Deceased XI vs. Living XI

[neville cardus]

I agree but for three changes...
Headley vs. Tendulkar
Winner: The living

You could argue a decent case there.

Muralitharan vs. Barnes
Winner: The living

But not there.

 

[neville cardus]

I agree but for three changes...
Headley vs. Tendulkar
Winner: The living

You could argue a decent case there.

Muralitharan vs. Barnes
Winner: The living

But not there.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

But not there.

If Barnes is one of the greatest fast bowlers ever then Murali is also one of very best spinners ever.So,I don't understand how is that not arguable?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I agree but for three changes...

Headley vs. Tendulkar
Winner: The living

Muralitharan vs. Barnes
Winner: The living

This would change scale in favor of the living 6-5:

That's two changes?

 

[Perm]

Who would win in the ultimate grudge match between the living and the dead (appropriate for Halloween when these two worlds collide)

Dead XI:

1 Hobbs
2. Hutton
3. Bradman
4. Hammond
5 Headley
6 Barrington
7 Grout (wk)
8 Marshall
9 Trueman
10 O'Reilly
11 Barnes

Living XI:

1 Gavaskar
2 Hayden
3 Ponting
4 Lara
5 Tendulkar
6 Sobers
7 Gilchrist (wk)
8 Imran Khan
9 Warne
10 Muralitharan
11 McGrath

The Dead XI would win this at a canter IMO. Bradman and Hobbs are arguably the two best batsman to have graced Test cricket, while George Headley, Wally Hammond and Len Hutton are all possible top ten material. Hayden and Ponting would be no match for them, and while the Living XI has more batting depth they don't contain the same quality. I'd actually be tempted to pop Les Ames in the Dead XI, as one of the best wicket-keeper batsman of all time.

The two best bowlers the world has seen are both in the Dead XI, while the Living XI have the possibly stonger attackas a whole I'd have to say the inclusion of Barnes would be bowler likely to make a difference.

 

[Olwe]

in the bowling what about Jim Laker, Tony Lock and Alec Bedster and you could constider Peter May for batting
.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I reckon that Hayden would just get owned by Barnes/Marshall on an old school pitch tbh.

 

[The Sean]

I reckon that Hayden would just get owned by Barnes/Marshall on an old school pitch tbh.

You're probably right, but:

1. Many of us wouldn't pick him as one of the openers for the Living XI.
2. He's not the only batsman those two bowlers could make look like a muppet.

 

[PhoenixFire]

You're probably right, but:

1. Many of us wouldn't pick him as one of the openers for the Living XI.
2. He's not the only batsman those two bowlers could make look like a muppet.

For sure, I agree with that, although I should have pointed out that my comment was directed at Days of Grace, because he had Hayden in his side.

 

[Manee]

The fact that everyone wishes to say that the Dead XI will win in a flash is proof that people are more appriciated after they die. It is a sad truth.

In a Test match, the current generation has (has had in the recent past) some of the finest players to ever grace the turf and 50 (...and 100, and 150, etc) years ago was a lower standard, in my opinion, to the one we have now. Stats lie in terms of the past. The best bowlers could exploit uncovered pitches and the best batsman could exploit the poor bowlers who I believe were rife from 50 years back.

Believe it or not, the World's Fastest Bowler competition showed that likely only Thommo in his prime (of that generation) could scale 150kph, keeping in mind he bowled in that competition after his back injury. He is regarded by many as the fastest ever and likely around about the same pace as the express bowlers of the past. How would they fair against Lee and Akhtar, both in their primes, chucking (sorry Richard) them down at 150kph every ball with quite decent accuracy and the know-how to swing the ball both ways and reverse swing the ball.

If we were to look at the statistical marvels of the Dead and Living, then the Dead may come on top but if we can look upon what the Dead would struggle with, then it would be a much more even contest. I know he is in most teams but Muralitharan for one would give the Dead a lot of problems, could they pick his doosra? I do not think so. Could they pick Warne's slider or even deal with the pace of the two aforementioned.

