If They were Playing Today

[subshakerz]

Gavaskar faced Lillee for one series and completely failed. Never faced Thommo and Lillee together. Faced Thomson and a much weaker attack. Didn't do that well against the Windies in the 80s - when they actually had a good bowling attack - and failed altogether against England. Gavaskar averages 46 in the 80s. Well-enough, not great, against Hadlee and co, actually was very good against Pakistan.

Yes, I would DEFINITELY rather face bowlers in the 70s... about the 80s, it's debatable.

Misleading. Yes, Gavaskar didn't succeed in the only series he played against Lillee, but then that was only one series. His average of 38 against England is hardly a failure. And he still managed good averages of 40 plus against the express West Indies pacers and Hadlee. Against Pakistan, he was superb. So he doesn't have the holes in his resume that you are trying to portay.

 

[grecian]

To answer your question, Gavaskar would belt the dire bowling at an incriedble rate and probably end up averaging 129.45. Richards very much the same, I'd put his average up around 160.04. I mean, today's bowling is so dire.

God I hate the romanticism of pre-2000 cricket. It makes this place unbearable sometimes.

The thing I don't get is, if post 2000 bowling is so disgustingly crappy and poor, how come a man who is considered one of the greatest of all time can only average 46.63 in the era against sides that aren't Bangladesh and Zimbabwe? Surely anything below an average of 55 is unacceptable in the era?

Well, nobody suggested anything as silly as the figures your talking.

To be fair, I'm not one of the 2000 bowlers bashing, it's slightly poor now, but thats because of a few retirees. Hopefully the emergence of the likes of Steyn, Morkel, Sharma and lets pray Broad, will rectify this.

Wher I do think theres a significant difference is in the pitches. The fact is, imho, the pitches have been gradually getting better for a while now. This is why all these statiscal comparisons are so pointless. They waffle on about Viv's poor stat-runs, when they haven't seen the pitches that were played on. They say these mediocre bowlers got him out, never having seen the bowlers, or the pitch that it was on.

The reason a lot of us just resort to the "we saw them they were better" argument is not fogeyism or because we thought Viv, Sunil and co were ***y. It's because on seeing their innings in comparison with younger players, we may feel that they got on the end of more pitches which would jump off a length one ball, then scoot along the floor, next ball, then their more modern counterparts.

How do you quantify that by looking at statsguru. You can't.

You can however say that there is evidence that pitch technology has got much better, the grasses used aid longevity, and that the bats are much lighter feeling, yet harder hitting. All clear reasons why averages have sky-rocketed.

Pre and post-war, pitches were fairly docile everywhere, and I guess that caused groundsmen to put more zip into pitches coming into the sixties, and this continued for a while. I feel it's gone too far back to the old ways nowadays, and I am quite thankful to see a Test like the one at Kanpur.

 

[archie mac]

I would think that Sunny would struggle at the start, because of the faster scoring, but his class would shine through in the end

I wonder in these days of more specialised teams if he would be in the ODI and 20/20 teams?

Viv would still be the best, and polls like who is better Viv or Sachin? Would be a moot point

 

[Burgey]

I think it's safe to say that both would bat quite well in this era, or indeed in any.

 

[grecian]

Oh, after that barely coherent mish-mash of a post. I'd better answer the post.

Richards to average about 63, Sunil to average about 58.

Any takers on two of my fave batsmen of yesteryear. Zaheer Abbas and Jimmy Cook?

 

[grecian]

I would think that Sunny would struggle at the start, because of the faster scoring, but his class would shine through in the end

I wonder in these days of more specialised teams if he would be in the ODI and 20/20 teams?

Viv would still be the best, and polls like who is better Viv or Sachin? Would be a moot point

Didn't Sunil start scoring a bit quicker in his later years, or did I just dream that. I seem to remember a few ODI's where he hit a few strokes, that may of been considered unproper cricket shots

 

[archie mac]

Oh, after that barely coherent mish-mash of a post. I'd better answer the post.

Richards to average about 63, Sunil to average about 58.

Any takers on two of my fave batsmen of yesteryear. Zaheer Abbas and Jimmy Cook?

I will have ago at "Zee"

A great stylist, maybe a little worried by real pace, but I think with the flatter pitches and lack of bouncers these days and his hunger for big scores would mean he would be right near the top

 

[archie mac]

Didn't Sunil start scoring a bit quicker in his later years, or did I just dream that. I seem to remember a few ODI's where he hit a few strokes, that may of been considered unproper cricket shots

Yes, even in Test cricket he started to attack more, or that might just have been the weak English and Aussie attacks at the end of his career

 

[grecian]

Yes, even in Test cricket he started to attack more, or that might just have been the weak English and Aussie attacks at the end of his career

Actually, that's when I saw him most. That's why I probably don't remember quite as the dour batsmen everyone else seems to think.

Mind you England had Boyks and Tavare at the time, so anyone would have seemed almost Afridi-esque in comparison.

 

[archie mac]

Actually, that's when I saw him most. That's why I probably don't remember quite as the dour batsmen everyone else seems to think.

Mind you England had Boyks and Tavare at the time, so anyone would have seemed almost Afridi-esque in comparison.

Yes, the days when 5 days was often not enough

 

[Sanz]

I think Gavaskar/Viv would have done just fine. IMO they would have dealth with Mcgrath, Warne, Wasim, Murali etc better than Tendulkar, Lara etc. I have no doubt in my mind that players like Azhar, Mark Waugh, Gower etc would have definately averaged more in the current era.

