Which of these teams do you think would win in a test match?

[smash84]

When SLCB organizes more tours abroad and gives him opportunities to score more hundreds outside the subcontinent.

Also, Sanga's best numbers have come without the keeping gloves on.

True

 

[smash84]

Agree with that. Think the real difference between the two teams is Sobers/Imran. Sobers makes Team A a stronger batting unit, while Imran makes Team B a stronger unit. Forced to choose, I will choose Team B because 5 bowlers + 6 batsmen trump 4 bowlers + 7 batsmen, specially given Hadlee can bat too.

Me too. Team B has 2 decent all rounders compared to 1 in team A. And I agree that I will choose 5 bowlers + 6 batsmen over 7 batsmen + 4 bowlers given the quality of the bowlers of course.

 

[Tom 1972]

First poll. Team B.


Second lists
A. Hutton, Hobbs, Headley, Sachin, Viv*, Sobers, Gilchrist+, Marshall, Warne, Lillee, Mcgrath

B. Sutcliffe, Gavaskar, Hammond, Lara, G Chappell, Imran*, Sangakara+, Hadlee, Ambrose, Murali, Donald

The thing that I find hard to separate out is the relative merits of Hutton, Hobbs, Headley, Sutcliffe, Hammond. The top order bats that I never saw - all I can do is admire their stats and articles written about them.

Are we bowling on today's pitches? Are we using today's bats and protective equipment? I wouldn't want to imagine facing up to Marshall, a young Lillee, a young Donald or an angry Ambrose on a poorly prepared track of yesteryear.

If they were playing on a road, I am nor sure whether either side would get bowled out twice very often inside 5 days but I'd pay plenty of money to see the above two sides live!

 

[smash84]

First poll. Team B.


Second lists
A. Hutton, Hobbs, Headley, Sachin, Viv*, Sobers, Gilchrist+, Marshall, Warne, Lillee, Mcgrath

B. Sutcliffe, Gavaskar, Hammond, Lara, G Chappell, Imran*, Sangakara+, Hadlee, Ambrose, Murali, Donald

The thing that I find hard to separate out is the relative merits of Hutton, Hobbs, Headley, Sutcliffe, Hammond. The top order bats that I never saw - all I can do is admire their stats and articles written about them.

Are we bowling on today's pitches? Are we using today's bats and protective equipment? I wouldn't want to imagine facing up to Marshall, a young Lillee, a young Donald or an angry Ambrose on a poorly prepared track of yesteryear.

If they were playing on a road, I am nor sure whether either side would get bowled out twice very often inside 5 days but I'd pay plenty of money to see the above two sides live!

If they were playing on a road I would still back team 2 to win. Imran was a master of reverse swing and quite used to bowling on roads (read as Pakistan pitches). In fact there is better reverse swing on "roads" and team 1 will have nobody to exploit that.

 

[vcs]

From what Pakistan scorecards from the 80's I've looked at, there were very few high scoring matches played in Pakistan, even though there were plenty of draws. I'm not sure Pakistan wickets were roads in the '80s but I'd be interested to hear someone's opinion who watched matches in that era.

 

[smash84]

From what Pakistan scorecards from the 80's I've looked at, there were very few high scoring matches played in Pakistan, even though there were plenty of draws. I'm not sure Pakistan wickets were roads in the '80s but I'd be interested to hear someone's opinion who watched matches in that era.

The pitches were still roads back then. The main reason that the opposition didn't score too highly were that Pakistani bowlers were quite decent on those roads. Imran, Sarfaraz, Wasim Akram, Abdul Qadir, even Qasim Umer and Tausif Ahmed were very good on those pitches and others weren't. Which might explain why the opposition didn't score too well. Thats the reason that I can think of.

Although discounting the West Indies series in Pakistan I am not too sure if other series were that low scoring. West Indies obviously had a very good bowling attack.

 

[Faisal1985]

Easily team 2.

Some very strong names...and of course. Imran can win it on his own...

 

[kingjulian]

I think in most sports athletes and sportsmen of this generation will beat the players of the past (especially athletes from 30/40 years back) hands down in terms of comparable measures. Cricket is no different.

This is just human nature.

I find this foolish nostalgic behavior of the Cricket fan rather irritating.

I don't for a moment believe players of the current era are not able to hit the speeds that Dennis Lille and Jeff Thomo hit....it's just rubbish.

Shoiab Akthar, Brett Lee, Waqar Younis were all probably quicker than those guys.

I expect in another 20 years the classification of speeds to shift by at least another 5 km/hr.

So....Team 1 by a huge whopping country mile.

 

[Faisal1985]

I think in most sports athletes and sportsmen of this generation will beat the players of the past (especially athletes from 30/40 years back) hands down in terms of comparable measures. Cricket is no different.