The fact is that we live in the age of cricketers being physical specimens and although Tyson may have bowled the odd one at 155kph, the fact is I refuse to believe that he had the physical prowess (sp?) to keep it up for long and his spells would become almost a lottery of whether he can produce the wicket-ball in the limited time before his energy runs out. These days, there are people with great pace in small doses like Shaun Tait but there is also Brett Lee, who even now is bowling 5-7 over ODI spells at an excess of 145kph. Would the Dead have ever of had to deal with sustained spells of extreme pace?

Sir Don may give the Dead a huge advantage, but with the advent of video analysis in super-slow-motion, maybe the Living could 'figure him out'. I could go on and on but I feel the Living would prevail and if not, it would certainly be a better contest than you said.

I fearfully await someone to quote each part of my post and disagree with it but these are the basic jist of my views.

 

[Days of Grace]

Excellent post, t.b.h.

And who else would you pick for the living XI's opener? Barry Richards? Boycott? Gooch?

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

The fact that everyone wishes to say that the Dead XI will win in a flash is proof that people are more appriciated after they die. It is a sad truth.

In a Test match, the current generation has (has had in the recent past) some of the finest players to ever grace the turf and 50 (...and 100, and 150, etc) years ago was a lower standard, in my opinion, to the one we have now. Stats lie in terms of the past. The best bowlers could exploit uncovered pitches and the best batsman could exploit the poor bowlers who I believe were rife from 50 years back.

Believe it or not, the World's Fastest Bowler competition showed that likely only Thommo in his prime (of that generation) could scale 150kph, keeping in mind he bowled in that competition after his back injury. He is regarded by many as the fastest ever and likely around about the same pace as the express bowlers of the past. How would they fair against Lee and Akhtar, both in their primes, chucking (sorry Richard) them down at 150kph every ball with quite decent accuracy and the know-how to swing the ball both ways and reverse swing the ball.

If we were to look at the statistical marvels of the Dead and Living, then the Dead may come on top but if we can look upon what the Dead would struggle with, then it would be a much more even contest. I know he is in most teams but Muralitharan for one would give the Dead a lot of problems, could they pick his doosra? I do not think so. Could they pick Warne's slider or even deal with the pace of the two aforementioned.

The fact is that we live in the age of cricketers being physical specimens and although Tyson may have bowled the odd one at 155kph, the fact is I refuse to believe that he had the physical prowess (sp?) to keep it up for long and his spells would become almost a lottery of whether he can produce the wicket-ball in the limited time before his energy runs out. These days, there are people with great pace in small doses like Shaun Tait but there is also Brett Lee, who even now is bowling 5-7 over ODI spells at an excess of 145kph. Would the Dead have ever of had to deal with sustained spells of extreme pace?

Sir Don may give the Dead a huge advantage, but with the advent of video analysis in super-slow-motion, maybe the Living could 'figure him out'. I could go on and on but I feel the Living would prevail and if not, it would certainly be a better contest than you said.

I fearfully await someone to quote each part of my post and disagree with it but these are the basic jist of my views.

So your points are:

Lee and Akhtar would make fools of the dead XI
The dead XI couldn't deal with Murali or Warne
That cricketers are somehow better today
That the living XI would find a way to "work out" Bradman??

You bring up Tyson being one of the fastest bowlers ever, and deal with that predicament by merely stating "I refuse to believe he was that fast"?

 

[Unattainableguy]

The fact that everyone wishes to say that the Dead XI will win in a flash is proof that people are more appriciated after they die. It is a sad truth.

In a Test match, the current generation has (has had in the recent past) some of the finest players to ever grace the turf and 50 (...and 100, and 150, etc) years ago was a lower standard, in my opinion, to the one we have now. Stats lie in terms of the past. The best bowlers could exploit uncovered pitches and the best batsman could exploit the poor bowlers who I believe were rife from 50 years back.

