• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Players that are the most overated by CW posters.

silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Obviously I can't top GIMH, but it's interesting to note the differences between the 50s and now. The era that Bradman played in was (in)famous for flatter than usual tracks, while the 50s are seen as more bowler friendly.

First, I completely agree with Prince EWS that players obviously have to design their game to succeed in their own era. There is no point in discussing whether an 18 year old of today could play a bouncer barrage from Dennis Lilllie without a helmet because he didn't grow up having to worry about dying if he missed a hook shot. He never has to learn that skillset, but has to learn some others (e.g, maybe has to have more shots in the book, or at least to try to score off more balls, etc). So I think a direct comparison is useless.

I also, however, don't necessarily buy that a great in one era would be great in another. From above, maybe some people aren't naturally good at some of the slightly different skillsets that were required in other eras. Maybe Boycott or Gavaskar couldn't adjust to the faster style of play (just examples), and they are 'relatively' recent.

Obviously Bradman is slightly different because he was so far above everyone that even if he couldn't translate even half his skillset, he'd be a great (and likely much more than half of your skillset is transferable).

When you watch old videos, you notice how 'different' the techniques looked. The pitches were different, the protection was different, and the bowling was different. Maybe Sehwag and Hayden couldn't adjust to the sticky wickets and Ranji would not adjust to the modern style.

I think probably the only way to rate a player is to figure out how much better he was from the 'average' player in the era he played. It becomes harder for players like Tendulkar (and Hobbs, etc) who played in at least two 'eras' (e.g, in the 90s when only 3-4 people averaged 50, to 00's when every team bar England seemed to have multiple people doing it).

Just my thoughts.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
silentstriker said:
Obviously I can't top GIMH, but it's interesting to note the differences between the 50s and now. The era that Bradman played in was (in)famous for flatter than usual tracks, while the 50s are seen as more bowler friendly.

First, I completely agree with Prince EWS that players obviously have to design their game to succeed in their own era. There is no point in discussing whether an 18 year old of today could play a bouncer barrage from Dennis Lilllie without a helmet because he didn't grow up having to worry about dying if he missed a hook shot. He never has to learn that skillset, but has to learn some others (e.g, maybe has to have more shots in the book, or at least to try to score off more balls, etc). So I think a direct comparison is useless.

I also, however, don't necessarily buy that a great in one era would be great in another. From above, maybe some people aren't naturally good at some of the slightly different skillsets that were required in other eras. Maybe Boycott or Gavaskar couldn't adjust to the faster style of play (just examples), and they are 'relatively' recent.

Obviously Bradman is slightly different because he was so far above everyone that even if he couldn't translate even half his skillset, he'd be a great (and likely much more than half of your skillset is transferable).

When you watch old videos, you notice how 'different' the techniques looked. The pitches were different, the protection was different, and the bowling was different. Maybe Sehwag and Hayden couldn't adjust to the sticky wickets and Ranji would not adjust to the modern style.

I think probably the only way to rate a player is to figure out how much better he was from the 'average' player in the era he played. It becomes harder for players like Tendulkar (and Hobbs, etc) who played in at least two 'eras' (e.g, in the 90s when only 3-4 people averaged 50, to 00's when every team bar England seemed to have multiple people doing it).

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute.







Did someone say Corrin made a funny? I call bull****.
 
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
silentstriker said:
Obviously I can't top GIMH, but it's interesting to note the differences between the 50s and now. The era that Bradman played in was (in)famous for flatter than usual tracks, while the 50s are seen as more bowler friendly.

First, I completely agree with Prince EWS that players obviously have to design their game to succeed in their own era. There is no point in discussing whether an 18 year old of today could play a bouncer barrage from Dennis Lilllie without a helmet because he didn't grow up having to worry about dying if he missed a hook shot. He never has to learn that skillset, but has to learn some others (e.g, maybe has to have more shots in the book, or at least to try to score off more balls, etc). So I think a direct comparison is useless.

I also, however, don't necessarily buy that a great in one era would be great in another. From above, maybe some people aren't naturally good at some of the slightly different skillsets that were required in other eras. Maybe Boycott or Gavaskar couldn't adjust to the faster style of play (just examples), and they are 'relatively' recent.

Obviously Bradman is slightly different because he was so far above everyone that even if he couldn't translate even half his skillset, he'd be a great (and likely much more than half of your skillset is transferable).

When you watch old videos, you notice how 'different' the techniques looked. The pitches were different, the protection was different, and the bowling was different. Maybe Sehwag and Hayden couldn't adjust to the sticky wickets and Ranji would not adjust to the modern style.

I think probably the only way to rate a player is to figure out how much better he was from the 'average' player in the era he played. It becomes harder for players like Tendulkar (and Hobbs, etc) who played in at least two 'eras' (e.g, in the 90s when only 3-4 people averaged 50, to 00's when every team bar England seemed to have multiple people doing it).

