The stats do not do him justice!

[The Sean]

I rarely have.

At least people bother reading your posts.

[\precious]

 

[zaremba]

At least people bother reading your posts.

[\precious]

I never said I didn't read them! I've nothing against long posts, the ones I tend not to read are the point-by-point rebuttal type posts which you don't tend to engage in.

 

[rivera213]

In all seriousness, try adopting a less confrontational posting style. Attempting to obliterate, disparage and/or mock the arguments of everyone else can lead to lengthy bitter debates rather than constructive discussions. There are people here with great knowledge and interesting opinions about the game - you're one of them - and it's a question of engaging with them rather than getting bogged down in squabbles.

Fair enough, but isn't that exactly what others who are arguing with me are also doing?

You've done nothing but bring generalisations. And mostly based on footage you've seen, which couldn't have been much.

It's enough, and no they aren't generalizations, they're opinions.

Ok, natural progression in terms of what? Evolution of humans? The sport? Be specific and show a measure. Show something tangible that one can measure to see just how much the sport has changed for us to concede that Bradman is inferior to Tendulkar.

The sport.

Number of people playing it at the lowest level, level of competitiveness, media coverage. Loads of things.

Just because rules don't change, it doesn't mean the game itself hasn't.


[quoteYou still haven't brought any proof. And trust me buddy, it doesn't take bias to think Bradman is better, it's that clearcut.[/quote]

Na, it's that clear cut statistically, but not in reality.

Exactly, you brought it simply because it was a low average. Not that you actually knew anything about his era. The thing is...we ALL know about his era and why his average isn't enough to regard him the best of his era. So we are taking into account all variables, that is why Lohmann is never really mentioned in the same breath as the best bowlers.

Missed the point completely.

However, Bradman is always a clear #1 because his era, unlike Lohmann's, is largely the same as today's. Since you are the one who is saying it isn't, you need to prove it. Give examples as to why it isn't. Then illustrate that by showing facts and figures. That's the only way you will be taken seriously.

The 30's in terms of overall quality is nowhere near that of the 50's-90's. I agree it was about the same as today (ca 2007 onwards) being the wickets are similar, but you still seem to underestimate how a growth in playing a sport naturally produces a better overall standard.

There is proof in every sport, though it's true some eras dip.

Sorry, that's a cop-out. Few people have looked into statistics enough to compare them era by era. Decade by decade. It's simply more than copy-paste.

Ok, but it's still 99% irrelevant.

That IS proof. Whether it is conclusive proof depends on the individual. For some people, like yourself, a mountain - or a world's - worth of proof is still not enough and some things will never become conclusive and merely an opinion. I think that says more about the individual than the stats.

But it isn't proof when the players change.

Stastics are proof of success only, and success is dependant on an era. I've no doubt Bradman would be among the best batsmen of any and every era, but to say he would be head and shoulders above everyone is frankly a joke.

Simply put, the closest thing to a fact in Cricket is that Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time...by far.

I don't think anything in sport, not just cricket, which can't be completely determined by stats is "fact", that's my point.

Simply saying stats are relevant to their era is not enough. Show us why, and why it means Tendulkar is better than Bradman. You give nothing but unsubstantiated generalisations.

Generalisations?

I've already said on this board that if we're basing who is the best batsman of all time based on how much better they were over their contemporaries then it's Bradman.

But what you can't do is automatically think because Bradman was streets ahead in HIS era, he would without question be streets ahead in any and every era against better individual bowlers, better attacks, different type of attacks across the world etc.

It doesn't have to be the same; that's the whole point. That's why I showed you HOW much, for example, a few points in bowling average, decade to decade is noticed. 90s are much better than 00s, right? Yet the batting averages on the whole (a huge sample, because it is every batsman) is only inflated by a few points. To say that Bradman's average would be affected by 10 would still be absolutely HUGE! Yet he would STILL be far and away the greatest batsman of all time. But you didn't say his average would suffer by 10 points...you said it would suffer enough for him to be inferior to Tendulkar, which is about 45 points worth. Now that is massive.

I don't think a 50 in the 50's is worth as much in gold as a 50 in the 70's or the 90's.

It's largely dependant on player quality and not something you can prove statistically.

Think about it again, if 3 points can be so vivid in it's difference, then 10 points would be huge...and 45 points would be unthinkable. Cricket has not stagnated, but it has not differed THAT much.

The thing is Bradman was so revolutionary in HIS time that a 40+ difference was possible against lesser bowlers.

As a sport evolves, there is less room to be revolutionary.

I think the average player's ability has changed drastically era by era up to the 90's.

It is one of the toughest, just not THE toughest. Apart from the 90s which is probably the most difficult era, the 00s, 80s, 70s, 60s and 30s are largely the same. You can only appreciate this by looking at Cricket on the whole - and not your isolated, and often contradictory, examples.

There's no contradictions, and based on talent level I don't think the 30's can be put up anywhere near the 70's onwards, and I wouldn't put the bowlers (espeically England's up there with the 50's and 60's).

Sorry, no one really measures who is better than what someone else is purely on perceived talent. Talent is good as an after-thought. For example, some may say Lara is more naturally talented than Tendulkar, but who really cares? It's only what they achieved that matters. Which is why I bring up guys like Waugh or Martyn. At bat, they had brilliant techniques and made batting look artistic, but they are nowhere near as good as the Pontings or the Borders.

It all comes down to what was achieved, not what could have been achieved. Talent alone is not enough.

So you would say someone who can play every shot in the book as good as his contemporaries and the majority of them BETTER than his contemporaries, in 1 of the top 2 eras for batting (not naming any names, just for argument sake) who averages only 45 is less a batsman than someone who can play, say 5 strokes (again, not naming names just for argument sake) and averaged 60+?

I'd phrase it more like- "although batsman A was a far more talented batsman than batsman B, he was not as successful for whatever reason".

No, I wouldn't. If it occurred nowadays I would consider that batsman better. Provided the batsman in question wasn't always playing Bangladesh, or some equivalent argument.

What if there were a 2-tier test system and the 2nd tier included Bangladesh, Pakistan, West Indies and New Zealand and a batsman averaged 100. People would say that isn't as credible as an average of 50 against the top tier sides because we've seen how good/poor those teams are.

Anyway, that will be a discussion when a batsman happens to achieve that. Tendulkar is not near that and never will be.

Even if someone was twice the batsman Bradman was, it wont happen nowadays (an average of 100). It's impossible for anyone to average much more than 60 over a 10-year career unless they have loads of NO.

Sure, most batsmen will bat higher, but it's not as clear-cut as that. Certainly not to make a difference of 40-50 points. LOL. Maybe 3-4. Most great batsman have batted that far low and Ponting did, but actually made his name at #3. So your original argument means absolutely nothing.

They may have a bit more NOs than a #3 but not so much that it will create a different standard. At #7, it's more likely. For example, Sobers, even without NOs scored more runs per inning than Tendulkar who batted higher up. Which shows regardless, he was as good if not better.

3-4-5-6 is the mid-order. 3-4 probably a rung above 5-6 but not as different. Conversely, a batsman that comes in at 5-6 will face the spinners and could even see a new, new ball.

