Greg Chappell - just how good do people think he was?

[Richard]

oh like the average 35 runs per wicket taken

or that there were only about 6 completeed inning in the twenties in Australia under the score of 200.

yep..bad bad pitches

So the pitches where bits came out after a bit of rain and sun were fantastical, were they?

 

[archie mac]

The only country whose attack wasnt undeniably better in the 70s and 80s in Oz in late 90s. Everyone else's attack is miles better

In regard to former players, have a look at video clips. The keeper and slips are standing back about 10 yards to the "quick" bowlers and the batsmen would be considered clueless if they played today - u might as well call it a different sport

Not so sure about that, Larwood bowled a bouncer that went for six byes, sounds fairly quick to me

And if pace bowling has improved (I think it has) then surely spin bowling has slipped?

 

[Swervy]

Well then a player like O'Reilly who averaged about 16 ( from memory) in the SS must have been the greatest bowler of all time (I know he played in the 30s but I imagine the scoring was still very good)

well yeah he was a truely great bowler by all accounts

 

[Richard]

The best players playing against each other, with no quarter asked or given? Sounds like Test cricket to me

Not to me. Can't play Test cricket when the players are reprisenting one media-moghul and nothing whatsoever besides him.

Just because a board does not consider it FC does not interest me, the quality of the cricket should count, and certainly a 1000 times more deserving then Banga V Zims

Not IMO - both equally undeserving.

Quality and intent come into it for me. Packer didn't give a damn about the traditions of the game, all he wanted was cricket for his Nine Network.

 

[Swervy]

So the pitches where bits came out after a bit of rain and sun were fantastical, were they?

well you cant get around the fact that scoring back then was every bit as heavy as it is now

 

[Richard]

And if pace bowling has improved (I think it has) then surely spin bowling has slipped?

It hasn't slipped, it just doesn't have the same effect it used to due to the changed characteristics of pitches.

 

[Richard]

well you cant get around the fact that scoring back then was every bit as heavy as it is now

Err, relevance?

That might simply mean the batsmen were better then than now.

It's how the pitches played that matters, and by all accounts several were horror tracks which would see play called-off instantly and without a complaint from one quarter in this day-and-age.

 

[Swervy]

Err, relevance?

That might simply mean the batsmen were better then than now.

It's how the pitches played that matters, and by all accounts several were horror tracks which would see play called-off instantly and without a complaint from one quarter in this day-and-age.

but there were also plenty of damned good wickets, surely

 

[Richard]

Well there might have been, pitch-preparation was hardly first-rate in those days, though...

 

[Swervy]

I am sure I have read that pitches back then were of a pretty high standard, certainly were in the 30's anyway

 

[Richard]

In the 30s, hell yes, in the 20s? God no!

Everything I've read, near enough, suggests that there were advances in pitch-preparation in 1900 and 1930 (and, obviously, covering started in England in 1970 and in Australia in 1946\47).

Some of the pitches of yore in the 20s are enough to put you off cricket for life.

 

[Swervy]

In the 30s, hell yes, in the 20s? God no!

Everything I've read, near enough, suggests that there were advances in pitch-preparation in 1900 and 1930 (and, obviously, covering started in England in 1970 and in Australia in 1946\47).

Some of the pitches of yore in the 20s are enough to put you off cricket for life.

that might be the case, but an average of 35 runs per wicket in tests, to go with unseen before or since scoring in Australian domestic cant be written off simply because of better batsmen. It would either suggest that in the main, pitches werent as bad as you think, or the bowling was shocking and the batting was spectacular on very bad pitches.

Test match scoring actually dipped in the 1930s compared to the 20's, but I wouldnt actually put that down to a huge down turn in batting ability around the world (if pitches were better, it would suggest that the standard of bowling was better as time went on towrads the second world war, and anecdotal evidence that I have read would suggest this to be the case)

 

[archie mac]

Not to me. Can't play Test cricket when the players are reprisenting one media-moghul and nothing whatsoever besides him.

Not IMO - both equally undeserving.

Quality and intent come into it for me. Packer didn't give a damn about the traditions of the game, all he wanted was cricket for his Nine Network.

As far as the players were concerned they were representing their country and I know the Aust. considered themselves the real Aussie cricket team, and the other lot (ACB Team) as the 2nd side. Also all of the players to a man consider those matches the toughest cricket that they ever played.

Again I don't care who they played for it was quality cricket between two teams playing for their countries.

I can remember another game India V SA where Shaun Pollock scored a ton, and it was not given Test status because the ICC did not have a match ref. Again who cares

 

[archie mac]

In the 30s, hell yes, in the 20s? God no!

Everything I've read, near enough, suggests that there were advances in pitch-preparation in 1900 and 1930 (and, obviously, covering started in England in 1970 and in Australia in 1946\47).

Some of the pitches of yore in the 20s are enough to put you off cricket for life.

Not to be rude, but you neeed to do some more reading Richard, in Aust the pitches in the 1920s were some of the best ever, the use of Bulli soil (this ran out eventually) made them a batsman's dream, however when it rained they became a nightmare.

I have a feeling that Aust. pitches were covered in the 1920s for SS matches, I could be wrong but I remember reading something like that somewhere

 

[social]

That's crap.

West Indies in the 1970s and 80s (Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall, etc.) might have been better than the 1990s (Ambrose, Bishop, Walsh) but they were still hardly shabby.

England had Snow, Willis, Old, Hendrick, Botham, etc. in the 1970s and Fraser, Gough, Cork, Caddick, Headley, etc. in the 1990s. Probably stronger in the former.

South Africa didn't even play in the 1970s and 80s and in the 1990s had class like Donald, de Villiers, Matthews, McMillan, Pollock, Klusener, Kallis, etc.

