Who faced easiest bowling attacks and conditions?

[Cevno]

Sobers faced some great attacks (the English attack of his time is among the ATG bowling attacks, the Aussie attack was very very good too - and the South African attack of his time was great and very very underrated).

He didn't play South Africa in a international match at all.

The Australian attack specially after Davidson and Miller who played only 4 matches against him, was not that good tbh.

The English attack was by a distance the best he faced but against England too in atleast 20 out of 36 matches he played against them, there was no 2 of Trueman,Lock,Snow,Underwood ,Laker,Statham and Willis playing together.

 

[Cevno]

Neither would I, though I don't think there's a great deal in it.

Not a great deal as in a huge difference, but i would say there is a decent level of difference atleast.

Specially if you include bowlers of Sarfaraz Nawaz's level and better than him.

Wasim, Waqar, Imran, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, Ambrose, Walsh ,Murali, Warne, Mcgrath, Gillespie, Lee, Saqlain, Vaas, Hadlee, Akthar, Morkel, Anderson, Bishop, Bond just from the top off my head.

 

[Manee]

Why not?

Because the burden of proof is upon those who wish to prove this point. Trott has shown no major deficiencies against the slower bowlers who move the ball more, imo.

 

[Sanz]

Not a great deal as in a huge difference, but i would say there is a decent level of difference atleast.

Specially if you include bowlers of Sarfaraz Nawaz's level and better than him.

Wasim, Waqar, Imran, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, Ambrose, Walsh ,Murali, Warne, Mcgrath, Gillespie, Lee, Saqlain, Vaas, Hadlee, Akthar, Morkel, Anderson, Bishop, Bond just from the top off my head.

Bedi, Chandra, Venkat, Prasanna, Kapil, Imran, Qadir, Sarfaraz, Wasim (yes Viv did face Wasim), Hadlee, Thomson, Lillee, Botham, Hogg, Underwood, Pascoe, Mcdermott, Iqbal Qasim

I don't see the lack of quality there.

 

[Cevno]

Bedi, Chandra, Venkat, Prasanna, Kapil, Imran, Qadir, Sarfaraz, Wasim (yes Viv did face Wasim), Hadlee, Thomson, Lillee, Botham, Hogg, Underwood, Pascoe, Mcdermott, Iqbal Qasim

I don't see the lack of quality there.

Decent difference in quality for me.Right from quality as in number of ATG'S and even quantity.

And if you are going to include Venkat,Qasim, Hogg then can include a lot more in this era too.
And not too forget some others who he is playing these days like Bresnan,Broad,Herath,Edwards etc... who may go on too improve further in the future like Wasim with Viv.

 

[Sanz]

Decent difference in quality for me.Right from quality as in number of ATG'S and even quantity.

And if you are going to include Venkat,Qasim, Hogg then can include a lot more in this era too.
And not too forget some others who he is playing these days like Bresnan,Broad,Herath,Edwards etc... who may go on too improve further in the future like Wasim with Viv.

I am appalled that Fidel Edwards,Bresnan, Broad'ss early years are compared with Wasim Akram's or Herath is compared with Venkat or Qasim. I think at moments like these I just like to stop taking a person seriously.

Thanks. I will just use the ignore button.

 

[Howe_zat]

Quality overreaction from Sanz.

I for one am appalled that Bresnan could be so insulted as to be compared with Wasim Akram.

 

[Cevno]

I am appalled that Fidel Edwards,Bresnan,Tremlet and Broad'ss early years are compared with Wasim Akram's or Herath is compared with Venkat or Qasim. I think at moments like these I just like to stop taking a person seriously.

Thanks. I will just use the ignore button.

Where did i compare Herath to Qasim?

And i never exactly compared Wasim's early years with any of them. Was just saying that Wasim wasn't a ATG when Viv faced him but a better bowler when Sachin faced him.

I.e when and if these bowlers, improve in the future they will be looked at in a better context than they are being currenty.Can use many other current examples, but it wasn't about specifics, but about a larger argument. Don't rate Edwards in any case.

Way to twist the point out of context into meaning something else though.

It's time like these when you realize the person you are arguing with is making Straw man arguments and looking to get out of it by twisting words and going onto a different tangent.
The ironic thing is that instead of arguing about the main point, now you want to argue about pedantic specifics.

