What If?

[Burpey]

What if Archie Mac had never joined this forum, would people be asking these silly Q?

A horrible thought

 

[Robertinho]

What if Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock had been able to play long test careers?

What if Bradman had been able to continue playing and played until say, mid 50s, maybe even late 50s?

What if Bradman had made 4 runs rather than a duck, and averaged 100?

 

[archie mac]

You should visit off topic a little more

Why tell me all the gossip?

 

[archie mac]

What if Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock had been able to play long test careers?

What if Bradman had been able to continue playing and played until say, mid 50s, maybe even late 50s?

What if Bradman had made 4 runs rather than a duck, and averaged 100?

1 Throw in Procter and Sth Afr would have been the best in the world, I would have loved to see them play the Windies in the late 70s

2 Would still have ave 50+ but age waits for no man (or woman pc)

3 would ruin the ABC PO box address

 

[Burpey]

What if Bradman had played as much Test cricket as is played now, as well as one dayers ?

 

[C_C]

1 Throw in Procter and Sth Afr would have been the best in the world, I would have loved to see them play the Windies in the late 70s

2 Would still have ave 50+ but age waits for no man (or woman pc)

3 would ruin the ABC PO box address

Best in the world ? I am sorry but that is speculation - they most likely would've been good, no doubt, but if they could elavate themselves to the level of WI and challenge them is far too much speculation.

As per Bradman, i agree with you, though i would put it as 60ish ave.

 

[age_master]

What if
Murali was an Australian

hmm probably would never have played a test

 

[archie mac]

Best in the world ? I am sorry but that is speculation - they most likely would've been good, no doubt, but if they could elavate themselves to the level of WI and challenge them is far too much speculation.

Yes it is, but I thought the SA team that crushed Aust 4-0 in 1970 had a lot of young players, who could have been great, plus Rice and leroux and Greig to come. But yes I could be wrong

 

[C_C]

hmm probably would never have played a test

And if it had panned out that way, it would've been the shortcomming of Australian cricket board, not of Murali.

 

[archie mac]

What if Bradman had played as much Test cricket as is played now, as well as one dayers ?

Doug Walters asked him this he said he would not have ave 100 but would still be above everyone else. But that was before Bangas and Zims were added

 

[C_C]

Yes it is, but I thought the SA team that crushed Aust 4-0 in 1970 had a lot of young players, who could have been great, plus Rice and leroux and Greig to come. But yes I could be wrong

My personal opinion is that if RSA played, they would've been #1 side by 75, only to be dethroned by the WI subsequently - that is, if they played the WI ( remember, apartheid or not, pre 90s, RSA never played against a non-white team).

They would've handily beaten the WI till 75 or so,given WI some titanic struggles in the mid 70s but in the late 70s onwards, they would've been beaten consistently by the WI (not whitewashed probably, but beaten). WI of that era took great pride and delight in breaking players with any perceived racism in them ( for eg, they humiliated Tony Greig after his loaded comment about making WI 'grovel') and i think the WI would elavate their game against a nation that had racism coursing through its veins against their black bretheren.

Come late 70s and Barry Richards/Graeme Pollock would've been entering their late 30s, Procter past 30, LeRoux at his peak and Bijl nearing his peak. Peter Pollock would've been gone by then ( i dont see a fast bowler with a lil batting skill hanging around in his late 30s) whilst Richards, Greenidge, Lloyd, Holding, Garner, Marshall,Haynes,Dujon either at their peak or poised to enter theirs.
With the four prong assembled ( 4 of Roberts-Holding-Garner-Marshall-Croft) and future greats like Walsh, Ambrose and a very promising Bishop yet to come along with Daniel, Davis, Patterson and Clarke doing the injury filling-ins, the WI bowling battery would've outclassed the RSA one handily and with a near equal strength batting lineup ( i consider the WI top six to be better than the RSA top six but RSA had better depth), RSA would most likely have been pushed aside to the second spot.

In short, i think RSA would've been #1 in the early 70s, tussling with WI and AUS in the mid 70s for top 3 and either #2 or #3 in the late 70s, with Pakistan joining the top 3 and Australia dropping out of the top 3 after the early 80s.

 

[archie mac]

My personal opinion is that if RSA played, they would've been #1 side by 75, only to be dethroned by the WI subsequently - that is, if they played the WI ( remember, apartheid or not, pre 90s, RSA never played against a non-white team).

They would've handily beaten the WI till 75 or so,given WI some titanic struggles in the mid 70s but in the late 70s onwards, they would've been beaten consistently by the WI (not whitewashed probably, but beaten). WI of that era took great pride and delight in breaking players with any perceived racism in them ( for eg, they humiliated Tony Greig after his loaded comment about making WI 'grovel') and i think the WI would elavate their game against a nation that had racism coursing through its veins against their black bretheren.