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
AWTA, but what's interesting is that if you look at most batsmen from the 20s onwards who are more or less universally regarded as greats, with the exception of Bradman, they all pretty much average the same (generally between 53 and 57, with a few outliers either side), and all score their centuries at the same rate (generally between every 6 and 7.5 innings on average). These figures have been fairly stable for the last 90 years of Test cricket.

While we can't say for certainty that any of today's batsmen would do as well in the 50s, or that 70s batsmen would adjust to today's game, what hasn't changed is what a batsman has to do statistically to generally be regarded as a great.
 
Migara

Migara

International Coach
The simpler statement "It is the biggest cricketing sin ever, even to question the standard of cricket of Bradman's time".
 
Migara

Migara

International Coach
Ikki said:
Migara, please. Bradman is so far ahead that gauging the standard is simply not much of a concern. Strictly speaking, we can't gauge the standard or the difficulty of play on a match by match basis...that doesn't mean we forgo comparison even amongst contemporaries.

Each generation of batsmen has come and gone and whilst the best have almost invariably averaged in the 50s, one guy averaged almost 100 and no one has come close. Cricketers throughout history have been contemporaries of one another; with generations of players overlapping. If the standard that allowed Bradman to average 100 fell so much that he'd, let's say, average 70 (which is a 30 point drop!!!) that standard would be visible - meaning that it would be undeniable and people would comment on it. Heck, batting averages between the 90s and the 00s are only about 3 points in difference and we can discern the difference - nevermind explaining the difference of 30!

There is simply no argument to him being far and away the greatest batsman of all time. Criticisms of his record, or indeed questioning the standards of the time, are a waste of time because at best they could explain a few points on his batting average, not 30...not even 10.



The problem is that in itself is a weak argument. The "possibility" of different standards exist but who can say whether it was harder or easier? The theory itself is based on guesswork and more to the point...who can actually calculate that; to come close to a figure that could represent what he may average now? It's not ludicrous to say that Bradman may have averaged less nowadays than before...but it is when you start throwing around figures of him averaging 70 or even 80. These are 20-30 point drops. You need a far better theory than one resting on the mere possibility of a drop in standards.
Click to expand...
You have hit the nail on the head there. There is no way of knowing it. So the statement "Because Bradman was so far ahead of his peers makes him so far ahead of all the batsman" is not valid. The whole number game you played just done and dusted excercise. Go back to my two exam paper examples. Unless the papers are of same standard, there's no point in comparing performance of two candidates by using stats.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Migara said:
You have hit the nail on the head there. There is no way of knowing it. So the statement "Because Bradman was so far ahead of his peers makes him so far ahead of all the batsman" is not valid. The whole number game you played just done and dusted excercise. Go back to my two exam paper examples. Unless the papers are of same standard, there's no point in comparing performance of two candidates by using stats.
Click to expand...
You didn't read the rest of my post did you? The statement "Because Bradman was so far ahead of his peers makes him so far ahead of all the batsman" is valid because we are not quibbling about 2-3 runs on average here, heck it could be 30 and he'd still be far and away the best batsman ever.

You just outted yourself. I thought all you wanted to do was pose the question of whether it was tougher or not back then, as an academic exercise. There is no sane argument to use that point to say Bradman wasn't the greatest batsman of all time by a distance. He is, was, and will always be. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Ikki said:
You didn't read the rest of my post did you? The statement "Because Bradman was so far ahead of his peers makes him so far ahead of all the batsman" is valid because we are not quibbling about 2-3 runs on average here, heck it could be 30 and he'd still be far and away the best batsman ever.

You just outted yourself. I thought all you wanted to do was pose the question of whether it was tougher or not back then, as an academic exercise. There is no sane argument to use that point to say Bradman wasn't the greatest batsman of all time by a distance. He is, was, and will always be. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
I think you can make a case for saying that the good doctor gets as close to Bradman as anyone (although I'd accept he still falls short), but I think perhaps l wont bother to try and articulate it
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
If Migara has problems with the standard at Bradman's time...he's going to have a whole lot of fun with Grace's. :p
 
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Migara said:
You have hit the nail on the head there. There is no way of knowing it. So the statement "Because Bradman was so far ahead of his peers makes him so far ahead of all the batsman" is not valid. The whole number game you played just done and dusted excercise. Go back to my two exam paper examples. Unless the papers are of same standard, there's no point in comparing performance of two candidates by using stats.
Click to expand...
We'll just ignore Bradman setting all kinds of batting records that no-one has come remotely close to emulating then, shall we?
 
benchmark00

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
fredfertang said:
Perhaps I might try and dig out the posts where I've tried to put forward the case before then :)
Click to expand...
Admittedly I'm nowere near as learned on Grace as you are, Tangy, but I can honestly put my hand up and say I never really got why he's rated so high (such as comparable to Bradman).

I have no doubt, and I do appreciate, that he was a revolutionary, but does that alone warrant his lable as a master player?

Am genuinely interested in the case for Grace, so dig those posts out, Tangmeister!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top