Geoffrey Boycott: ICC's Dream XI is a joke - it has no credibility

[ankitj]

Warne as the spinner maybe?

Of course not. When are we ever going to stop pretending that Warne has no competition?

 

[Cevno]

It's a poor analogy. Barnes didn't play many Tests because not many were played during his time.

When you're comparing players from different times, you have to try and remove everything that's time biased. The fact that there were less runs on average during Barnes's time is something that must be considered, and it means he wasn't *quite* as good as his average of 16 or so suggests. By the standards of his time he was still indeed the best bowler but not by the margin in which someone averaging 16 in 2011 would be. However, if you're going to do that, you also have to recognise that they played far fewer Tests in his time - by the standards of the early 1900s, 27 was a lot of Tests.

But then you also have to recognise that Lohmann averaged even 6 less than Barnes and also the fact that Barnes only played 2 countries one of which was South Africa who were weak and one Australia against whom he averaged more than 21 .

I don't think you could make that argument at all only based on averages. Whether it was his fault or not, the fact stands that he only played these 2 countries and only in England and Australia and also has a small sample size.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Of course not. When are we ever going to stop pretending that Warne has no competition?

I did say maybe. Murali if you reckon he is the best then? These two spinners stats are so much better than the rest of their field that they would easily get chosen ahead of A.N Other batsman etc....

 

[Cevno]

See Howe's post.

Again down to opinion.

You can have the same opinion about Madhavan Sathishivam or Vijay Merchant(second highest batting average to the don) and many people do, but they weren't playing for one of the prominent cricket powers of the time and weren't as hyped up.
There are several player who disprove relying on FC records too like Ajay Sharma giving one example .

 

[hang on]

It's a poor analogy. Barnes didn't play many Tests because not many were played during his time.

When you're comparing players from different times, you have to try and remove everything that's time biased. The fact that there were less runs on average during Barnes's time is something that must be considered, and it means he wasn't *quite* as good as his average of 16 or so suggests. By the standards of his time he was still indeed the best bowler but not by the margin in which someone averaging 16 in 2011 would be. However, if you're going to do that, you also have to recognise that they played far fewer Tests in his time - by the standards of the early 1900s, 27 was a lot of Tests.

that's not the point. the fact remains that he didn't play as many tests as a mcgrath. i know it is not his fault that he played so few tests since that's what the times were like. and i - and many others - would pick the person who did well over more tests. one is an imponderable as far as projecting how many wickets someone would have got had he played more tests, while the other is a fact or an observable, in a manner of speaking.

 

[Cevno]

I did say maybe. Murali if you reckon he is the best then? These two spinners stats are so much better than the rest of their field that they would easily get chosen ahead of A.N Other batsman etc....

There stats are better if you include longevity(no of matches and conditions) but not without it so much compared to a Bill O'reilly. But then same could apply to batsman.

 

[centurymaker]

still just 3 players at best qualify from pre 1948

bradman, hobbs and barnes (i have my doubts about him).


Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

This is interesting -
southafria were a minnow and he picked up half his wickets against them at an avg 9/10 (which is quite impressive but a better indicator of his ability would be his record against aus)

 

[Prince EWS]

But then you also have to recognise that Lohmann averaged even 6 less than Barnes and also the fact that Barnes only played 2 countries one of which was South Africa who were weak and one Australia against whom he averaged more than 21 .

I don't think you could make that argument at all only based on averages. Whether it was his fault or not, the fact stands that he only played these 2 countries and only in England and Australia and also has a small sample size.

Lohmann's First Class record was a fair bit poorer though, and if you standardise their performance by opposition and general standards of run-scoring, their Test averages look a lot closer (link). Lohmann benefited from playing poor opposition in a bowler-friendly era a lot more than Barnes did.

Playing two countries was perfectly normal for his time. He played against all the Test nations. As I've said before, the only way you can really compare players from different eras is to compare them to the mean of their era, then compare the comparisons. "How much better was he than the average cricketer of his time?" Otherwise you just make it impossible for players from certain eras to be considered good as you hold them to things they could have never achieved - although I'm actually quite sure this is the goal of many people.

 

[vcs]

Again down to opinion.

You can have the same opinion about Madhavan Sathishivam or Vijay Merchant(second highest batting average to the don) and many people do, but they weren't playing for one of the prominent cricket powers of the time and weren't as hyped up.
There are several player who disprove relying on FC records too like Ajay Sharma giving one example .

Wow, never knew Merchant's stats were this good. Averages 56.75 in his (presumably) best position as opener, as well.

 

[Cevno]

Totally disagree. It's about your relative merits as a cricketer compared to the standards of the time, to me, not how high people can make completely wild guesses about the standard of cricket you played was.

The balance between bat and ball in different eras is long something I've posted about and taken into account. To just say that one era was better than another overall just has no real logic or evidence to it from my perspective though. Even if Hobbs really would third grade club cricket should he be teleported here, I couldn't care in the slightest. To me it's about how effective he was at his job during his time compared to the average cricketer.

Though i disagree with some of what you are saying, i never fully implied what you are saying in that post.

You were just spreading the number of players picked from different periods of time and saying that only 9% would come from the current time based on number of years and period of time.
What i was pointing out was more professional cricketers with more infrastructure and more countries and matches should in all probability and logic equal more better cricketers too in "our generation". Hence the 9% thing is not as simple as just that in regards to the point Centurymaker was making with regards to Boycotts team.

 

[Howe_zat]

But then you also have to recognise that Lohmann averaged even 6 less than Barnes and also the fact that Barnes only played 2 countries one of which was South Africa who were weak and one Australia against whom he averaged more than 21 .

