Playing selector: Lets pick the best test XI of different eras

[adharcric]

Yeah, 46-06 bowling will take it away.

 

[neville cardus]

On what, exactly, are the latter two assertions based?

Sydney Barnes was surely better than McGrath (or anyone else for that matter), while Spofforth probably had about him a more intimidating mien than anyone else through the game's long history of psychological warfare. For pace, Larwood is said to have been clocked around 160kph, and, as for O'Reilly, well, Neville Cardus (the real one) bracketed him with Barnes -- and little more than that need be said to attest to his kudos. Faulkner would be an awesome fifth option, worthy of his place in most sides regardless of his considerable batting ability, whilst Hammond was one of the most under-rated trundlers ever.

Warne, Murali, McGrath and Marshall were or are still all great bowlers -- some of them, indeed, may be said to be the equals of or even better than their opposite numbers in the 1946-to-2006 side --, but there is far more depth to the team drawn together from the game's beginning up to World War Two, and that team, I feel, would win comfortably (and I haven't even mentioned its batting, out of which Bradman's name glares so obtrusively).

Cheers
My blog: http://crickets-rich-tapestry.blogspot.com/

 

[adharcric]

The skill level in any sport should generally progress (not regress) with time. Larwood clocked 160? Dubious IMO. I don't want to get into evolution here but I cannot accept that cricketers have not progressed dramatically over the past century. Barnes over McGrath? Take a look at McGrath's feats on absolute roads and it's easy to imagine him outdoing Barnes on those pitches. On that note, Barnes may have a great record and reputation but I have a hard time comprehending his greatness - at no pace, can he really trouble competent batsmen with cutters, seamers and whatever else he did? I don't want to offend any Barnes lovers with my ignorance on the matter so I'll leave it at that. On another note, did the pre-war batsmen face anything like Murali or Warne? I'm no expert on cricket history but it will take one hell of a convincing argument for me to buy this stuff. The common argument seems to be "these greats would have adapted to a different era" - really? Do they even have the reflexes, technique, etc? I don't know. Enlighten me if you do.

 

[neville cardus]

The skill level in any sport should generally progress (not regress) with time. Larwood clocked 160?

Something along those lines; I read it in Bodyline Autopsy. I have heard that the fastest-ever serve in tennis was made in the 1930s: 260-odd kilometres, it was.

Dubious IMO. I don't want to get into evolution here but I cannot accept that cricketers have not progressed dramatically over the past century.

Probably they have -- but cricket (distinct from, say, the hundred-metre sprint) has no way of telling without a shadow of doubt. We can only review a player's worth in the all-time standings based on what he accomplished in the era in which he played, and by listening to and reading what his contemporaries had to say about him. Who is to say that, with modern coaching, equipment and techniques, the same players who succeeded during the Edwardian age would not grow to achieve similarly great things had they been born in this one?

Barnes over McGrath? Take a look at McGrath's feats on absolute roads and it's easy to imagine him outdoing Barnes on those pitches.

What about Barnes's celebrated display on a Melbourne featherbed in 1911/12?

On that note, Barnes may have a great record and reputation but I have a hard time comprehending his greatness - at no pace, can he really trouble competent batsmen with cutters, seamers and whatever else he did?

Plenty of other bowlers utilised those means and had comparatively little success; Barnes was far more than just a mixture of cutters and seamers. To give but one example, he had his own ball (the "Barnes Ball") which swung into the leg-stump before zipping back across the flailing batsman to remove his off-bail.

I don't want to offend any Barnes lovers with my ignorance on the matter so I'll leave it at that.

No, you make perfectly valid and comprehendible points, and it should be a joy to argue them with you. That is, after all, one of the purposes of forums such as this.

On another note, did the pre-war batsmen face anything like Murali or Warne?

O'Reilly and Verity come to mind...

I'm no expert on cricket history but it will take one hell of a convincing argument for me to buy this stuff.

Well, let's tuck in, then!

The common argument seems to be "these greats would have adapted to a different era" - really? Do they even have the reflexes, technique, etc? I don't know. Enlighten me if you do.

I don't see how I could know -- but one thing, for me, which does atest to the physical prowess of ancient cricketers was the distances that they could hit and throw a ball -- not that that's going to change your standpoint, of course.