Goodbye.

 

[Spark]

Herath's 33 or something like, isn't he?

 

[Cevno]

Herath's 33 or something like, isn't he?

Yeah, but could still end up with a average of around 30 odd in 50/60 tests.I.e Better than Venkat and similar to Qasim.

Not the best example,though i admit. There can be other better ones even currently.

 

[Sanz]

@Howe_zat, Please don't just pick one player, look at the whole post Venkat, Qasim like Herath ? He includes Lee, Anderson, Vass and then scoffs at my selection of Hogg ? You have to know when a person is serious and when he is trying to bait.

And I am sorry but Bresnan is no Akram, has not shown the early promise that Akram showed. I see no reason why he should be thought like a bowler who would end up anywhere close to Akram.

 

[Cevno]

@Howe_zat, Please don't just pick one player, look at the whole post Venkat, Qasim like Herath ? He includes Lee, Anderson, Vass and then scoffs at my selection of Hogg ? You have to know when a person is serious and when he is trying to bait.

Yeah.

Including likes of Pascoe and Hogg would be like including Stuart Clark and Tremlett then. Lee and Vaas performed over a way longer period and Anderson is still improving and his figures are affected by his initial years.

And Asif is another odd case i left out.

lol @ including Venkat though.

 

[Cevno]

And I am sorry but Bresnan is no Akram, has not shown the early promise that Akram showed. I see no reason why he should be thought like a bowler who would end up anywhere close to Akram.

Nobody said he was.

You need to understand context. When Akram bowled to Richards in his early years neither his figures were so good, neither was he regarded so highly.

Which is what i meant to illustrate.Not directly compare with anyone though say a Aamer in his early days before the ban would be a valid comparison if you want to do it directly.
Nobody can say for sure right know say how someone like a Finn, or a Bresnan will end up.

 

[marc71178]

@Howe_zat, Please don't just pick one player, look at the whole post Venkat, Qasim like Herath ? He includes Lee, Anderson, Vass and then scoffs at my selection of Hogg ? You have to know when a person is serious and when he is trying to bait.

Lee and Vaas are now quality bowlers?! SMH

 

[BlazeDragon]

Disagree. Tendulkar clearly faced the better attacks out of all of them.

Awta.

The conditions he faced were arguably the easiest but the attacks he faced were definitely the hardest.

 

[Manee]

Another point which is missed on CW, perhaps because it is accepted as stupid...

Perhaps once you get to a certain level, scoring runs is merely a 'state of mind' and concentration. What I mean to say is that someone averaging 50 in one generation could be compared to averaging 50 in another generation with more difficult conditions, to some extent. However, I think this discredits the idea of using any and all mathematical analyses to compare across generations. I think this ties in with 'form', too. When out of form, often a top quality batsman will be out of sorts at domestic level too. Therefore, it can be stated that when in form, a batsman could perform in more difficult conditions than he does.

 

[Prince EWS]

In the time I have spent away from these sort of debates on CC, I fear I may have fallen behind the accepted truths which develop constantly on CW. However, if we are to be debating which of the batsmen faced easiest bowling attacks and conditions, numbers are surely insufficient, as the general level of batting ability has risen in recent times in the top teams' top orders, such as India (pre-England tour), England, Australia and South Africa; and in the lower orders of all teams.

The fact that Bradman was a standout in his generation is valid and it could be said that he was the most 'special' or 'talented' batsman. However, I think a point could be made that if Jonathan Trott, with all of his modern coaching - had been placed into the Bradman-era, he could have achieved similar numbers. I'm not here to argue that Larwood wasn't a great bowler or anything like that, but just as lower order batting has improved, non-strike bowling has improved too. I think we can say that Mitchell Johnson is a far more threatening bowler than the majority of first change bowlers in the Bradman era.

The argument could be made that the hypothetical Jonathon Trott - the modern coached batsman, has been coached to play in the modern era of flat pitches and a constant battery of quick bowlers who perhaps move the ball less (in terms of centimeters) than previous generations. However, I do not think this holds too much weight.

I do fear that this post is some sort of CW blasphemy, as it would appear that such a view is often laughed away and heck, I may read this post and laugh too in a few days, but just something that popped into my head.