I don't think you could make that argument at all only based on averages. Whether it was his fault or not, the fact stands that he only played these 2 countries and only in England and Australia and also has a small sample size.

As it happened, Barnes and Lohmann played Tests 20 years apart, and by Barnes' best years SA had long since shaken off the minnows tag. They thrashed England on the 1910 tour - largely, among other reasons, because Barnes didn't tour - and then when England went back there in 1913/14 Barnes destroyed them. Time didn't stand still just because we weren't there.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

still just 3 players at best qualify from pre 1948

bradman, hobbs and barnes (i have my doubts about him).

Fairynuff. The point i made was that you shouldn't have 10 of the team that was picked by the fans that have played since 1980. That is a little ridiculous.

Boycott probably has the balance better from the ages if still slightly flawed with the personnel.

 

[Prince EWS]

still just 3 players at best qualify from pre 1948

bradman, hobbs and barnes (i have my doubts about him).


Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

This is interesting -
southafria were a minnow and he picked up half his wickets against them at an avg 9/10 (which is quite impressive but a better indicator of his ability would be his record against aus)

South Africa weren't a minnow when Barnes took a lot of his wickets against them, though - it's a wee bit of a myth. For example, they beat England 3-2 in 1910 when Barnes didn't tour, then when Barnes toured in 1913 he took 56 @ 10 and England still lost 4-1.

 

[Prince EWS]

Though i disagree with some of what you are saying, i never fully implied what you are saying in that post.

You were just spreading the number of players picked from different periods of time and saying that only 9% would come from the current time based on number of years and period of time.
What i was pointing out was more professional cricketers with more infrastructure and more countries and matches should in all probability and logic equal more better cricketers too in "our generation". Hence the 9% thing is not as simple as just that in regards to the point Centurymaker was making with regards to Boycotts team.

I disagree entirely though. I pretty much just want to repeat the post quoted in reply to that, which makes me think you didn't understand it.

 

[hang on]

South Africa weren't a minnow when Barnes took a lot of his wickets against them, though - it's a wee bit of a myth. For example, they beat England 3-2 in 1910 when Barnes didn't turn, then when Barnes toured in 1913 he took 56 @ 10 and England still lost 4-1.

out of curiosity, did england send their best teams to all tours at that time? for example, headley - though a few years a later - certainly did not play the full strength england team for many of his matches.

 

[centurymaker]

South Africa weren't a minnow when Barnes took a lot of his wickets against them, though - it's a wee bit of a myth. For example, they beat England 3-2 in 1910 when Barnes didn't turn, then when Barnes toured in 1913 he took 56 @ 10 and England still lost 4-1.

Results | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

3 comprehensive victories


Results | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

3 comprehensive wins, 1 decent win, and 1 draw.


SA were a weak side. (no way a player would avg just 10 against a decent opposition)

 

[flibbertyjibber]

out of curiosity, did england send their best teams to all tours at that time? for example, headley - though a few years a later - certainly did not play the full strength england team for many of his matches.

Lets face it it is difficult for us to say now never having seen any of them play whether they were the strongest sides back then anyway as we have no idea of certain players form at the time which might have lead to them being dropped etc...

In 100 years time people may look at Vinod Kambli and be totally baffled as to why he was ignored yet we know more about his case.

 

[Cevno]

As it happened, Barnes and Lohmann played Tests 20 years apart, and by Barnes' best years SA had long since shaken off the minnows tag. They thrashed England on the 1910 tour - largely, among other reasons, because Barnes didn't tour - and then when England went back there in 1913/14 Barnes destroyed them. Time didn't stand still just because we weren't there.

The difference between Hutton and Barnes time was more ftr than Lohman and him.
And they just won 2 out of 19 series till 1929 and that too against England in South Africa both times and both times England had other players missing and not only just barnes.

And i wasn't actually comparing Lohmann and Barnes though was making more the point in regards to only taking averages on face value. Whether FC or Tests and in relation to what Boycott was alegedly alleging which i disagreed with regards to the batsman having it tougher even after his time.
I actually rate Barnes

 

[Prince EWS]

no way a player would avg just 10 against a decent opposition

Haha, I love the circular logic here. Can you do a graph for this too, Howe?

 

[smash84]

Each period of 15 years, in a completely even World XI, would see 1.23 cricketers picked, so he's perfectly within his rights to pick just the one.

Playing more Tests per year does not mean the upper echelon of cricketers are dominating cricket more than they did in previous years. That's what being a great is all about in my books - being a lot better than the average cricketer of your time. The more comparatively better you are, the greater you are and the more you deserve selection in something like this. Whether or not cricketers would perform in other eras is entirely irrelevant because that wasn't their job or what they were trying to achieve. Sydney Barnes's coach wouldn't have been saying to him "No, stop bowling like that - what you should be doing is bowling in a fashion that will be effective 100 years down the track when you're long dead, even if it means you'll be far less effective now, because that's what really matters". It'd make as much sense as telling Dale Steyn that he should be bowling side-arm lobs because they would've been more effective in the 1910's, or disqualifying him from your World XI because he wouldn't have been as good then. Their goal was be as effective as they could with what was in front of them and yes, that batting was easier in some eras and bowling was easier in others is something that should be very heavily considered, but you can't just wipe off an entire era as easier in general for everyone, because it doesn't work like that. Your value is measured by how good you were compared to everyone else in your time.

gun post

I don't think Kapil was inferior to Imran purely as a batsman TBH. Though, obviously Imran was comfortably ahead overall.

tbf Kapil was the more explosive batsman