Where does the 40-50 points come in to it?

I'm talking about the credability of a batsman coming in @ 6 compared to that of a batsman coming in @ 3/4. And yest batting at 6 in terms of role is completely different to someone @ 4.

Someone coming in @ 5/6 will see the 2nd new ball after they've gotten in in all likelyhood.

I've made the argument that some later middle-order batsman could('ve) be made into openers based on their ability against the new ball (Katich, Border, Thorpe), but it is harder to get in against the new ball, simple as that.

Well, considering I don't think of myself as all-knowing I will look toward other opinions whilst forming my own. That's something that requires humility and intelligence. I am afraid, that's a bit beyond you.

Na, that is a cop-out.

I'd take an individual opinion (even if I disagreed with it) over 1 attained by mixing and matching potentially biased articles and stastistcs of an era there is very little coverage of. It at least shows free-thinking ability.

To group a batsman that comes in at 6 and 7 just shows how little you actually know about the game. Next you'll tell me because Mark Waugh was a wonder with the willow and because he usually batted higher up, he is better than Kenny Barrington, disregarding the 17 average points between them.

I'd say Waugh was more talented (from what I've seen of Ken which admittedly isn't alot) but Ken was more successful and harder to dislodge.

If you asked me who would I rather have in my team if I were captain, then I'd take Barrington. But in pure talent, I go with Junior.

Er... The best batsmen usually come in at #3. Bradman, Hammond, Ponting, Richards, etc. But there is little difference and often batsmen switch between. It's really more dependent on where the team will need you to bat.

Bradman would bat where he wanted, the same with Ponting because he is captain.

Graeme Pollock was the best batsman in the Saffie team and neither batted @ 3.

Tendulkar the best Indian batsman ever batted @ 4 with Dravid, more of a stonewaller than free-flowing Tendulkar, battign @ 3.

Lara was @ 4 for the majority of his career.

Viv came in anywhere between 3 and 5. Since he played naturally wherever he came in, it didn't matter too much. I'd have him @ 5 personally.

Greg Chappell, probably Australia's greatest batsman post-WWII batted @ 4 for the majority of his career.

Miandad had over 100 tests @ 4 and he's the best Pakistan batsman ever.

Inzamam for the majority, though he came in @ 5 sometimes.

Pietersen, easily our best (and would be allowed to bat anywhere) comes in @ 4.

I would certainly have my best batsman come in at 4 when the new ball has (hopefully) been softened up a bit but not too soft.

Putting statistics aside and judging purely from what you see is one of the dumbest things you can do. I showed you stats, analysis on those stats, how players in those times were rated and why...and you've brought nothing but "I saw some videos" and think that since that's original that it is more valid, or valid at all!

"I saw some videos" at least shows you have a mind of your own. Stats and analysis of those stats is only a comparison of success per era, it says nothing about talent level. Sorry but it doesn't.

You can't get original with Bradman. He is the best batsman of all time by a country mile. All that can be written has already been written about him. You have some naive inkling that you are adding something new and, laughably, worthy.

Any opinion is as worthy or unworthy as anyone else's.

Your closed mind is a bit pathetic.

It's been a much harder place to bat especially in the last two decades. Weather is only but one factor. Another: the bowlers. Australia has had by far the best domestic scene in Cricket.

The analysis done was to look at each touring side in each test nation. You see, this forum existed before you joined and many of these points are just re-hashed.

But still, let's see some proof. PROVE that Australia was NEVER tougher to bat in than England.

Na, Australia's domestic scene without international players is crap. If you include international players in every domestic competition then all are pretty much equal.

And how about knowledge of what the wickets were like in an era? Doesn't that prove anything?

Apart from that, the climate of our country is a lot harder to bat in. You can literally in an hour go from overcast and muggy where the ball swings to bright sunshine where it becomes a joy to bat. You don't get that in Australia and never have.

Why do you think the toss in England is so important?

In Australia, I would say in the 50's to 70's it was equal to England, but again, stats and records is dependant on the quality of players playing.

You're right. Probably not Tassie, but all the other states.

Better than which test teams?

Bangladesh yes, but the others- nope (not unless you include the international players which is unfair since you can't be in 2 places at once).

We're talking about Hayden, remember? Hayden played the domestic scene in the 90s. Where W.A., N.S.W., Queensland and Victoria were better than most of the test sides.

Australia had such competition for a Test spot, that it's 2nd tier players would have gotten into many of the Test sides available. That's why someone like Hayden could be dropped so easy. That's why it took so long for Mike Hussey to get a go. That's why Gilchrist debuted when he was 28.

Do a search on the forums, this point has already been raised before and the teams already mentioned, state by state.

Hayden was great in Australia but so what?

The tracks in Australia are much flatter than over here and our climate allows more sideways and eratic vertical ball movement.

He was show to be mediocre on all but our most batting-friendly wicket.... The Oval.

I'm sure if Australia had a GENUINE competitor for an opening spot, who wasn't shown up to be completely crap in conditions which weren't ideal, he'd have been in.

Um, as far as I know, 11-12 years then was still 11-12 years now.

It is, but 145 tests is still more than 27.

The less you see someone, the more of a mystery they are and the more success against you they will have.

For Warne to continue being effective with all the scouting, footage, analysis and sheer amount of cricket played is testament to his quality.

It'd be doubtful that O'Reilly would equal Warne and Murali's wicket totals, though I don't think he is far off in terms of talent.

So, have you seen Chandrasekhar or not?

It is my opinion. My opinion, and yours too, will never be completely original. Originality does not equate accuracy nor validity. Whatever critique or testimony there is, has already been given to Bradman. You are not treading new ground.

My opinion is original in that I haven't let anyone else's opinions affect mine.

Your opinion isn't actually an opinion.

No one can form a good opinion only on what they have seen. Especially about past cricketers. You cannot fathom the importance of the matches, their tension, their era's standard nor the quality of the player by looking at highlights. That's simply inane.

If you have an idea of the social climate, understanding of test cricket in general then yes you can.

You have to use what you see, with what ACTUALLY happened (wink wink: stats) and put them into some valid and verifiable context. Not based on one's own whims and or fallible memory.

My memory is pretty impeccible, I can remember all the way back to when... er... oh when was it....

That's right, you've got Youtube and your grandpaps reels .

I said before I've seen 10 times what's on You Tube and I don't know how you can take the piss when you don't have a clue about my Grandad, that's frankly insulting especially since he saw the players you talk about in the flesh as well as being privvy to footage you WISH you could watch.

Don't be an arsehole.

LOL, yes he was mediocre as a bowler and simply one of India's great spinners. There's a reason why India were not much good away. Look at the facts son, stop imagining things.

Wow, Bedi mediocre.

They were good, but not the best team till about the 80s. And that's it for them, who else was great?

Pakistan - Only towards the end of the 80s.
New Zealand - Nope.
India - Nope.
Sri Lanka - No way.
Australia - Nope.
England - For a time maybe.
S.Africa - Didn't Exist.

What does that prove exactly?

No, unfortunately, all I have is what has been shown on TV and the clips found on the Internet. You must have some secret stash not even the documenters of his life could touch.