This is just human nature.

I find this foolish nostalgic behavior of the Cricket fan rather irritating.

I don't for a moment believe players of the current era are not able to hit the speeds that Dennis Lille and Jeff Thomo hit....it's just rubbish.

Shoiab Akthar, Brett Lee, Waqar Younis were all probably quicker than those guys.

I expect in another 20 years the classification of speeds to shift by at least another 5 km/hr.

So....Team 1 by a huge whopping country mile.

Cricket is not just athleticism like soccer or football. It has a lot of technique as well, technically superior batsmen will do much better then physically fit but less technically sound batsmen...

 

[ankitj]

cricket is not just athleticism like soccer or football. It has a lot of technique as well, technically superior batsmen will do much better then physically fit but less technically sound batsmen...

+1

 

[vcs]

It's also nonsense to suggest that people have got so much more stronger, bigger and athletic in half a century or so. Fans of every sport seem to bring this up an awful lot when they talk about the "increased professionalism, fitness standards etc. etc.".

 

[kingjulian]

Cricket is not just athleticism like soccer or football. It has a lot of technique as well, technically superior batsmen will do much better then physically fit but less technically sound batsmen...

We learn from the past. With the technology available today to analyze, it is possible to study the best techniques used in the past and apply them in training and gather feedback. It's like this...Einstein was able to do what he did because Newton had set the path for him. He was able to step on Newton's shoulders and move on to greater things. It's not just a phenomenon found on track and field athletics. It's true in almost all walks of life.

There is no whopping evidence to suggest that Cricketers today are worse than Cricketers of the past in any way shape or form.

On the other hand we have writers who romanticize pre-war players and players in the 1950s to the point of demi-god status. But when you see whatever little video evidence that Lords has in it's archives, you come away very very underwhelmed. Lightning quick bowlers appear no better than medium pace trundlers, but if you ask those writers and players of their era, they charged in faster than Linford Christie on drugs, and their arms were as big as an Olympic wrestlers and they ate nails for breakfast and the balls caught on fire before it bounced etc....I have got no time for that bull****.

If I'm going to have to rely on unreliable scientific methods or word of mouth from players/writers of that era, i'm going to stick to my opinion that Cricket is no different from other sports, and that players have found ways to improve in all disciplines.....it is ****ing daft to think otherwise.

The burden of proof is with those who claim players from the past are better.

 

[Faisal1985]

Well.....

This...is not true for Cricket. Because as i said Cricket is not solely about athleticism...

"I think in most sports athletes and sportsmen of this generation will beat the players of the past (especially athletes from 30/40 years back) hands down in terms of comparable measures. Cricket is no different."

 

[Faisal1985]

We learn from the past. With the technology available today to analyze, it is possible to study the best techniques used in the past and apply them in training and gather feedback. It's like this...Einstein was able to do what he did because Newton had set the path for him. He was able to step on Newton's shoulders and move on to greater things. It's not just a phenomenon found on track and field athletics. It's true in almost all walks of life.

There is no whopping evidence to suggest that Cricketers today are worse than Cricketers of the past in any way shape or form.

On the other hand we have writers who romanticize pre-war players and players in the 1950s to the point of demi-god status. But when you see whatever little video evidence that Lords has in it's archives, you come away very very underwhelmed. Lightning quick bowlers appear no better than medium pace trundlers, but if you ask those writers and players of their era, they charged in faster than Linford Christie on drugs, and their arms were as big as an Olympic wrestlers and they ate nails for breakfast and the balls caught on fire before it bounced etc....I have got no time for that bull****.

If I'm going to have to rely on unreliable scientific methods or word of mouth from players/writers of that era, i'm going to stick to my opinion that Cricket is no different from other sports, and that players have found ways to improve in all disciplines.....it is ****ing daft to think otherwise.

The burden of proof is with those who claim players from the past are better.

The proof my friend are the fans still alive who have seen both eras of cricket and yet maintain that former players had better techniques. Moreover, the stats are also a good proof.

Personally i feel that the technical side of cricket has taken a hit massively due to an increased amount of money involved. It leads to flat pitches so that more sixes can be hit to pull crowds and make money. It leads to ridiculously springy bats..it leads to limited bouncers for the batsman to get more driving opportunity.

 

[Themer]

We learn from the past. With the technology available today to analyze, it is possible to study the best techniques used in the past and apply them in training and gather feedback. It's like this...Einstein was able to do what he did because Newton had set the path for him. He was able to step on Newton's shoulders and move on to greater things. It's not just a phenomenon found on track and field athletics. It's true in almost all walks of life.