Come late 70s and Barry Richards/Graeme Pollock would've been entering their late 30s, Procter past 30, LeRoux at his peak and Bijl nearing his peak. Peter Pollock would've been gone by then ( i dont see a fast bowler with a lil batting skill hanging around in his late 30s) whilst Richards, Greenidge, Lloyd, Holding, Garner, Marshall,Haynes,Dujon either at their peak or poised to enter theirs.
With the four prong assembled ( 4 of Roberts-Holding-Garner-Marshall-Croft) and future greats like Walsh, Ambrose and a very promising Bishop yet to come along with Daniel, Davis, Patterson and Clarke doing the injury filling-ins, the WI bowling battery would've outclassed the RSA one handily and with a near equal strength batting lineup ( i consider the WI top six to be better than the RSA top six but RSA had better depth), RSA would most likely have been pushed aside to the second spot.

In short, i think RSA would've been #1 in the early 70s, tussling with WI and AUS in the mid 70s for top 3 and either #2 or #3 in the late 70s, with Pakistan joining the top 3 and Australia dropping out of the top 3 after the early 80s.

You may well be right, but you are not taking into consideration the generation of players that missed their chance to maybe play Test cricket for Sth Afr from 1970-1992, not all the best players from this period would have found their way into county cricket.

 

[SJS]

What if Bradman had played as much Test cricket as is played now, as well as one dayers ?

Forget that. What if Bradman had not lost 5-6 years at his peak due to the world war. He would probably have played.

He would have played at least five(probably six) more series of 5 tests each. Two against england, two against South Africa and one against West Indies.

He would have ended up with something like
- 10000 test runs
- 44 - 45 test centuries
- 18 scores above 200
- 3 scores above 300

This if he had just met the tours that were being planned at the time the war broke.

Thats enough I think. Forget playing as much as today !!

 

[archie mac]

Forget that. What if Bradman had not lost 5-6 years at his peak due to the world war. He would probably have played.

He would have played at least five(probably six) more series of 5 tests each. Two against england, two against South Africa and one against West Indies.

He would have ended up with something like
- 10000 test runs
- 44 - 45 test centuries
- 18 scores above 200
- 3 scores above 300

This if he had just met the tours that were being planned at the time the war broke.

Thats enough I think. Forget playing as much as today !!

He was invalided out of the army, so maybe he would have missed a few series, but still you would think at least 20 more Tests. If he had not gone into the army maybe he would not have become sick.

 

[C_C]

You may well be right, but you are not taking into consideration the generation of players that missed their chance to maybe play Test cricket for Sth Afr from 1970-1992, not all the best players from this period would have found their way into county cricket.

Oh i know - Van der Bijl to my knowledge didnt play county cricket. But my hypothetical projection is based on the RSA players that played cricket during that era and the stalwarts of that era.
The big names were Procter, Rice, Van der Bijl, Pollock brothers, Barry Richards, Le Roux etc. Of them, Procter, Pollock brothers and Barry Richards would most likely either have faded or have retired by the time 1980 rolled around. And yes, they had some excellent allround talents and good batting depths during the 80s but i think the strongest RSA team would've been in the 1970s ( assuming they didnt get banned), since most of their stalwart names fell in that decade.

PS: I know that Procter or Graeme Pollock continued playing FC cricket well into their 40s but i dont think they would've if they had to play Test cricket and i dont think they would've been a serious force come 1980.

 

[SJS]

He was invalided out of the army, so maybe he would have missed a few series, but still you would think at least 20 more Tests. If he had not gone into the army maybe he would not have become sick.

I meant the amount of international cricket he could have 'normally' played even with the less busy schedule of those days if the war hadnt broken out. Which means injuries and health permitting of course.

 

[Dizzy #4]

what if Banglandesh was the best team in the world?

 

[archie mac]

what if Banglandesh was the best team in the world?

It would be great, as it would mean they would have found the secret to eternal life, as I would be 235 years old

 

[archie mac]

Oh i know - Van der Bijl to my knowledge didnt play county cricket. But my hypothetical projection is based on the RSA players that played cricket during that era and the stalwarts of that era.
The big names were Procter, Rice, Van der Bijl, Pollock brothers, Barry Richards, Le Roux etc. Of them, Procter, Pollock brothers and Barry Richards would most likely either have faded or have retired by the time 1980 rolled around. And yes, they had some excellent allround talents and good batting depths during the 80s but i think the strongest RSA team would've been in the 1970s ( assuming they didnt get banned), since most of their stalwart names fell in that decade.

PS: I know that Procter or Graeme Pollock continued playing FC cricket well into their 40s but i dont think they would've if they had to play Test cricket and i dont think they would've been a serious force come 1980.

A pity we will never know, but It is hard to imagine that they would have beaten the WI side of 1983/84/85

 

[Pratters]

I meant the amount of international cricket he could have 'normally' played even with the less busy schedule of those days if the war hadnt broken out. Which means injuries and health permitting of course.

I have thought the same thing some times. Great minds do think alike