India in the 1970s and 80s had Kapil Dev and not much else and in the 1990s had Srinath and Kumble. Far better in the latter.

Pakistan in the 1970s and 1980s had Sarfraz, Imran and Qadir - in the 1990s they had Wasim, Waqar, Mushtaq and Saqlain. Better in the latter.

Sri Lanka had Vaas and Murali in the 1990s and didn't play in the 1970s and had pretty average attacks in the 80s.

New Zealand had Collinge (at home at least), Hadlee and Chatfield in the 1970s and 80s and Morrison, Doull, Cairns and Nash in the 1990s. Nothing in it.

Zimbabwe didn't even play in the 1970s and 1980s and had Brandes, Streak, both Strangs, Olonga, etc. in the 1990s. Hardly the worst ever fielded.

All-in-all, I'd say the 1990s was probably the strongest decade for bowling in history.

Err, there is hardly any footage of the 1920s and before - most of the best stuff starts in the 1930s.

There are countless pieces of evidence to suggest wicketkeepers were far more willing back then than today to stand-up to the stumps.

Chappell retired in '83, Lara/Tendulkar at their peak in late 90s

WI had arguably the strongest attack in history during Chappell's era - no comparison

Eng - no comparison

SA played WSC (possibly the highest standard of cricket ever played) - Proctor, Van der Bijl, Le Roux, Hobson, Rice - beats anything they've put out since

Pakistan - Imran, Sarfraz and Qadir at their peak

NZ - Hadlee and nothing more needs to be said

India - had 4 of the greatest spinners ever playing in the one team and ball tampering was allowed

The rest are irrelevant

IMO, the late 70s/ early 80s was easily the strongest period for bowling in history.

As for standing up, it's true that w/k used that practice more in days gone by BUT it's only possible against medium pacers

 

[social]

Not so sure about that, Larwood bowled a bouncer that went for six byes, sounds fairly quick to me

And if pace bowling has improved (I think it has) then surely spin bowling has slipped?

No doubt that there were the odd exceptions but the game has changed monumentally since pre-war.

Today, we have:

a. vastly more countries playing in a variety of different conditions (whilst quantity does not equal quality, it is foolhardy to suggest that all players of yester-year could adapt to, say, sub-continental conditions);

b. deliveries that were unheard of 35 years ago (doosra and reverse swing);

c. infinitely improved fielding (diving in the field was frowned upon in the 60s);

d. massively improved fitness (Colin Cowdrey, Colin Milburn, Warwick Armstrong etc would not get a game today unless they lost shed-loads of weight);

e. professionalism - it's anyone's guess as to how former players would react to the scrutiny today's players find themselves under 9e.g. W.g. standing his ground and refusing to walk;

f. etc, etc etc

Just how people can be so sure that a group of amateurs (both literally and figuratively) would adapt and achieve the same level of success is totally beyond me.

For exampIe, IMO, it is ludicrous to select S.F. Barnes in an all-time X1 when he hardly played a test. The fact that he has been is more a romantic notion than anything else.

 

[archie mac]

No doubt that there were the odd exceptions but the game has changed monumentally since pre-war.

Today, we have:

a. vastly more countries playing in a variety of different conditions (whilst quantity does not equal quality, it is foolhardy to suggest that all players of yester-year could adapt to, say, sub-continental conditions);

Well the batsman could adapt to stick wickets, no helmets, the use of resin and still prospered, so I think they would have little to no trouble. Besides they have been tourning India and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) since the 1920s

b. deliveries that were unheard of 35 years ago (doosra and reverse swing);

When the wrong-un came in during the early 1900s they soon found a method to combat it, and also the change in the LBW law circa 1936, why would they be not able to cope with these new methods?

c. infinitely improved fielding (diving in the field was frowned upon in the 60s);

I will give you this one, but I think you will find they were diving in the 60s maybe not in the 40s, but even then the grounds were bigger the bats not as good, and surely they could still catch

d. massively improved fitness (Colin Cowdrey, Colin Milburn, Warwick Armstrong etc would not get a game today unless they lost shed-loads of weight);

A certain SL captain comes to mind

e. professionalism - it's anyone's guess as to how former players would react to the scrutiny today's players find themselves under 9e.g. W.g. standing his ground and refusing to walk;

They would have to just learn, I don't think any series has attracted the amount of newspaper copy as did the Bodyline tour

Just how people can be so sure that a group of amateurs (both literally and figuratively) would adapt and achieve the same level of success is totally beyond me.

For exampIe, IMO, it is ludicrous to select S.F. Barnes in an all-time X1 when he hardly played a test. The fact that he has been is more a romantic notion than anything else.

I will just leave this one

 

[silentstriker]

I am not sure how you can think the vastly improved fitness levels, training, film study etc has not had a massive impact on the game.

Sprinters from the 1930 would not be competitive in today's olympics if you transported them, why is cricket different?

 

[Sanz]

I am not sure how you can think the vastly improved fitness levels, training, film study etc has not had a massive impact on the game.

Sprinters from the 1930 would not be competitive in today's olympics if you transported them, why is cricket different?

Says who...Given the same facilities, I have no doubt in mind that they would be equally competitive.

 

[thierry henry]

Chappell retired in '83, Lara/Tendulkar at their peak in late 90s

WI had arguably the strongest attack in history during Chappell's era - no comparison

Eng - no comparison

SA played WSC (possibly the highest standard of cricket ever played) - Proctor, Van der Bijl, Le Roux, Hobson, Rice - beats anything they've put out since

Pakistan - Imran, Sarfraz and Qadir at their peak

NZ - Hadlee and nothing more needs to be said

India - had 4 of the greatest spinners ever playing in the one team and ball tampering was allowed

The rest are irrelevant

IMO, the late 70s/ early 80s was easily the strongest period for bowling in history.

yikes....bias