There is no whopping evidence to suggest that Cricketers today are worse than Cricketers of the past in any way shape or form.

If I'm going to have to rely on unreliable scientific methods or word of mouth from players/writers of that era, i'm going to stick to my opinion that Cricket is no different from other sports, and that players have found ways to improve in all disciplines.....it is ****ing daft to think otherwise.

On the technology front todays players have significantly better equipment than their predecessors. You even hear players from as recent times as the 80s and 90s remarking on how much better the bats are nowadays; let alone players from the Bradman era. The players now use helmets, the no ball rules have changed to favour batsmen more and only a certain amount of bouncers are allowed to be bowled an over. Its pretty amazing how well Bradman did in the bodyline series even if it was significantly less that his usual average. Players have a variety of pads which weren't around/used during the aforementioned era.

I also don't think that people are claiming that Cricketers of today are worse merely that certain players from the past were better ie Bradman.

 

[smash84]

On the technology front todays players have significantly better equipment than their predecessors. You even hear players from as recent times as the 80s and 90s remarking on how much better the bats are nowadays; let alone players from the Bradman era. The players now use helmets, the no ball rules have changed to favour batsmen more and only a certain amount of bouncers are allowed to be bowled an over. Its pretty amazing how well Bradman did in the bodyline series even if it was significantly less that his usual average. Players have a variety of pads which weren't around/used during the aforementioned era.

I also don't think that people are claiming that Cricketers of today are worse merely that certain players from the past were better ie Bradman.

Well said

 

[Mat111]

Players back then didn't have better technique compared to the players of today you just have to look at Don Bradman. If you had Tendulkar and Bradman batting side by side in the cricket nets and you didn't know what they averaged or how many runs they have scored in their career, you would say Tendulkar is the better batsman and pick him over Bradman any day based on technique. Also now days the fielding has improved dramatically so more catches are taken more runs are saved more run outs happen, so it is safe to say that old averages would be shortened by at least 20 to 30 runs minimum. Even people like Clive Lloyd from the 60's who were great fielders for their team, stood out for their fielding because of the average fielding quality around then. Now days the entire team would be of Clive Lloyd standards and this includes most bowlers. That’s not going back to the Bradman era were the average fielding was very sub standard and the fast bowlers didn't even field of their own bowling!

 

[Themer]

There is no way that by fielding improvements alone mean averages should be scaled down by 20-30 runs. Even if you do that he's ahead of everyone else.

 

[Mat111]

There is no way that by fielding improvements alone mean averages should be scaled down by 20-30 runs. Even if you do that he's ahead of everyone else.

So your saying that a batsman who plays a bad fielding team will still score as many runs if he played a great fielding team. Of course not, fielders back then didn't dive as much or as well as they do now days to save runs and boundaries or to take catches, even their throwing wasn't as accurate or as strong as now days. So Bradman’s average would have definitely been way lower if you compare him to now day players because he would of got out more (through catches and run outs) and he would have scored less runs (due to better fielding i.e. more boundaries saved and more diving to save one’s and two's and the throws are more accurate and powerful so less chance to run on the arm etc). Back in Bradman’s era fielders just let the ball roll into the fence, there was no dive or effort to stop it. Same with fielding in the circle there were usually no dives to take catches or even attempts to take a diving catch, fielders would usually just turn and chase. Most of the half chances back then were usually dropped, now day’s fielders throw themselves at the ball and do everything they can to take catches and save runs. So of course Bradman’s average would be way lower!

 

[smash84]

So your saying that a batsman who plays a bad fielding team will still score as many runs if he played a great fielding team. Of course not, fielders back then didn't dive as much or as well as they do now days to save runs and boundaries or to take catches, even their throwing wasn't as accurate or as strong as now days. So Bradman’s average would have definitely been way lower if you compare him to now day players because he would of got out more (through catches and run outs) and he would have scored less runs (due to better fielding i.e. more boundaries saved and more diving to save one’s and two's and the throws are more accurate and powerful so less chance to run on the arm etc). Back in Bradman’s era fielders just let the ball roll into the fence, there was no dive or effort to stop it. Same with fielding in the circle there were usually no dives to take catches or even attempts to take a diving catch, fielders would usually just turn and chase. Most of the half chances back then were usually dropped, now day’s fielders throw themselves at the ball and do everything they can to take catches and save runs. So of course Bradman’s average would be way lower!

Just take away the helmets these days (and I am not even saying go back to the no limits on bouncers rule and so many other equipment that has come into the game) and see the average of today's batsmen drop (to quote you) "20-30 runs". Imagine the prospect of facing Shoaib Akhtar without a helmet. I bet the averages would come down for many batsmen when they have this fear playing on their minds.