 

[Matt79]

The skill level in any sport should generally progress (not regress) with time. Larwood clocked 160? Dubious IMO. I don't want to get into evolution here but I cannot accept that cricketers have not progressed dramatically over the past century. Barnes over McGrath? Take a look at McGrath's feats on absolute roads and it's easy to imagine him outdoing Barnes on those pitches. On that note, Barnes may have a great record and reputation but I have a hard time comprehending his greatness - at no pace, can he really trouble competent batsmen with cutters, seamers and whatever else he did? I don't want to offend any Barnes lovers with my ignorance on the matter so I'll leave it at that. On another note, did the pre-war batsmen face anything like Murali or Warne? I'm no expert on cricket history but it will take one hell of a convincing argument for me to buy this stuff. The common argument seems to be "these greats would have adapted to a different era" - really? Do they even have the reflexes, technique, etc? I don't know. Enlighten me if you do.

Well, its a basic premise of these kinds of debates, isn't it? You can either choose to look beyond the "standards have improved, so the most recent team will be better no matter what" premise and do it as a hypothetical, or not. Choosing to do so makes for much more interesting discussion, IMO. Of course, it would be sensible to remember the "assumptions" you're making to permit that comparison (ie. that being relatively brilliant in your time would translate, that champions would adjust given a few warm-up games, etc).

If you don't make that assumption, then its a simple question. The greatest XI of all time is probably Steve Waugh's Australians circa their 16 win streak. Their more developed skills, equipment, and training would see them dominate any team that's gone before.

If we play this hypothetical game, I reckon it would actually be extremely close. I don't want to be a fence-sitter but I really don't think a consistent winner would emerge, but I'd be at the ground at 9am everyday to watch.

 

[neville cardus]

Well said, Matt. This whole exercise (composing an all-time eleven) would be an outright meaningless one were we to assume Adharcric’s outlook -- which is one with which I am not in any sort of concurrence anyway. Still, it does promise to be a very interesting debate.

 

[silentstriker]

It's not something that's really an option. A sprinter from 1930 probably wouldn't even make it out of the qualifiers today. The question is whether he would be just as good if he had access to the same coaching methods, nutrition, etc. And the fact is, there is no way to know how a specific body would respond to such things. It could be that he would shatter all records, or it could be that his body had a natural limit that was already reached and he would be a failure today.

 

[neville cardus]

It's not something that's really an option. A sprinter from 1930 probably wouldn't even make it out of the qualifiers today.

Alas, 'tis patently true.

The question is whether he would be just as good if he had access to the same coaching methods, nutrition, etc.

Indeed. A point that I made quite well, I think.

And the fact is, there is no way to know how a specific body would respond to such things. It could be that he would shatter all records, or it could be that his boy had a natural limit that was already reached and he would be a failure today.

We can only make generalised assumptions.

 

[adharcric]

Fair enough. Completely getting rid of that uncertainty when comparing cricketers across eras may just be impossible then. In a sense, I'm not sure how much you can "carry" with a player when "transporting" him to another era - coaching methods and nutrition are one thing, but is it not likely that modern cricketers simply have better natural reflexes, physical aptitude, etc? Even with a few valid assumptions (SS, the ones you mentioned), there may be a good deal of uncertainty. Decent arguments so far, but I'm not convinced.

 

[shortpitched713]

Something along those lines; I read it in Bodyline Autopsy. I have heard that the fastest-ever serve in tennis was made in the 1930s: 260-odd kilometres, it was.

Convenient that these reported fastest milestones happened at a time in which there was no way to measure them...

 

[adharcric]

Convenient that these reported fastest milestones happened at a time in which there was no way to measure them...

Yep, forgot to mention that. Very dubious claims.

 

[neville cardus]

Convenient

Convenient, you say? How so, might I ask? If you are insinuating that I made this up, please bear with me as I cite six verifiable sources:

"'Big Bill' Tilden, in 1931, was credited with 163.3 mph (262.8 km/h)." -- Tingay, Lance:
"He had the reputation of being the fastest server of his day. In 1931, his serve was measured at an incredible 163 miles per hour. Although speed-measuring machines may not have been as accurate as they are today, certainly Tilden was one of the hardest servers in tennis history." - Conner, Floyd: ''Tennis Most Wanted (P): The Top Ten Books of Baseline Blunders, Clay Court Wonders, and Lucky Lobs'' (Brassey's, 2002), p. 17.
''The Book of Tennis Facts and Feats'' (Harcourt Brace, 1984), p. 19.
"The fastest service ever measured was one of 163.6 mph by William Tatem Tilden (1893-1953) (US) in 1931." - McWhirter, Norris: ''Guinness World Records'' (Guinness Superlatives Ltd, 1982), p. 508.
"Fastest Service The fastest service ever measured was one of 163.6 mph by William
Tatem Tilden (1893-1953) (US) in 1931." - McFarlan, Donald; McWhirter, Norris: ''Guinness Book of World Records 1990'' (), p. 627.
"'Big Bill' Tilden delivered the fastest serve ever officially measured. It was timed at 163.6 mph in 1931." - p. Newcomb, John: ''The Book of Tennis Lists'' (Norman Giller, 1985), p. 21.

that these reported fastest milestones happened at a time in which there was no way to measure them...