The clips on TV and the internet isn't all what's available. Some footage (in cans) is too delicate to open now though, which is partly why there isn't much dvd's released of "Hammond's greatest shots" etc.

The fact is it does. well did, exist. The amount which has been destroyed (not intentionally) obviously outweighs what is still available.

I don't have any secret stash, otherwise I'd put it on the internet.

Yes, they know where you are coming from; naivety and ignorance.

I'm neither naive or ignorant.

I think you, however, are both- not just in regards to cricket.

You will go through your whole life unable to form an opinion which is sad, but not uncommon.

And using that theory, Larwood was an even better batsman than Tendulkar - since there is no way to prove or disprove, right?

Nope, because someone who can't bat for **** in 1 era is the same as someone who can't bat for **** in another era, especially against lesser bowlers.

Your first mistake was to think your opinion constituted a valid argument.

It does, you're taking the easy way out by saying it doesn't.

You have given no proof, and worse what little in the way of opinion you have is non-sensical.

You have given no proof OR opinions. As I said before, anyone can do analysis of stats. BUt hwen the argument isn't who was the most successful out of 2 batsmen, but actually who was most talented then statistics means jack ****.

We are not talking about a difference of a few points, we are talking about 40-50 god damn points.

How many times do you need to be told those 40-50 points are agains different bowlers for it to go in?

But you've proven you know jack about Larwood and his era so what good is your judge of talent? Is the ACB or ECB going to ask you to scout soon? I doubt it.

I know as much asyo u abou Larwood, i just happen to think you buff it up as something it wasn't- a tough era, and a good era for overall talent.

The irony is, the bowlers Tendulkar did do well against was simply the WIndies. He didn't do well against Pakistan nor S.Africa in the 90s. His successes against Australia were either when one or both of Warne or McGrath weren't there. So even on that account, your outta luck.

Er, Warne would admit himself that Tendulkar was the 1 batsman who got the better of him.

And there's nothing saying Bradman would do better.

Of course stats don't tell the whole story. But that never was the point, was it?

It is for you, don't try to argue against it.

I didn't say: Bradman 100 and Tendulkar 55, hence Bradman is better. I explained WHY those numbers are important. I explained HOW they were achieved. I explained the STANDARD of the eras. Whether there are 100 players or 1000, both have a standard.

Tha's complete BS.

If 1,000 players play a sport, there will be in all likelyhood a larger number of quality players than if only 100 played.

Try to find how many people actually played cricket in the 30's compared to nowadays.

Again, it's easier to be a big fish in a small pond than be a big fish in a big pond.

Then what are you doing here? Seriously. You've gone and questioned one of the easiest answers in Cricket and even fudged that up. Why don't you take your intelligence elsewhere?

I didn't "fudge" anything up. Stop trying to act superior.

I'm still here just to annoy you, I've been sent by God.

I've already told you why. But my opinion is also the opinion of others. It will never be unique.

No, your opinion isn't actually an independent opinion.

Zaremba's is (and he disagrees with me, no biggie) and that is also shared by others. Your "opinion" isn't actually an opinion since it wasn't 1 you came to based on independent research disregarding the possibly biased views of writers of his time.

Bradman was a once-in-10-generations-player. His sharp mind, hand-eye coordination and his refusal to be second best, for some 20 years, made him the run-machine no one else has yet come close to. When England opposition were down by some several hundred runs, Keith Miller purposely gave away his wicket while Bradman was annoyed that Keith didn't continue the slaughter. Such is the mind of this perfectionist. He was a boy who hit a ball against a wall with a stump and trained himself. His dedication has never been matched and his natural aptitude is unlikely to be.

His hand-eye co-ordination was no better than the greatest batsmen of eras after him actually. If you weren't so up his ass, and judged batsmen with an unbiased mind you'd see that.

Considering Tendulkar's ability to time drives perfectly against balls delivered in excess of 92mph and Viv's ability to time & control a hook or pull against fiery pacemen (including his own bowlers in domestic cricket) I'd find it very hard to say Bradman's hand-eye co-ordination is what made his average 40+ points better than those 2.

If it was better at all, it wasn't almost twice as good.

And I don't think you should question the dedication of Tendulkar, he too has spent 20 years in test cricket and I doubt anyone without 100% dedication would manage that.

If Tendulkar simply batted selfishly, only to get runs for himself, at the expense of time or team or entertainment...he STILL wouldn't touch Bradman. Bradman doesn't have to be this cricketing god with every stroke in the book and the most perfect of footwork, that's not what is required to have his average. It's all the other things that make him special and untouchable.

So, are you know admitting Tendulkar is a more talented batsman who wasn't/isn't as successful as Bradman?

And it has nothing to do with bias. Viv Richards is my favourite batsman...but not even he is the gleam on Bradman's shoe.

Why not?

I'd love to hear original analysis from you.

This is your 1 chance to prove you aren't dictated to by statistics and have formed an original opinion (whether it is shared by others is irrelevent if you've come to it on your own).

 

[Ikki]

It's enough, and no they aren't generalizations, they're opinions.

Simply watching highlights is enough? I think you'll find few will agree with you there. And that's probably why your opinion will rarely garner support.

And yes, they are generalisations. You've given little proof and only sweeping statements.

The sport.

Number of people playing it at the lowest level, level of competitiveness, media coverage. Loads of things.

Just because rules don't change, it doesn't mean the game itself hasn't.

Good, the sport. Now in what ways has the sport change and could you please, in some way, quantify how much it has changed, thanks. With your thesis of change, please give supporting data.

Na, it's that clear cut statistically, but not in reality.

Stats are reality. They are what happened, not what we think happened.

And if that's not reality, please define reality and show how in your reality you're right. With evidence, of course. Not just another sweeping statement like "to me, X batsman is worth Y amount of runs".

Missed the point completely.

I'll take that as a retraction of your stance with regards to Lohmann.

The 30's in terms of overall quality is nowhere near that of the 50's-90's.

See, that's one of the sweeping statements I was talking about. You make that claim, now back it up. With examples, proof, and data.

I agree it was about the same as today (ca 2007 onwards) being the wickets are similar, but you still seem to underestimate how a growth in playing a sport naturally produces a better overall standard.

You overestimate it, because you know little about the statistics pertaining to Cricket's past.

There is proof in every sport, though it's true some eras dip.

Where the standard has improved is not a talking point. The talking point is how much.

As I showed you, and will continue to exemplify, the difference between batting averages in the 90s and now is only a few points (3-4). Yet the difference between the two eras is very noticeable. Now, you're saying the difference between Tendulkar and Bradman is none, if not in deficit for The Don, which means you are saying the difference is worth something -40-50. That is a stark change in the game, and would be noticed by all...easily. Yet it isn't and Cricket is largely regarded as the same.

Ok, but it's still 99% irrelevant.

Another sweeping statement. Please prove or show how it is irrelevant. Thanks.

You'd think what all batsmen were achieving in certain eras is relevant...but apparently not

But it isn't proof when the players change.

Stastics are proof of success only, and success is dependant on an era. I've no doubt Bradman would be among the best batsmen of any and every era, but to say he would be head and shoulders above everyone is frankly a joke.

Sorry, it is proof. Because it discerns how much has changed.

