sutcliffe in comparison to say Gavaskar or Viv and then turn around and say Viv and Gavaskar are comparable to Root and Williamson, a similar amount of time passed between both generations, so for intellectual consistency you'd need to rate the Fab 3 as the three best ever if you want to make an evolution argument.

 

[shortpitched713]

@Coronis @Johan

The evidence of our eyes through the footage shows that qualitatively the game underwent big, big changes from early 20th century period, but then plateaus as the game got "figured out" in the more professional decades.

I respect the Don's record, and could accept him being comparable and above modern players, just because of how insane it is above contemporaries, and everyone who ever played, plus the footage shows a foundation for modern batting that also highlights his unique advantages.

I don't, and won't "respect" the translatability of any other of the fossils' records, not Grace's, not Barnes', not Hobbs' or any of them. Because theirs are pretty much moren in line with standard, expected outliers that you see in any game/sport during more "pioneering/formative" years. Nothing standard about Bradman's record.

 

[subshakerz]

@Coronis @Johan

The evidence of our eyes through the footage shows that qualitatively the game underwent big, big changes from early 20th century period, but then plateaus as the game got "figured out" in the more professional decades.

I respect the Don's record, and could accept him being comparable and above modern players, just because of how insane it is above contemporaries, and everyone who ever played, plus the footage shows a foundation for modern batting that also highlights his unique advantages.

I don't, and won't "respect" the translatability of any other of the fossils' records, not Grace's, not Barnes', not Hobbs' or any of them. Because theirs are pretty much moren in line with standard, expected outliers that you see in any game/sport during more "pioneering/formative" years. Nothing standard about Bradman's record.

I tend to agree with this. I am inclined to think though that Hobbs has the adaptability to make it through though.

 

[Johan]

@Coronis @Johan

The evidence of our eyes through the footage shows that qualitatively the game underwent big, big changes from early 20th century period, but then plateaus as the game got "figured out" in the more professional decades.

I respect the Don's record, and could accept him being comparable and above modern players, just because of how insane it is above contemporaries, and everyone who ever played, plus the footage shows a foundation for modern batting that also highlights his unique advantages.

I don't, and won't "respect" the translatability of any other of the fossils' records, not Grace's, not Barnes', not Hobbs' or any of them. Because theirs are pretty much moren in line with standard, expected outliers that you see in any game/sport during more "pioneering/formative" years. Nothing standard about Bradman's record.

Yeah I just disagree with practically everything you said, I've seen Ted McDonald bowl, I've seen Bill O Reilly bowl, I've seen Herbert Sutcliffe bat, I've seen Everton Weekes bat. None of it looks any different than what was presented to me in the hootage of 1970s or 80s, doesn't look quicker, doesn't look strengthier or anything, it's just all different vibes.

simply put, Cricket objectively had more transformations between 1970 and 2025 then it did between 1915 and 1970, never was the game "figured" out, everything about the game changed in modern times more than in the relatively more conservative mid 1900s. Reinforced Seams, far bigger bats, far better health diets and routines, far better fitness standards, rise of Power hitting, Wobble Seam Spam by everyone and their mother, developement of shorter formats, WTC and so forth all came in the last 55 years, not the 55 years before.

so basically, if one wants to argue that they won't be able to adapt, that's fine and all, but frankly if the evolution argument is made and they do not consider Joe Root and Steven Smith far superior Batsmen to Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Viv Richards, Garfield Sobers and so forth then I simply cannot take that individual seriously, as their whole stance collapses on itself due to the burden of intellectual dishonesty, and therefore I'm not really interested in extending this discussion as I'm simply not able to take the premise and assertion seriously when it's practically just picking and choosing whose careers counts, and whose don't.

 

[Johan]

I'm just gonna make a final statement, If one has Garfield Sobers over Jack Hobbs on the basis of era or game developements, while you also refuse Joe Root>Garfield Sobers on the basis of era development and evolution of the game...then simply put, you're a hypocrite, you're intellectually inconsistent and you cannot follow logic, and you're not capable of basic conversation and discussions and that is a huge negative if you intend to use an online forum community.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm just gonna make a final statement, If one has Garfield Sobers over Jack Hobbs on the basis of era or game developements, while you also refuse Joe Root>Garfield Sobers on the basis of era development and evolution of the game...then simply put, you're a hypocrite, you're intellectually inconsistent and you cannot follow logic, and you're not capable of basic conversation and discussions and that is a huge negative if you intend to use an online forum community.

Orrrr...you just might think different eras might be different.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Orrrr...you just might think different eras might be different.

Cricket changed significantly more between 1960 to today than it did between 1930 and 60.

 

[Johan]

Orrrr...you just might think different eras might be different.

That just sounds like a way to hide blatant intellectual inconsistency and hypocrisy. Dismissed.

 

[subshakerz]

Cricket changed significantly more between 1960 to today than it did between 1930 and 60.

This requires more in depth analysis. Because it's not just rules changes. It's about intensity and professionalism in the game. But let's agree to disagree.

 

[Johan]

This requires more in depth analysis. Because it's not just rules changes. It's about intensity and professionalism in the game. But let's agree to disagree.

This also changed more between Sobers era and Root era than between Hobbs era and Sobers era.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This requires more in depth analysis. Because it's not just rules changes. It's about intensity and professionalism in the game. But let's agree to disagree.

I said a fact.

 

[subshakerz]

That just sounds like a way to hide blatant intellectual inconsistency and hypocrisy. Dismissed.

No. You are making a sweeping generalisation of a century of cricket evolution and I am suggesting each era has different qualitative ways of evolution. But we don't need to rehash.