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

[adharcric]

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

Honestly, what are you whining about? Please present your arguments instead of accusing people of acting blind to your (imaginary) arguments. You can do better mate.

 

[adharcric]

Apologies if I my comments are not completely relevant as Ive not fully read the thread.

There is no doubt that people, in general, have become bigger, faster and stronger over time.

The same is true in cricket. There are many more bowlers in the last 10-15 years capable of bowling fast. The problem when it comes to the fastest is that the very fastest are freaks that are born to bowl fast or have an action that helps.

Average speeds and the numbers have increased but top speed will not have changed much at all since the days of Larwood.

Also a point on 100m. The tracks are designed for speed now with hard synthetic materials and the shoes weigh a fraction of what they did and the starting blocks dont have to be dug out of shale any more. Those changes in the environment will have affected times as much if not far more than any changes in human physiology (unless PED related)

Excellent post. In fact, this becomes even more relevant as the current exercise effectively involves picking the best of the best - the "freaks" of two different eras. Natural progression in physical ability, though a very interesting topic of debate, may not be all that relevant in this case at all. Nevertheless, we must look deeper at the supposed "greatness" of the old-timers. Statistics? Bradman, Hobbs and Headley averaging 55+ - is that why? Can these numbers be taken for granted? Or is it based upon historical anecdotes regarding these players? In that case, are these accurate or simply glorified claims?

 

[silentstriker]

...about which you have no evidence to substantiate your claims.

I'm sorry, but are you claiming that people have not gotten bigger/faster/stronger, on average, over the last seventy years?

 

[Matt79]

Jeff Thompson was timed at around 148 km/h in the fastest bowler ever competition.

Pretty sure that was after his big injury, when not even his own mother would have said he was the bowler he had been.

 

[pasag]

Yeah was 1979.

 

[Fiery]

Yeah was 1979.

"we don't even care as restless as we are
we feel the pull in the land of a thousand guilts...."

 

[Matt79]

"Oh what a night.... late December back in '63" :

 

[Fiery]

"Oh what a night.... late December back in '63" :

"me and my baby in a 69"

 

[Perm]

"Oh what a night.... late December back in '63" :

Good tune.

 

[Fiery]

"Tonight I'm gonna party like it's 1999"

 

[neville cardus]

Apologies if I my comments are not completely relevant as Ive not fully read the thread.

There is no doubt that people, in general, have become bigger, faster and stronger over time.

The same is true in cricket. There are many more bowlers in the last 10-15 years capable of bowling fast.

How you could possibly make an assertion like that baffles me.

The problem when it comes to the fastest is that the very fastest are freaks that are born to bowl fast or have an action that helps.

Average speeds and the numbers have increased but top speed will not have changed much at all since the days of Larwood.

I agree with you there.

Also a point on 100m. The tracks are designed for speed now with hard synthetic materials and the shoes weigh a fraction of what they did and the starting blocks dont have to be dug out of shale any more. Those changes in the environment will have affected times as much if not far more than any changes in human physiology (unless PED related)

Precisely.

 

[neville cardus]

Some good points there, Goughy.

I do have to say though, with AM, that it is odd that it is bowlers who get the bum wrap when it comes to cross generational comparisons. Batsmen and fielders are more deserving.

This is most clear with spinners. It is difficult to see how the task of spinning the ball effectively down the pitch is any different now than 75 years ago. Warne and Murali are perhaps the best 2 spinners of all time - but they would be irrespective of whatever time period they were born in.

Looking at it the other way, the same could be said of O'Reilly and Grimmett.

The same applies to fast bowling. A great deal has been made of gym sessions and diet and nutrition and so on and so forth, but from all accounts fast bowlers used to bowl plenty and plenty of overs especially in country cricket. Indeed this was how they got match fit, by endless hours of bowling. Moreover, these individuals often came from backgrounds where physical labour was part and parcel of their daily lives and they often worked too, and were therefore not mollycoddled into 2 hours of training and a nap.

I would therefore say that, as Goughy has stated, it is likely that average speeds have improved due perhaps to the general increase in health and well-being of the human population, but in terms of maximum speeds I think the differences would be negligible. The best fast bowlers then were physically prepossessing specimens as they are now, and they do then what they do now, deliver the same ball down the same length as fast as possible.[/QUOTE]

Well said, Hobbsy, even if I don't agree with absolutely everything that you say.

 

[neville cardus]

Doesn't matter if it was measured in a laboratory or some guy's backyard. At that particular time no instruments existed that could measure the speed of a projectile moving that quickly with the level of accuracy needed to compare with the speeds of today's players. A stopwatch doesn't count.

Do you know anything about the methods used back to back up your questioning their reliability? Naturally, they wouldn't have been as good as today's equipment, but to write them off completely might not be fair.

 

[neville cardus]

Honestly, what are you whining about? Please present your arguments instead of accusing people of acting blind to your (imaginary) arguments. You can do better mate.

Indeed. My towel is firmly back in the ring.

 

[neville cardus]

I'm sorry, but are you claiming that people have not gotten bigger/faster/stronger, on average, over the last seventy years?

No. I am stating that there is little attestation of this.

 

[Dasa]

No. I am stating that there is little attestation of this.

Are you actually serious? There are numerous studies around that show how humans have gotten faster/stronger/taller/bigger over the past 25/50/70/100+ years. Arguing against it is like arguing the earth is flat, just about every piece of observable evidence goes against it. Unless you want to see a very narrow form of attestation, in which case, it's pretty hard for one person to actually see the evolution of humans in front of their very eyes...

 

[neville cardus]

Are you actually serious?

Not sure. I feign it quite often.

There are numerous studies around that show how humans have gotten faster/stronger/taller/bigger over the past 25/50/70/100+ years. Arguing against it is like arguing the earth is flat, just about every piece of observable evidence goes against it. Unless you want to see a very narrow form of attestation

Attestation, yes.

in which case, it's pretty hard for one person to actually see the evolution of humans in front of their very eyes...

I admit that my gen about the scientific side of things is somewhat imperfect, so I am more than happy to be proven to be off-beam there. Would you mind posting a few weblinks to help to edify me?

 

[Dasa]

Pretty difficult to find scientific articles available for free (or able to be posted here) around, but here's something that touches on a similar theme.

 

[neville cardus]

Pretty difficult to find scientific articles available for free (or able to be posted here) around, but here's something that touches on a similar theme.

Fascinating stuff, that; thanks for posting it.

I don't feel, though, that it provides conclusive evidence that ancient cricketers were inferior to their modern counterparts.

 

[Matt79]

oz_fan: I'm probably going to miss the next couple of polls. Assuming they are for the no. 5 batsman and the number 6 batsman/allrounder, can you please count my votes for:
5) Viv Richards (unless Hammond loses in the no.4 poll, in which case, I'll vote for Hammond)
and 6) Sobers.

If you're doing the bowlers, my votes go to Marshall and Lillee as the opening bowlers.