I don't see this as a stupid concept; I just see it as entirely irrelevant when analysing someone's quality. The idea that if Trott was sent back in a time machine right to the early 30s he'd average 150 with the bat isn't an idea I dismiss; I just really couldn't care less. One should be judged on how good they were at what their job was and how useful that job was in their time; whether or not Bradman would be any good now has no baring on how valuable he was to his team. Comparing across eras can only really be accurately done as a comparison of comparisons - compare a player to the mean of his time, then compare that comparison to a comparison of another player with the mean of his time. Anything beyond that is both speculative and irrelevant.

 

[Manee]

I don't see this as a stupid concept; I just see it as entirely irrelevant when analysing someone's quality. The idea that if Trott was sent back in a time machine right to the early 30s he'd average 150 with the bat isn't an idea I dismiss; I just really couldn't care less. One should be judged on how good they were at what their job was and how useful that job was in their time; whether or not Bradman would be any good now has no baring on how valuable he was to his team. Comparing across eras can only really be accurately done as a comparison of comparisons - compare a player to the mean of his time, then compare that comparison to a comparison of another player with the mean of his time. Anything beyond that is both speculative and irrelevant.

You have summed up the current position of CW excellently. Far better than I ever could. I must retreat from my position somewhat that what I stated is particularly important but it raises the possibility that perhaps the standard of cricket has improved quite a bit over the decades (of course, not strictly continuously) and therefore this can (/should?) be taken into account when creating World XIs.

As someone who holds the position which I have quoted, would I be right in assuming you would rate WG Grace highly in your considerations. Specifically in what respect, I think we both know and needs not to be explained, I would just like to know if he is someone who rates highly in your estimations.

 

[Prince EWS]

You have summed up the current position of CW excellently. Far better than I ever could. I must retreat from my position somewhat that what I stated is particularly important but it raises the possibility that perhaps the standard of cricket has improved quite a bit over the decades (of course, not strictly continuously) and therefore this can (/should?) be taken into account when creating World XIs..

I find it unlikely that the standard of cricket wouldn't have improved significantly over time just like most other sports in history, and indeed other evolving human activities, be they physically or mentally based, professionally or recreationally based. Knowledge gets passed down and refined upon as we grow as a society, learn more about our capabilities and adapt knowledge bases to different areas.

I just don't look at determining quality that way as it creates an unfair advantage as such. It's possible, even if not likely, that Stuart Broad has more refined batting ability than Jack Hobbs, but I just don't think it's relevant to how good they should be regarded. It's not something I've really devoted any time to formulating an opinion on because it wouldn't change my opinion as to Hobbs's stature as a cricketer at all.

Would I be right in assuming you would rate WG Grace highly in your considerations. Specifically in what respect, I think we both know and needs not to be explained, I would just like to know if he is someone who rates highly in your estimations.

Yep, Grace is someone I rate extremely highly. Given the methodology in which I rate players, I'm sure there's a great argument to suggest Grace was the best ever cricketer. I don't know enough about non-Test cricket from his time yet to rate him as such so far but I do believe that if I researched First Class cricket of that time more closely that it's a position I could one day hold.

 

[Furball]

I find it unlikely that the standard of cricket wouldn't have improved significantly over time just like most other sports in history, and indeed other evolving human activities, be they physically or mentally based, be they professionally or recreationally based. Knowledge gets passed down and refined upon as we grow as a society, learn more about our capabilities and adapt knowledge bases to different areas.

I just don't look at determining quality that way as it creates an unfair advantage as such. It's possible, even if not likely, that Stuart Broad has more refined batting ability than Jack Hobbs, but I just don't think it's relevant to how good they should be regarded. It's not something I've really devoted any time to formulating an opinion on because it wouldn't change my opinion as to Hobbs's stature as a cricketer at all.



Yep, Grace is someone I rate extremely highly. Given the methodology in which I rate players, I'm sure there's a great argument to suggest Grace was the best ever cricketer. I don't know enough about non-Test cricket from his time yet to rate him as such so far but I do believe that if I researched First Class cricket of that time more closely that it's a position I could one day hold.

Fertang's the man to ask on this one; from memory I think he's posted before that when Grace scored his 50th First Class century he'd scored something like 30% of all First Class centuries scored up until that point. IIRC whoever held 2nd position in the number of tons scored only had 10 FC hundreds to his name.

That's all from memory, so could be wrong.