Believe it or not, the World's Fastest Bowler competition showed that likely only Thommo in his prime (of that generation) could scale 150kph, keeping in mind he bowled in that competition after his back injury. He is regarded by many as the fastest ever and likely around about the same pace as the express bowlers of the past. How would they fair against Lee and Akhtar, both in their primes, chucking (sorry Richard) them down at 150kph every ball with quite decent accuracy and the know-how to swing the ball both ways and reverse swing the ball.

If we were to look at the statistical marvels of the Dead and Living, then the Dead may come on top but if we can look upon what the Dead would struggle with, then it would be a much more even contest. I know he is in most teams but Muralitharan for one would give the Dead a lot of problems, could they pick his doosra? I do not think so. Could they pick Warne's slider or even deal with the pace of the two aforementioned.

The fact is that we live in the age of cricketers being physical specimens and although Tyson may have bowled the odd one at 155kph, the fact is I refuse to believe that he had the physical prowess (sp?) to keep it up for long and his spells would become almost a lottery of whether he can produce the wicket-ball in the limited time before his energy runs out. These days, there are people with great pace in small doses like Shaun Tait but there is also Brett Lee, who even now is bowling 5-7 over ODI spells at an excess of 145kph. Would the Dead have ever of had to deal with sustained spells of extreme pace?

Sir Don may give the Dead a huge advantage, but with the advent of video analysis in super-slow-motion, maybe the Living could 'figure him out'. I could go on and on but I feel the Living would prevail and if not, it would certainly be a better contest than you said.

I fearfully await someone to quote each part of my post and disagree with it but these are the basic jist of my views.

Agree with everything you said, esp the first sentence.

 

[Perm]

The fact that everyone wishes to say that the Dead XI will win in a flash is proof that people are more appriciated after they die. It is a sad truth.

In a Test match, the current generation has (has had in the recent past) some of the finest players to ever grace the turf and 50 (...and 100, and 150, etc) years ago was a lower standard, in my opinion, to the one we have now. Stats lie in terms of the past. The best bowlers could exploit uncovered pitches and the best batsman could exploit the poor bowlers who I believe were rife from 50 years back.

Believe it or not, the World's Fastest Bowler competition showed that likely only Thommo in his prime (of that generation) could scale 150kph, keeping in mind he bowled in that competition after his back injury. He is regarded by many as the fastest ever and likely around about the same pace as the express bowlers of the past. How would they fair against Lee and Akhtar, both in their primes, chucking (sorry Richard) them down at 150kph every ball with quite decent accuracy and the know-how to swing the ball both ways and reverse swing the ball.

If we were to look at the statistical marvels of the Dead and Living, then the Dead may come on top but if we can look upon what the Dead would struggle with, then it would be a much more even contest. I know he is in most teams but Muralitharan for one would give the Dead a lot of problems, could they pick his doosra? I do not think so. Could they pick Warne's slider or even deal with the pace of the two aforementioned.

The fact is that we live in the age of cricketers being physical specimens and although Tyson may have bowled the odd one at 155kph, the fact is I refuse to believe that he had the physical prowess (sp?) to keep it up for long and his spells would become almost a lottery of whether he can produce the wicket-ball in the limited time before his energy runs out. These days, there are people with great pace in small doses like Shaun Tait but there is also Brett Lee, who even now is bowling 5-7 over ODI spells at an excess of 145kph. Would the Dead have ever of had to deal with sustained spells of extreme pace?

Sir Don may give the Dead a huge advantage, but with the advent of video analysis in super-slow-motion, maybe the Living could 'figure him out'. I could go on and on but I feel the Living would prevail and if not, it would certainly be a better contest than you said.

I fearfully await someone to quote each part of my post and disagree with it but these are the basic jist of my views.

DWTA.

 

[pasag]

The fact that everyone wishes to say that the Dead XI will win in a flash is proof that people are more appriciated after they die. It is a sad truth.

