why do we trust anything from cricket history before tv at all?

[Howe_zat]

Flem made a good point

I'm not sure what to think

 

[fredfertang]

No lies - he just spoke the higher truth

 

[AndrewB]

As examples of past apparent hyperbole; a lot of descriptions put Syd Gregory as being a very talented player yet his record is poor even for the era. Woolley was proclaimed as the best left-hander in the world for years but overall his record does not match up to his right handed peers (average of 40 vs over 50 for Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hendren etc) and his test record is notably worse again with an average of 33.

To be fair, that's his bowling average. His batting average is 36.

 

[Starfighter]

To be fair, that's his bowling average. His batting average is 36.

Whateveeeerrrrrr. More pointedly, he still averages way less than those right handers I mentioned.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

This is why we need more PhD's in the cricketing world.

 

[Midwinter]

Cricket, like life, is all about context.

2 recent examples

Mitchell Johnson for most of carreer was a quick but erratic bowler who would occasional get it right and win a test.

then for 18 months he was the best fast bowler in the world and in that period comparable to the greatest fast bowlers in history.

Which bit of his career will remembered in the future ?

Also Steve Smith, is he the legspinning alrounder who played a few tests for australia, or the current player who is possibly the most successful current test batsman in the world ?

History is always being rewritten to suit the prejudices of the writer.

 

[trundler]

If by possibly you mean definitely then yes.

 

[Daemon]

This is why it's futile to debate how people would do if transported to a different time.

The best you can do is compare them against players that played each other in the same era.