Not quite. If there was no way of measuring them, they wouldn't have been measured, now would they? I think that I have done enough to demonstrate that I am correct in saying that they were. Admittedly, Tilden's serve has been discredited, owing to the comparatively primitive measuring equipment of the time -- but surely it couldn't have been *that* far off? (Modern technology, incidentally, has Andy Roddick at 246.2 km/h.)

 

[archie mac]

On what, exactly, are the latter two assertions based?

Sydney Barnes was surely better than McGrath (or anyone else for that matter), while Spofforth probably had about him a more intimidating mien than anyone else through the game's long history of psychological warfare. For pace, Larwood is said to have been clocked around 160kph, and, as for O'Reilly, well, Neville Cardus (the real one) bracketed him with Barnes -- and little more than that need be said to attest to his kudos. Faulkner would be an awesome fifth option, worthy of his place in most sides regardless of his considerable batting ability, whilst Hammond was one of the most under-rated trundlers ever.

Warne, Murali, McGrath and Marshall were or are still all great bowlers -- some of them, indeed, may be said to be the equals of or even better than their opposite numbers in the 1946-to-2006 side --, but there is far more depth to the team drawn together from the game's beginning up to World War Two, and that team, I feel, would win comfortably (and I haven't even mentioned its batting, out of which Bradman's name glares so obtrusively).

Cheers
My blog: http://crickets-rich-tapestry.blogspot.com/

Give it away mate, it seems unless people on this forum were there watching a player then it is impossible for them to consider they could be as good as modern players.

For some reason it is the bowlers who played before 1970 that cop the worst rap

 

[neville cardus]

Give it away mate, it seems unless people on this forum were there watching a player then it is impossible for them to consider they could be as good as modern players.

You're right; 'tis truly a lost cause. I hereby throw in the towel.

For some reason it is the bowlers who played before 1970 that cop the worst rap

I believe that that's chiefly because of the emergence of Lillian Thompson and the other blood-spilling quickies of the 'seventies and 'eighties. It has been made clear here that physical prowess is in a big criterion in this debate, and we have definite proof (in every broken nose and rib) that those Aussies and West Indians had it in abundance. This in mind, I ask the doubters, "What about the immortally-quick Kortright and his being the only man known to have banged in a fast one only to watch it bounce steeply off the wicket and sail over the batsman's head, the 'keeper's head and the boundary ropes for six byes?"

Archie, you up for a Google Chat thingy t'night?

 

[silentstriker]

Give it away mate, it seems unless people on this forum were there watching a player then it is impossible for them to consider they could be as good as modern players.

For some reason it is the bowlers who played before 1970 that cop the worst rap

Because having physical tools such as strength, endurance, stamina, etc are much more important for a fast bowler than a batsman. I don't think anyone would dispute that bowlers are faster, stronger and more athletic now than ever (and this can be proven in by looking at any individual sport), and therefore most people believe (and rightly so) that players from another era would tend to struggle if somehow transported to here and now (and the same will likely be true of the current players fifty years from now).

What is under debate is how these players of old would have performed if they had access to modern technologies from birth. So no, I don't believe Larwood was as fast as Lee. Yes, it's possible, but if I was a betting man, I would definitely put my money against it. It would be the height of peculiarity if in every sport where things such as speed and distance are measured, athletes have gotten markedly better (by huge margins) in the last seventy years and somehow cricket has remained as an exception.

The fantastic thing is that now we have measuring instruments that are pretty good and they are pretty universal in their availability, so in fifty years we may be able to compare things like bowling speed directly.

 

[neville cardus]

Because having physical tools such as strength, endurance, stamina, etc are much more important for a fast bowler than a batsman.

Not necessarily. Compare the physiques of Merv Hughes and Matthew Hayden, for example...

I don't think anyone would dispute that bowlers are faster, stronger and more athletic now than ever

I do.