In a Test match, the current generation has (has had in the recent past) some of the finest players to ever grace the turf and 50 (...and 100, and 150, etc) years ago was a lower standard, in my opinion, to the one we have now. Stats lie in terms of the past. The best bowlers could exploit uncovered pitches and the best batsman could exploit the poor bowlers who I believe were rife from 50 years back.

Believe it or not, the World's Fastest Bowler competition showed that likely only Thommo in his prime (of that generation) could scale 150kph, keeping in mind he bowled in that competition after his back injury. He is regarded by many as the fastest ever and likely around about the same pace as the express bowlers of the past. How would they fair against Lee and Akhtar, both in their primes, chucking (sorry Richard) them down at 150kph every ball with quite decent accuracy and the know-how to swing the ball both ways and reverse swing the ball.

If we were to look at the statistical marvels of the Dead and Living, then the Dead may come on top but if we can look upon what the Dead would struggle with, then it would be a much more even contest. I know he is in most teams but Muralitharan for one would give the Dead a lot of problems, could they pick his doosra? I do not think so. Could they pick Warne's slider or even deal with the pace of the two aforementioned.

The fact is that we live in the age of cricketers being physical specimens and although Tyson may have bowled the odd one at 155kph, the fact is I refuse to believe that he had the physical prowess (sp?) to keep it up for long and his spells would become almost a lottery of whether he can produce the wicket-ball in the limited time before his energy runs out. These days, there are people with great pace in small doses like Shaun Tait but there is also Brett Lee, who even now is bowling 5-7 over ODI spells at an excess of 145kph. Would the Dead have ever of had to deal with sustained spells of extreme pace?

Sir Don may give the Dead a huge advantage, but with the advent of video analysis in super-slow-motion, maybe the Living could 'figure him out'. I could go on and on but I feel the Living would prevail and if not, it would certainly be a better contest than you said.

I fearfully await someone to quote each part of my post and disagree with it but these are the basic jist of my views.

Haha, I like you alot Manee but this post is so off the mark it's not funny.

Just to touch on your first comment, to say 'The fact that everyone wishes to say that the Dead XI will win in a flash is proof that people are more appreciated after they die. It is a sad truth.' is pretty much an insult to those who have spent time reading and analysing cricket and its history, so for you to just dismiss it as being biased to the past is unfair to say the least.

If anything I will counter your cliche with another one that heroes of yesteryear are easily forgotten and people are biased with what they see right in front of them, easily forgetting what went before.

The past generations where a lower standard? Lol, which matches are you watching Manee? The current bowling attacks are the worst of all time, when some of these players manage to get two balls that aren't wides in a row they have cause for celebration. Bowling standards are at an all time low and you're saying pretty much the opposite!

Imagine Bradman taking on Jimmy Anderson and Sajid Mahmood, Jack Hobbs vs AA!

You say that Bradman could be mastered by video technology? Well that's what happened, they figured out that leg-theory might be his weakness so it should be employed against him. And it worked to an extent. But then you also know what happened? He began to figure it out, and conquerer it so by the time the series was over, many were saying that if it went on for another few matches Bradman would have been its master. Because that's what champions do, they adapt.

Believe it or not, Bradman wasn't able to score so heavily because of luck or he just happened to get so many good scores. He did it because he had brilliant timing, footwork, skill and hand eye coordination on top of super human concentration, an unparreled batsman. These things mean he would have been the best ever if he played in any generation, let alone todays with the lower level of standard of bowlers.

And when there is a lower level of standard of bowlers, batsmen suffer. So that when like the Ashes 2005 you suddenly have some quality attack appear, the batsmen dont know what to do with themselves. Plus bat sizes, field sizes, batsmen are advantaged like never before. Players of yesteryear went without these luxuries.

And if we transported the dead here and gave them all these luxuries how much better would they do? If we allowed them access to best technologies, bigger bats, better medical treatment. If they could have a laptop to watch their innings and help work on their flaws! And if we transported the living back and denied them such things. And put them on stickies! You see the argument has another side Manee.