Your statement would be true of Hammond, for example, in that in any and probably every era, he would be the best or thereabouts. But for Bradman it is even above that. He would be more than likely the greatest by a mile in every era.

I don't think anything in sport, not just cricket, which can't be completely determined by stats is "fact", that's my point.

In sport, there's no one quite like Bradman. If someone like Gretzky, who you continually cite, is far and away the best player of his sport, then Bradman is moreso.

The reason it can't be fact is because no one can possibly fly a young Bradman over time to the 90s, for example, and have him bat. What we do is use the FACTS and the STATISTICS to discern whether that would bet he case. Not whether we see a few clips and are impressed or not.

Generalisations?

I've already said on this board that if we're basing who is the best batsman of all time based on how much better they were over their contemporaries then it's Bradman.

But what you can't do is automatically think because Bradman was streets ahead in HIS era, he would without question be streets ahead in any and every era against better individual bowlers, better attacks, different type of attacks across the wor

ld etc.

No one is "automatically" assuming anything. That's why no one "automatically" assumes Lohmann as the greatest bowler of all-time.

The reality is, that people look at his era, compare it with other eras and even if it was inferior, the difference would be small. Usually, in the single digits. Since the 30s, the sport has been largely the same and the evolutions made have not been that stark.

Now Bradman, in his own era, which is easily comparable to the ones after, was so far ahead, that it is more than a probability thta he would have still been awesomely ahead.

For even if he didn't average 100, but say 70 (a 30 point drop!) he would still be far and away the greatest batsman of all time.

I don't think a 50 in the 50's is worth as much in gold as a 50 in the 70's or the 90's.

It's largely dependant on player quality and not something you can prove statistically.

I agree, it's probably worth a little less than ones in the 90s, for example. And you cannot totally commit to statistics because they may not speak about the quality of play. But what/who does? Those that were around, including the players, the fans, the commentators and, later, the historians.

That's why I give you the generatiton to generation comparison between players. When a player is established and rated highly, for example Headley, then the next great batsman that comes on is compared to Headley, until a point where Headley will retire and that new player, say Weekes, continues to play and then he is compared to the next hot-shot who is Sobers, for example, and on and on it can go.

So when we compare the best, everyone around is there to notice any slight change in the batting, the bowling and how well the best fared in those times. As I said, and will continue to say, when the difference between eras (90s vs 00s) is a few points, for example, in the average batsman's average, and it is noticed by the great majority, then it would be unthinkable to assume that at some stage this huge jump, that you're saying occurred, in the sport that would nullify Bradman's talent of averaging 40-50 better than all the others, was not noticed by anyone. It's frankly untenable.

One can see an argument for those like Hammond who only averaged a few more than those like Lara and make that case...but not for Bradman.

The thing is Bradman was so revolutionary in HIS time that a 40+ difference was possible against lesser bowlers.

As a sport evolves, there is less room to be revolutionary.

HIS time was not a vacuum. It is comparable to OTHER times .

I think the average player's ability has changed drastically era by era up to the 90's.

Whether you think so is not what people care about. It is whether you can prove so. Arbitrary whims are for ****s-and-giggles; not serious debate.

There's no contradictions, and based on talent level I don't think the 30's can be put up anywhere near the 70's onwards, and I wouldn't put the bowlers (espeically England's up there with the 50's and 60's).

Well, you see, you have to prove why you wouldn't. Someone like Lindwall, for example, who bowled in the 50s based his action and his bowling ON Larwood.

And I must chuckle at this "Talent level". Now you are measuring Talent. Objectively, of course?

So you would say someone who can play every shot in the book as good as his contemporaries and the majority of them BETTER than his contemporaries, in 1 of the top 2 eras for batting (not naming any names, just for argument sake) who averages only 45 is less a batsman than someone who can play, say 5 strokes (again, not naming names just for argument sake) and averaged 60+?

I'd phrase it more like- "although batsman A was a far more talented batsman than batsman B, he was not as successful for whatever reason".

That is EXACTLY what I would say. A Batsman could have only 1 stroke and average 60 and the other can have all the strokes in the world but only have 42 (Waugh M, for example) and I couldn't care less. The aim for batsmen: make runs. That's how you know who the better batsman is: the one that makes most runs, in hopefully most occasions, with hopefully a well-rounded record. You do not help your side by being flash yet scoring less runs.

And you seem to miss the reason why someone like Tendulkar would try to evolve his game to have "all the shots". It's to help him score runs. Obviously, the more shots you have in your war-chest, the better chance you will have. But that's not all there is to batting. It's making runs. Steve Waugh was somewhat flamboyant in his youth but scored less runs. He cut out shots that were causing him trouble, made more runs and the perception is now that he is more of a battler. There are not many people who would seriously say his brother Mark was a better batsman than him because Junior played more shots.

What if there were a 2-tier test system and the 2nd tier included Bangladesh, Pakistan, West Indies and New Zealand and a batsman averaged 100. People would say that isn't as credible as an average of 50 against the top tier sides because we've seen how good/poor those teams are.

Yes, that's my point. If such a system existed where a batsman bled minnows dry, then I wouldn't consider him as good as Bradman.

Even if someone was twice the batsman Bradman was, it wont happen nowadays (an average of 100). It's impossible for anyone to average much more than 60 over a 10-year career unless they have loads of NO.

That's why Bradman is far and away the greatest batsman and a freak. Because it is not going to happen. No one has come even near suggesting they are that good. Mike Hussey had an awesome start to his career and he was struggling to hold 70.

Where does the 40-50 points come in to it?

That's the difference between Bradman and the rest.

I'm talking about the credability of a batsman coming in @ 6 compared to that of a batsman coming in @ 3/4. And yest batting at 6 in terms of role is completely different to someone @ 4.

It's still credible, just a different role. You say a #6 will have some benefits compared to a #3, and yet they will also have different troubles. Maybe I am sympathetic and agree if a #3 averaged 52 and a #6 averaged 56 I'd see them in a similar plane, but nothing much different than that.

But you did the daft thing and say a #6 is practically a #7 and that's...well, daft.

Someone coming in @ 5/6 will see the 2nd new ball after they've gotten in in all likelyhood.

Exactly, so it hardly makes that much of a difference. Likewise a #3 could come in after the openers have dealt with the new ball, which does happen often enough, and could miss the new ball and then the batsmen below will have to face the new, new ball.

It happens often enough that it is almost negligible and not something to actually demean. "Oh, X batsman averaged 50, but it was at #6, so nevermind!".

I've made the argument that some later middle-order batsman could('ve) be made into openers based on their ability against the new ball (Katich, Border, Thorpe), but it is harder to get in against the new ball, simple as that.

This whole side-argument pertains to Ponting, to which was finalised at the mention of the fact that Ponting's failures were primarily against the weaker sides of the 90s with his inconsistency. So holding his average of 45 against him (when his average against good opposition is healthily above that) means your arbitrary estimations of him are moot.

Na, that is a cop-out.

I'd take an individual opinion (even if I disagreed with it) over 1 attained by mixing and matching potentially biased articles and stastistcs of an era there is very little coverage of. It at least shows free-thinking ability.

It's not a cop-out, that's just my position. I would rather have second-hand intelligence than free-thinking ignorance.