Also I dont know how can people say that the bowling attack of today is better than that in the 80s. Are we suggesting that Imran, Hadlee, Lillee, Garner, Marshall etc would have done worse in this era or against the batsmen of current generation ?

 

[sideshowtim]

I think Gavaskar/Viv would have done just fine. IMO they would have dealth with Mcgrath, Warne, Wasim, Murali etc better than Tendulkar, Lara etc. I have no doubt in my mind that players like Azhar, Mark Waugh, Gower etc would have definately averaged more in the current era.

Also I dont know how can people say that the bowling attack of today is better than that in the 80s. Are we suggesting that Imran, Hadlee, Lillee, Garner, Marshall etc would have done worse in this era or against the batsmen of current generation ?

Using the logic of many who say that batting is only prospering so much in this era due to poor bowling, we can turn it around and say that the bowlers only prospered so much because of poor batting.

 

[Slifer]

Regardless of era i dont think too many batsmen or batting sides would have prospered agaisnt the likes of the WI attack from the 80s. What has given Australia the edge for the past few years was not merely their awesome batting but their much superior bowling attack. Lets pick an abritrary WI attack from the 80s Marshall, Walsh, Holding and Garner, I could see a few of them maybe strugging in India (for example). However, the curators back in the WI would more than likely design pitches to match the home attack (ala Sabina and Kensington). Not the powder puffs that currently exist.

 

[Ikki]

Misleading. Yes, Gavaskar didn't succeed in the only series he played against Lillee, but then that was only one series. His average of 38 against England is hardly a failure. And he still managed good averages of 40 plus against the express West Indies pacers and Hadlee. Against Pakistan, he was superb. So he doesn't have the holes in his resume that you are trying to portay.

It's not about poking holes, it is about the strength of his record overall.

For an all-timer, an average of 40 is just standard and below that, especially after some 38 (England) tests is poor. The only quality attack of his day that he did do well against, in terms of averaging over 50, was Pakistan. The rest were either poor at the time he scored runs, i.e. Australia 80s/never against Lillee/Thommo, WIndies in 70s; or he didn't score that remarkably well over them. Sounds denigrating of such a great record but remember that few batsmen in history have even this kind of record. But for all the people who pick on the records of today's batsmen, some of them are more complete than the batsmen of the past.

If I were to quantify my prediction, I think Gavaskar would have averaged 51-55 - depending on how he'd adapt - and Viv would average 60+ like the Pontings/Kallis/Yousufs of today.

 

[Craig]

I'm interested in how guys like Hedley Veriety, George Headley, Bill Brown, Alec Bedser or Harold Larwood would go if they played into today's area.

 

[Ikki]

I'd like to hear more about Barnes. I'll come clean and say I only know a limited bit about his legacy, which I respect, but I am not quite sure he'd do the same damage nowadays. So, what advantages/disadvantages did he have then and what advantages/disadvantage would he have now?

 

[Engle]

Viv was not a numbers man, so he would get bored of the Zim, B'Desh matches.

Sunny would've gorged himself silly.

 

[haroon510]

Sir Viv would dominate the bowlers even if he was playiing today.. it would have been an interesting battle.. if he were to face wasim, waqar, Mcgrath, Alan donald, Warne, Murali and afew other top bowlers at their peak.. but overall.. he would still end up with a good average of over fifty in test and pretty healthy average on oneday..

Gavasker.. hell no .. we don't need another dravid and kallis to put people in sleep.. i am glad he is gone and he isn't playing..

 

[archie mac]

I'd like to hear more about Barnes. I'll come clean and say I only know a limited bit about his legacy, which I respect, but I am not quite sure he'd do the same damage nowadays. So, what advantages/disadvantages did he have then and what advantages/disadvantage would he have now?

SF Barnes?

Pros = LBW law would help him a lot, in his day the ball had to pitch stump to stump for the umpire to give the batsman out.

New ball every 80 overs, in his day it was the same ball for an entire innings

More scientific field placings, and no time limits in some Tests which meant batsman could sit on him as long as they wanted

Cons = You would think that batting has evolved technique wise, and even tailenders are well versed in batting correctly

He liked the new ball, but at his pace he would not be given it in the modern game

Much more Test cricket plus video, which would give the batsman much more of a chance to work him out (although this would work both ways)

No sticky wickets, with the covering of wickets

Unknown= the ball is smaller these days, we are not sure of the exact style or speed he bowled

The better bats used these days, V the better fielding which every expert agrees has improved since his days

He also never bowled in the Sub. Cont. so that is an unknown

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Sir Viv would dominate the bowlers even if he was playiing today.. it would have been an interesting battle.. if he were to face wasim, waqar, Mcgrath, Alan donald, Warne, Murali and afew other top bowlers at their peak.. but overall.. he would still end up with a good average of over fifty in test and pretty healthy average on oneday..

Gavasker.. hell no .. we don't need another dravid and kallis to put people in sleep.. i am glad he is gone and he isn't playing..

Gavaskar wasn't boring to watch, he had a superb technique. He didn't take many unnecessary risks but neither did he often miss out on putting the bad ball away. (Some people seem to be under the impression that the 1975 World Cup innings was in some way the norm.)