I could go on, but I fear I'm starting to ramble. Hope I didn't sound to harsh but it's a terrible thing, in my opinion to dismiss sportsmen of the past, especially cricket with such a glorious history, just like that. And to dismiss people who study it as biased to them is just as unfair.

NB - I would take the 1979 speed test figures with a massive grain of salt. It was good as a point of refeference but 150 =/ 150 of today.

NB II - I'm Lee's biggest fan, but jeez.

 

[Athlai]

The argument shouldn't be dismissed so easily, as opposed to 'the heroe's of yesteryear' the players of today are better athletes.

Today we run faster, jump higher etc. etc.

Is that because we are physically any different from people 50-100-150 years ago. Of course not, it's due to the way training and the basic standard of sports have changed. If the players of those times were to play today they would be 'better' not due to the 'rubbish' attacks of today (which I disagree with) but due to the fact they would be eating the best food's, receiving better training and coaching. All the tools of the modern world would be at their disposal to optimise their physical performances.

If a time machine was created and we took a hero from yesteryear into today they would almost certainly do worse than they once did and if we took a star of today and sent them back they would likely do better than they currently are.

This is due to IMO the general standard of cricket improving, more players can bat well, all the strokes, timing has improved, bats have improved. Bowlers are faster and more accurate because the previous excursions of the 'dead' XI helped to raise the bar. It is because of those fantastic players that the standards are ever lifting which is true of all sports.

You cannot compare the two generations, because frankly they are incomparable.

Would a Ponting growing up in 1920 be the player he is today? Not likely. Yet you never know.

If a time machine were created and these two generations were to play I would certainly favour the living and IMO it's not taking anything away from the dead.

Note: Bradman is an exception. He was unique. Could modern training assist him? It's a terrifying thought.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

The argument shouldn't be dismissed so easily, as opposed to 'the heroe's of yesteryear' the players of today are better athletes.

Today we run faster, jump higher etc. etc.

Is that because we are physically any different from people 50-100-150 years ago. Of course not, it's due to the way training and the basic standard of sports have changed. If the players of those times were to play today they would be 'better' not due to the 'rubbish' attacks of today (which I disagree with) but due to the fact they would be eating the best food's, receiving better training and coaching. All the tools of the modern world would be at their disposal to optimise their physical performances.

If a time machine was created and we took a hero from yesteryear into today they would almost certainly do worse than they once did and if we took a star of today and sent them back they would likely do better than they currently are.

This is due to IMO the general standard of cricket improving, more players can bat well, all the strokes, timing has improved, bats have improved. Bowlers are faster and more accurate because the previous excursions of the 'dead' XI helped to raise the bar. It is because of those fantastic players that the standards are ever lifting which is true of all sports.

You cannot compare the two generations, because frankly they are incomparable.

Would a Ponting growing up in 1920 be the player he is today? Not likely. Yet you never know.

If a time machine were created and these two generations were to play I would certainly favour the living and IMO it's not taking anything away from the dead.

Note: Bradman is an exception. He was unique. Could modern training assist him? It's a terrifying thought.

There's no solid evidence for any of this. It's all supposition.

 

[Athlai]

There's no solid evidence for any of this. It's all supposition.

Unless the same person exists twice then you aren't able to correctly test if athletes are improving. Yet generally all athletics scores are improving likely due to the professionalism of modern sports.

An educated guess if a guess all the same.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Unless the same person exists twice then you aren't able to correctly test if athletes are improving. Yet generally all athletics scores are improving likely due to the professionalism of modern sports.

An educated guess if a guess all the same.

That's my point. You can't prove if cricketers from one generation are any "better" than another.

 

[Athlai]

That's my point. You can't prove if cricketers from one generation are any "better" than another.

I agree whole heartedly.

Yet the point I raised was the general 'standard' of cricket has improved due to professionalism, better training and learning from what's already been done. This means nothing in comparing players because discluding the procession of time and change in the game itself when trying to compare two players makes the whole point moot. All the variables make any real comparison impossible with past generations.