I'd say Waugh was more talented (from what I've seen of Ken which admittedly isn't alot) but Ken was more successful and harder to dislodge.

If you asked me who would I rather have in my team if I were captain, then I'd take Barrington. But in pure talent, I go with Junior.

No one picks a player on pure talent for the sake of pure talent. Pure talent, when picked, is at the hope that the player in question will translate said talent into runs in the future.

That's why it's not much of a debate. Barrington > M Waugh. Bradman >>> Tendulkar.

Bradman would bat where he wanted, the same with Ponting because he is captain.

Graeme Pollock was the best batsman in the Saffie team and neither batted @ 3.

Tendulkar the best Indian batsman ever batted @ 4 with Dravid, more of a stonewaller than free-flowing Tendulkar, battign @ 3.

Lara was @ 4 for the majority of his career.

Viv came in anywhere between 3 and 5. Since he played naturally wherever he came in, it didn't matter too much. I'd have him @ 5 personally.

Greg Chappell, probably Australia's greatest batsman post-WWII batted @ 4 for the majority of his career.

Miandad had over 100 tests @ 4 and he's the best Pakistan batsman ever.

Inzamam for the majority, though he came in @ 5 sometimes.

Pietersen, easily our best (and would be allowed to bat anywhere) comes in @ 4.

I would certainly have my best batsman come in at 4 when the new ball has (hopefully) been softened up a bit but not too soft.

All those batsmen changed from time to time from 3-4, or even lower. It simply depended on the team. The best batsmen are usually either #3 or #4. Let's give this one a break.

"I saw some videos" at least shows you have a mind of your own. Stats and analysis of those stats is only a comparison of success per era, it says nothing about talent level. Sorry but it doesn't.

But you think you are the only one who has seen videos. I have seen videos too, but that's no way to judge a player's complete career. What if those videos are only highlights of him performing well? What if they are just random and sparse? What if they are his bloopers? They tell you little. Unless these batsmen played in your lifetime and you could watch them properly, it's a heavily flawed way to judge players. Especially, if you wish to compare batsmen and their entire careers.

To me, Gilchrist looked like he'd average 70 the way he smashed everything from ball 1. But what I know is, he averaged a little bit below 50 and the likes of Kallis, for example, are superior to him.

No one really is pre-occupied with talent-level. People care about success level. If you want to compare who had more talent, you could open up a thread and talk about that. You can be as subjective or arbitrary as you like.

Any opinion is as worthy or unworthy as anyone else's.

Your closed mind is a bit pathetic.

That is highly ironic coming from you, who thinks your own opinion is better than the opinion of others. You have a go at me for taking into account the opinions of others and have the gall to say this.

You're amazing.

Na, Australia's domestic scene without international players is crap. If you include international players in every domestic competition then all are pretty much equal.

Er, no, they're not. You're assuming only the 1st XI of every country is different and all levels below them are the same. Hilarious.

And how about knowledge of what the wickets were like in an era? Doesn't that prove anything?

It clearly does. To mention the difference between pitches, for example, is very important. If it affects the stats drastically, even more important. The best way is to get a sample and show how different in quantity it is.

X pitch yields 30 runs per batsmen and Y pitch yields 50 runs per batsmen, hence those who batter on Y pitch were benefited more.

Apart from that, the climate of our country is a lot harder to bat in. You can literally in an hour go from overcast and muggy where the ball swings to bright sunshine where it becomes a joy to bat. You don't get that in Australia and never have.

Why do you think the toss in England is so important?

In Australia, I would say in the 50's to 70's it was equal to England, but again, stats and records is dependant on the quality of players playing.

They're simply different conditions. Perth is sunny, not overcast or anything, but does that mean it is less difficult to bat on than The Oval, for example? For most of Australia's cricket history - I'd say until the late 90s - it has been hard and fast and a nightmare to bat on. Sydney has been a spinner's pitch, but does that mean it is easier to bat on than a swinger's pitch?

Nowadays I would agree since we have so few quality swing bowlers and less batsmen adapted to it. Still, your generalisation was pathetic to say the least.

Better than which test teams?

Bangladesh yes, but the others- nope (not unless you include the international players which is unfair since you can't be in 2 places at once).

I'd say up there with the best Test teams, frankly. Better than only Bangladesh? Can you even name the WA squad from the 90s, for example? Seriously, why am I arguing with someone who knows so little?

Hayden was great in Australia but so what?

The tracks in Australia are much flatter than over here and our climate allows more sideways and eratic vertical ball movement.

He was show to be mediocre on all but our most batting-friendly wicket.... The Oval.

I'm sure if Australia had a GENUINE competitor for an opening spot, who wasn't shown up to be completely crap in conditions which weren't ideal, he'd have been in.

Just because Hayden failed in England doesn't mean you can wash away his career. Hayden faced great bowling conditions, and a better attack, in S.Africa for example and did very well there.

It is, but 145 tests is still more than 27.

The less you see someone, the more of a mystery they are and the more success against you they will have.

For Warne to continue being effective with all the scouting, footage, analysis and sheer amount of cricket played is testament to his quality.

It'd be doubtful that O'Reilly would equal Warne and Murali's wicket totals, though I don't think he is far off in terms of talent.

It goes both ways. Time between tests mean less chance to carry on good form, for example. It means less time for YOU to figure out the mystery of the other sides.

Footage goes both ways, for the bowler there is footage and also for the batsmen. It counts out itself. In O'Reilly's time there was no such advantage for either bowler or batsman so it means little.

So, have you seen Chandrasekhar or not?

Admittedly, little, but what is your point? Unless you're trying to build an argument on "talent level" again. Chandra was a fine spinner, one of India's best. But not in the same class as Tiger or Clairrie.

My opinion is original in that I haven't let anyone else's opinions affect mine.

Your opinion isn't actually an opinion.

My opinion is an opinion and your opinion is an opinion. It's just that your opinion is laughable and mine isn't. Way to go.

If you have an idea of the social climate, understanding of test cricket in general then yes you can.

Right...the social climate is going to tell you how tense a wicket taken in an important period of a match is.

And reading about WWII is just like living it, I guess.

I said before I've seen 10 times what's on You Tube and I don't know how you can take the piss when you don't have a clue about my Grandad, that's frankly insulting especially since he saw the players you talk about in the flesh as well as being privvy to footage you WISH you could watch.

Visuals of matches back then were sparse to say the least, so even if it were 10 times as much, it'd still be sparse. Your confidence that you've seen enough to judge Hammond on, and say it's crazy to talk to compare him to Tendulkar, is really the insult here.

Wow, Bedi mediocre.

In terms of bowlers, yes. In terms of spinners he was good. But there have been much better spinners.

The fact that you tout Bedi and demean Verity should be noted here.

What does that prove exactly?

It proves that you know nothing but generalisations. When it comes to the 30s, to Bradman, to Hayden, to the 50s till 70s, you clearly don't know much in terms of detailed facts.

The clips on TV and the internet isn't all what's available. Some footage (in cans) is too delicate to open now though, which is partly why there isn't much dvd's released of "Hammond's greatest shots" etc.