(and this can be proven in by looking at any individual sport),

Cricket is a team sport.

and therefore most people believe (and rightly so)

Have you any circumstantial evidence that their believing in this is "rightly so"? Whereas I have backed up my argument with a few (albeit very poor) facts, you lot feel the need to drone on in all your boundlessly monotonous cynicism with sweeping, unsubstantiated comments such as those quoted above. It annoys me thoroughly -- even more so because, in my heart of hearts, I know it to be, very probably, correct.

that players from another era would tend to struggle if somehow transported to here and now (and the same will likely be true of the current players fifty years from now).

What is under debate is how these players of old would have performed if they had access to modern technologies from birth.

An altogether fairer means of conducting the argument, I feel.

So no, I don't believe Larwood was as fast as Lee.

Have you seen any newsreel footage of Larwood bowling?

Yes, it's possible, but if I was a betting man, I would definitely put my money against it. It would be the height of peculiarity if in every sport where things such as speed and distance are measured, athletes have gotten markedly better (by huge margins) in the last seventy years and somehow cricket has remained as an exception.

Cricket is an exception to most rules.

The fantastic thing is that now we have measuring instruments that are pretty good and they are pretty universal in their availability, so in fifty years we may be able to compare things like bowling speed directly.

Alas...!

 

[archie mac]

The thing is Thomson was clocked at 100mph, and that is 30 years ago, why haven't the modern bowlers consistently improved on this mark?

Marshall was only a short man when compared to modern fast bowlers and let me tell you he was as fast as anything I have ever watched

It seems to me that fast bowlers have not improved in the last 30 years, so why would they have imrpoved so much from 1975 compared to 1935?

And again fast bowling requires speed and they have hardly improved on the 100m of the 1936 games.

 

[silentstriker]

Not necessarily. Compare the physiques of Merv Hughes and Matthew Hayden, for example...

Neither of them are fast bowlers, and you cannot look at exceptions. You have to look at the norm.

Cricket is a team sport.

Oh, so human beings have gotten faster individually but if you put the individuals in a team sport, they revert to their previous slow speeds?

Have you seen any newsreel footage of Larwood bowling?

Unfortunately not, hence I said 'probably'. He could have been as fast or faster, but all evidence taken from how human beings do in sports that have relatively accurate measurements (sprinting) show that elite athletes are faster and stronger now than they were back then.

Cricket is an exception to most rules.

Oh I see. Cricket is immune to the increase in stamina, speed, explosiveness, strength? That's a surprise to me.

 

[archie mac]

You're right; 'tis truly a lost cause. I hereby throw in the towel.



I believe that that's chiefly because of the emergence of Lillian Thompson and the other blood-spilling quickies of the 'seventies and 'eighties. It has been made clear here that physical prowess is in a big criterion in this debate, and we have definite proof (in every broken nose and rib) that those Aussies and West Indians had it in abundance. This in mind, I ask the doubters, "What about the immortally-quick Kortright and his being the only man known to have banged in a fast one only to watch it bounce steeply off the wicket and sail over the batsman's head, the 'keeper's head and the boundary ropes for six byes?"

Archie, you up for a Google Chat thingy t'night?

Tonight about 12 hours from now

Once on this forum I was asked to state just one field where humans have not improved, I gave the example of Cardus and one WS, I was told that even writng had improved!??since then I try not to argue about great bowlers of the past

 

[silentstriker]

The thing is Thomson was clocked at 100mph, and that is 30 years ago, why haven't the modern bowlers consistently improved on this mark?

Marshall was only a short man when compared to modern fast bowlers and let me tell you he was as fast as anything I have ever watched

It seems to me that fast bowlers have not improved in the last 30 years, so why would they have imrpoved so much from 1975 compared to 1935?

And again fast bowling requires speed and they have hardly improved on the 100m of the 1936 games.

Jeff Thompson was timed at around 148 km/h in the fastest bowler ever competition. I don't really take that as a game situation, but outside of that controlled test, there really weren't cameras available at the grounds themselves, so I doubt he was ever all that fast. His chances of being 100mph are a lot better than Larwood's though, and its all a sliding case of probability. And I am not sure if fast bowlers' speed has necessarily gone down since 1975 ('better' is a relative term, 'faster' is not). I think on average, the bowlers are as fast as they've ever been in the last decade (the pitches have gotten worse to bowl on, and perhaps there was a time where the WI skewed the formula a bit with a lot of fast bowlers), but on average, I do think they've gotten faster.