The fact is it does. well did, exist. The amount which has been destroyed (not intentionally) obviously outweighs what is still available.

I don't have any secret stash, otherwise I'd put it on the internet.

You don't seem to understand; there still isn't enough to judge him on. Even if it were more than that. Games weren't taped like that. You could watch a batsman today bat for hours and you won't have seen enough to properly judge him. When you're going by what you see, you should watch a batsmen over several tests, several hours of batting, and even then, against different opposition and in different countries.

Unless all you want to do is gauge their "talent level".

I'm neither naive or ignorant.

I think you, however, are both- not just in regards to cricket.

You will go through your whole life unable to form an opinion which is sad, but not uncommon.

I'm fine with being common, thanks. I don't need to hold a special, and ridiculous, opinion simply to feel unique .

Nope, because someone who can't bat for **** in 1 era is the same as someone who can't bat for **** in another era, especially against lesser bowlers.

No no no, according to you there are no facts to prove either way. Who knows, maybe Larwood has special talent that just didn't translate into runs and had he batted in this era he would be even better than Tendulkar.


It does, you're taking the easy way out by saying it doesn't.

You have given no proof OR opinions. As I said before, anyone can do analysis of stats. BUt hwen the argument isn't who was the most successful out of 2 batsmen, but actually who was most talented then statistics means jack ****.

No, I really don't care to argue on something as subjective as talent. I am arguing who was the better batsman in terms of making runs.

How many times do you need to be told those 40-50 points are agains different bowlers for it to go in?

Yes, and the other batsmen, in his era or in the 90s or even now...score their runs against different bowlers. When you come to that realisation, you'll have gone up a step.

When you then try to determine the standard of bowling, through objective means, and nothing as whimsical as "talent level", you will have gone onto another level. When you reach that step, I'll help you out some more.

I know as much asyo u abou Larwood, i just happen to think you buff it up as something it wasn't- a tough era, and a good era for overall talent.

What was so ordinary about Larwood? Statistically he is very good and the fact that many future bowlers tried to replicate his style shows he had great "talent".

Er, Warne would admit himself that Tendulkar was the 1 batsman who got the better of him.

Tendulkar is a fine batsman and did very well against Warne. But that wasn't the point, or rather, doesn't defend the accusation against him that he didn't succeed as infamously touted against the best.

And there's nothing saying Bradman would do better.

You mean apart from the fact that Bradman did well against comparable spinners in Tiger and O'Reilly on uncovered tracks?

It is for you, don't try to argue against it.

Nah, I always try to look at everything. Repute as well as stats. What good is a 50+ average if you have nothing to compare it against or an opinion which would illustrate it's value?

Tha's complete BS.

If 1,000 players play a sport, there will be in all likelyhood a larger number of quality players than if only 100 played.

Try to find how many people actually played cricket in the 30's compared to nowadays.

Again, it's easier to be a big fish in a small pond than be a big fish in a big pond.

I didn't "fudge" anything up. Stop trying to act superior.

I'm still here just to annoy you, I've been sent by God.

And where did you get that likelihood? India and China carry a third of the world's population and cannot put a good Football (soccer) team out between them. The standard in their leagues are low.

Simple numbers does not equate quality. What's important is the STANDARD of football, or Cricket in this case, being played in these populations. The higher the standard and number, the more competitive and better it will be. Has the standard of Cricket improved from the 90s simply because we have more teams now, i.e. Bangladesh? No.

Your discounting of the 30s is farcical.

No, your opinion isn't actually an independent opinion.

Zaremba's is (and he disagrees with me, no biggie) and that is also shared by others. Your "opinion" isn't actually an opinion since it wasn't 1 you came to based on independent research disregarding the possibly biased views of writers of his time.

Neither is yours. You didn't learn the sport of Cricket on your own. Someone showed you what is right and what is wrong. What is good technique and what isn't. Hence when you watch a game, you will always refer to what you have been taught.

You are no different to anyone else sunshine. You sound incredibly naive. How old are you, 15?

His hand-eye co-ordination was no better than the greatest batsmen of eras after him actually. If you weren't so up his ass, and judged batsmen with an unbiased mind you'd see that.

"Talent-level", gotcha.

Considering Tendulkar's ability to time drives perfectly against balls delivered in excess of 92mph and Viv's ability to time & control a hook or pull against fiery pacemen (including his own bowlers in domestic cricket) I'd find it very hard to say Bradman's hand-eye co-ordination is what made his average 40+ points better than those 2.

If it was better at all, it wasn't almost twice as good.

And I don't think you should question the dedication of Tendulkar, he too has spent 20 years in test cricket and I doubt anyone without 100% dedication would manage that.

Neither Tendulkar nor Sir Viv are worthy to be compared to Bradman, full-stop.

So, are you know admitting Tendulkar is a more talented batsman who wasn't/isn't as successful as Bradman?

No, if anything I just said no matter how hard Tendulkar tries, he still won't be the gleam on Bradman's shoe. If his entire batting was based on crudely scoring runs, at the cost of everything else, he'd still be a pauper. What Bradman had is unlikely be taught or trained.

Why not?

I'd love to hear original analysis from you.

This whole thread is my whole analysis. You should see an optometrist.

For time's sake: replace every "Tendulkar" with "Richards". The reasons are the same.

This is your 1 chance to prove you aren't dictated to by statistics and have formed an original opinion (whether it is shared by others is irrelevent if you've come to it on your own).

LOL, to prove? To who? You?

I am dictated by statistics, you have to be. Statistics is WHAT HAPPENED. It's not your fantasy. It's not your wet-dreams about Tendulkar's straight-drive. It's what actually happened.

Of course, not every scenario is the same and not all statistics accurately reflect every nuance of the game. So for this, one must use extrinsic sources, such as testimony.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I think it's pretty insulting to Tendulkar to compare him to Bradman, because realistically Tendulkar is like a tailender compared to Bradman.

 

[Burgey]

Just popping in again, as I do every few days, to see if this thread might have moved on a bit.

Sadly no, despite SJS's attempts to the contrary.

Beginning to rival the Tendulkar-Ponting thread for abject direness.

 

[SJS]

Just popping in again, as I do every few days, to see if this thread might have moved on a bit.

Sadly no, despite SJS's attempts to the contrary.

Beginning to rival the Tendulkar-Ponting thread for abject direness.

Actually this is a fabulous idea for a thread. I keep thinking of similar topics - not as a thread for CC but just as interesting thoughts on the history of the game. During my recent vacation I was thinking of players who should have played more Test cricket than they did. Here I did not want to include the obvious one's like Bary Richards who played so few due to the politics of his country or Archie jackson and Collie Smith who died young but players who did play quite a bit of Test cricket but yet could have played much more but for selectorial decisions or players opting out for economic (which includes academic/business) reasons.

As I started making a mental list, I found that a large number of them were English. So I thought it might be a good idea to have an English XU of players who should have played more Test cricket than they did.

Here is a truncated side of six such English players. Others are welcome to fill in the blanks or post their own such lists.

[B]Order	Player       	Career 	Tests 	Record[/B]
1				
2				
3	Peter May	1951-61	66	4537 runs at 46.8
4	Ted Dexter	1958-68	62	4502 runs at 47.9
5	Tom Graveney	1951-69	79	4882 at 44.4
6	Eddie Paynter	1931-39	20	1540 runs at 59.2
7				
8				
9	Keith Andrews	1954-63	2	
10	Tich Freeman	1924-29	12	66 wkts at 25.9
11	SF Barnes	1901-14	27	189 wkts at 16.4

I must admit that this is not a perfect list. If I sit down to it I might make some changes to it. These were the names I scribbled at the back of the book I was reading up in the mountains

Having said that, all these ARE players I have felt should have played more. Some like May left the game early while others like Graveney had massive gaps in their international careers completely unexplained by form or class in whatever cricket they were playing while sent out to hibernate by the selectors.

One may feel that with 62 Tests in ten years, Dexter played quite a bit of cricket for those times but you had to have seen the fellow bat to realise what a batsman he was. He was right up amongst the best trust me. I dont think anyone sums it up better than CLR james when he describes Dexter's batting as being handicapped by the caliber and the attitude to batting by the English batsmen who were his team mates. You may read some of it if you check out an article I am putting up on CLR James in a day or two but here is a bit. . .

He does not make centuries because he has the habit of losing ‘concentration’. Blessed word. If the other players on his side bore names like K.L. Hutchings, A.C. Maclaren, F.S. Jackson, C.B. Fry and he were playing against Victor Trumper, Clemont Hill and Vernon Ransford; he would make his centuries and perhaps a double century or two. He is a Cavalier amongst Roundheads. He plays not only against opposing batsmen but against the very soul of the age.​

Then again. . .

It is not that Dexter is not dependable. It is that the other players of the day are too dependable. They inhibit him. In his observations of the game, all aspects of it, he bears the stamp of a man in conflict with his age.​

On the other hand players like wicket-keeper Keith Andrews played hardly any Test cricket and are yet considered by most who write on the oft forgotten subject of the technicalities of wicket-keeping as one of the truly greats and yet he played his first Test in 1954 and his second (and last), nine years later in 1963. Its amazing. Tiger Smith, himself a wicket-keeping legend said of both Keith Andrew and Bob Taylor (who had modeled his keeping on Andrew's), "Alan Knott and Godfrey Evans gave England great service yet neither had the class of Keith Andrew and Bob Taylor behind the stumps."

I choose Andrew before Taylor for this list because taylor played at least 57 Tests. Andrew's biography by Stephen Clarke is appropriately called "Guess My Story"

 

[SJS]

During my recent vacation I was thinking of players who should have played more Test cricket than they did. Here I did not want to include the obvious one's like Bary Richards who played so few due to the politics of his country or Archie jackson and Collie Smith who died young but players who did play quite a bit of Test cricket but yet could have played much more but for selectorial decisions or players opting out for economic (which includes academic/business) reasons.

George Gunn could be one of the openers for this side. He first played for England against Australia in 1907-08. Monty Noble's Australian team trounced England 4-1.

Gunn headed the bruised England batting in his debut series with 462 runs at 51.33. He batted at number three and scored two centuries. Hobbs opened the innings and averaged 43,14 without managing a century in the series (a rare thing for the master). KL Hutchings, the stylish middle order batsman scored the only other century and averaged 27.3.

One would have thought that Gunn would become a permanent fixture for England but played just one Test (in which he failed) against Noble's team in 1909 at home. England lost the series 2-1, only one century was scored by the entire English side in the five Tests. It is widely accepted that this the only time that Gunn was chosen to represent his country at home was the most unfortunate for so badly out of form was he that he himself felt he should not be in the side. Yet other than tis he never played at home.

Gunn did not play again for England till 1911-12 again on tour to Australia. He did not score a century but scored runs in every Test match in the series scoring :-

• 4 and 62
• 10 and 43
• 29 and 45
• 75
• 52 and 61

He averaged 42.33 this time and this performance, particularly the strong finish to the series should have assured him some more games but England left him out of everyone of the six Test matches in the Triangular series at home against Australia and South Africa as well as the five Tests against South Africa in 1913-14.

Then the war broke out.

Gunn was 40 when the war ended in 1919. So while England played other old foggies, Gunn was left out for ten years and 52 Test matches till suddenly at the ripe old age of fifty he was sent to West Indies in 1930 to open the batting against Griffith and Constantine. West Indies held England to a 1-1 draw in the series.

For a man of his age, Gunn batted remarkably scoring 276 runs at 34.8 and more importantly adding 77. 78 and 173 for the first wicket with Sandham. He also had a second wicket partnership with Wyatt for the second wicket when for once Sandham fell a duck.

Its impossible to read any account of George Gunn's batting and not come across unadulterated admiration for what must have been a fabulous batsman. On his death Wisden wrote...

...his skill and judgement were such that he made batting successfully against first-class bowlers appear the easiest thing imaginable. Not only did he show complete mastery in the art of back-play, but he frequently got right in front of his wicket and walked down the pitch to meet the ball no matter what type of bowler he was facing. Rarely when he left his ground in this way did his skill betray him...​

On two tours of Australia he scored 1577 runs at 52.0.

He was a brilliant slip fielder and has the unique distinction of scoring a first class hundred in this match in 1931 when he scored 183 in an innings in which his son George V Gunn also scored a hundred. A rare occasion for both father and son to score hundreds in the same innings.

 

[nightprowler10]

- Facinating how Ben has flipped from a view that any bowling pre-1980s was rubbish (Marshall a trundler, lack of quality shoes, etc) to the view that the 1930s was the golden age of bowling.

Haha, yes I know. He's done a complete about turn from a lot of his points that I remember arguing with him about on PC. Not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[fredfertang]

Ernest Tyldesley and CAG (Jack) Russell played around a dozen tests each for England in the 20's and averaged around 55, and Phil Mead averaged just a fraction under 50 in just a few more tests either side of the Great War - I suppose it could be argued that that gives a bit support for rivera213's position on Bradman - wouldn't agree myself but on reflection I don't think I'll do anything other than mention it

 

[SJS]

Jack Russell appears an obvious choice for the other opener's slot. Why he was not so obvious to me, to start with, was because so little is written about this amazing batsman from Essex. I suppose that is because he was not a stylist like Spooner, a wizard like Ranji, an artist like Woolley or a butcher like Jessop. He was just a very gritty and determined opening batsman who made the bowlers toil for his wicket. Now that may not have moved Cardus to great prose but how come it did not move English selectors to more than a round ten Test appearances? But we are ahead of ourselves.

Born in 1887, Russell was in his 21st year when he made his debut for Essex in 1908 and in his 43rd year when he retired in 1930. In this respect he is a very close contemporary of our other opener - Gunn who was born in 1879 and whose first class career spanned 1902-1932. Yet they never played together in the same Test match. Forget Test match, they never played in the same series !

Russell scored 27354 runs with 71 centuries at 41.6 per innings in first class cricket but he was a slow starter doing nothing of note with the bat in his first five seasons. In the two years before WWI started he managed a thousand runs a season averaging just above 34 each year. Nothing spectacular and then came the four years of war.

By the time cricket restarted in 1919, Jack Russell was in his 32nd year but he blossomed scoring nearly 1400 runs at 44.7 in 1919 and then over 2400 runs next year at a similar average. With some ups and downs he continued scoring runs for Essex till he retired in his 40's, scoring 2283 runs in 1928 (his 41st year) at 64.1. Yet he played only ten Tests for England between 1921 and 1923.

We need to look at his Test career closely to understand why this is so surprising.

Russell went to Australia in 1920-21 and . . .

• In all first class matches scored 818 runs at 58.42 !
• Only Patsy Hendren (1178 at 62) scored more runs at a higher average. Hobbs scored 924 at 51.3 and Woolley 619 at 34.4.

What's that got to do with Tests you ask and you are right.

He played in the first Test, opened the innings with and lasted a total of eight balls scoring 0 and 5.

Since he was scoring so heavily in other games, England did not drop him for the second Test but made him bat at number five. He played twice as many deliveries to score the same - 0 and 5 !! Gregory and McDonald were too much for him - or so it appeared.

Skipper JWHT Douglas must have seen something in him for he persisted with him, still at number five, and this time Russell responded with England's top score in the first innings, an unbeaten 135. As England fought to save the test in the second innings, Russell played another fighting innings of 59 though England lost.

He was indisposed after this for six weeks, missed the fourth Test and all the games between the third and the fifth and came back just in time for the last Test. He managed just 19 and 35 although in the second innings, with six wickets down for 91, he helped skipper JWHT Douglas put on 69 runs for the 7th wicket. Douglas top scored with 68 and England lost by 9 wickets. He had done enough to find some permanence in the side he must have thought.

He was ignored for the first three Tests against Aussies that very summer of 1921. England lost all three tests by huge margins and with that the series.

They brought Russell back for the fourth Test, this time as opener and he top scored again with a century. England took a big first innings lead but bad weather took the match to a draw.

They couldn't drop him now. In the last Test he scored just 13 in the first knock but top scored again in the second with another century, this time unbeaten.

He had scored 216 runs in the series at 108.0 and helped England salvage some pride with two draws after three crushing defeats.

England had tried four other openers before setling with Russell and Browne. Here is how they fared

• Holmes : 19.0
• Dipper : 25.5
• Knight : 13.5
• Hardinge : 15.0

In addition they had tried Woolley in one knock and he scored a duck.

England next went to South Africa for a five Test series. Russell did not set the Cape on fire in the matches preceding the first Test but he got a start in almost all the innings. In six completed inings he had four scores in the twenties and more importantly in the last innings before the first Test he got an unbeaten 77.

England dropped him for the first Test. South Africa beat England by 168 runs.

Russell was brought back into the side for the next four games.

In a low scoring second Test Russell 39 and Carr 42 top scored in England's first innings. England won a close game by 1 wicket.

England drew the next two games. In these two Tests Russell's scores were : 34, 8 & 96.

Then came the last Test and England's chance to square the series. They batted first and lost Sandham and Woolley before 20 runs were scored. Mead and Russell put on 149 for the 3rd wicket before Mead fell. Wickets continued to fall and Russell almost carried his bat through the innings - 9th out at 140, once again the top score of the England innings like all his other centuries.

Leading by 104 in the first innings, England crumbled to 26 for four in the second. Once again Russell came to the rescue, this time in partnership with Sandham (40) taking the score just past 100. Five wickets then fell for 47 and England were 149 for 9. Then with number eleven for company Russell marched to his second century of the innings and England managed 241. Once again Russel had top scored for his side when in trouble.

That last Test in which Russell became the first Englishman in history to score a century in each innings of a Test match, turned out to be the last one he ever played for England.

England never, ever, selected him for a test side !!

In eight Test matches since those two disastrous first matches in Australia Russell ahd scored :-

1. 135* & 59
2. 19 & 35
3. 101
4. 13 & 102*
5. 39 & 8
6. 34
7. 8 & 96
8. 140 & 111

That is 900 runs in 8 Tests at an average of 75.0. He scored five centuries in those eight Tests besides missing another by a mere 4 runs - each one of them being the top score by far for his beleaguered side.. He was the first batsman from Emgland to score a century in either innings of a test and yet he never played another Test match.

Even if you include the ten runs in four innings of his first two Tests his Test average is an amazing 56.9.

 

[SJS]

I think with Frank Foster (Barnes' deadley pace partner) who was a pretty decent bat and Harold Larwood (who was made the scape goat for the 'scandal' of the bodyline series exactly when he was at the very peak of his prowess, would make ideal additions to this side to complete the XI. Then it would read.

[B]Order	Player       	Career 	Tests 	Record[/B]
1	Jack Russell	1920-23	10	910 runs at 56.9
2	George Gunn	1907-30	15	1120 runs at 40
3	Peter May	1951-61	66	4537 runs at 46.8
4	Ted Dexter	1958-68	62	4502 runs at 47.9
5	Tom Graveney	1951-69	79	4882 at 44.4
6	Eddie Paynter	1931-39	20	1540 runs at 59.2
7	Frank Foster	1911-12	11	45 wkts (20.6) 330 runs (23.6)
8	Harold Larwood	1926-33	21	78 wkts at 28.4
9	Keith Andrews	1954-63	2	
10	Tich Freeman	1924-29	12	66 wkts at 25.9
11	SF Barnes	1901-14	27	189 wkts at 16.4

 

[fredfertang]

Interesting selection SJS - not that it's really relevant to anything but I believe that Tich Freeman and Jack Russell were related - will see if I can clarify it

 

[SJS]

Interesting selection SJS - not that it's really relevant to anything but I believe that Tich Freeman and Jack Russell were related - will see if I can clarify it

Yes. They were cousins

or uncle and nephew.

cricketarchives shows both Jack Russell and his father Thomas M Russell as cousins of AP Freeman

 

[M.Adnan]

waqar Younus should took 1500 test wickets.

 

[Migara]

waqar Younus should took 1500 test wickets.

Probably a wet dream of his

 

[MrIncredible]

Yes. They were cousins

or uncle and nephew.

cricketarchives shows both Jack Russell and his father Thomas M Russell as cousins of AP Freeman

I dont know if this applies to ur thread but i would have loved for George Headley to have played many more than his 22 tests. I wish he would have had the chance to play Australia at home and possibly the weaker teams (India and RSA). Im almost certain he could have ended with a 65+ average over say 40-50 tests.

 

[Furball]

Thought SJS was referring to Jack Russell the wicketkeeper for a second, and thought he'd lost his marbles.

Another fascinating read.

 

[Burgey]

I fair dinkum salivate when I see SJS has posted in threads like these. Absolute quality as always from the great man (Y).

 

[SJS]

I dont know if this applies to ur thread but i would have loved for George Headley to have played many more than his 22 tests. I wish he would have had the chance to play Australia at home and possibly the weaker teams (India and RSA). Im almost certain he could have ended with a 65+ average over say 40-50 tests.

Well he couldnt have because West Indies played just taht many Tests. He wasnt dropped or missed out a single Test match in the perod between his debut and the breakout of WW II. After the war he was a shadow of himself and would have been better of not playing the handful of Tests that he did. :-)

But the war was a great tragedy for him and so it was for many others.

I have focussed on those who were available, Tests were being played and yet didn't.