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

[hang on]

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.

i think it is a little simpler than that. it is an accepted fact that different england teams (or understrength ones) used to tour simultaneously. or the best players used to skip tours, whether to play minnows and tour places considered to be inconvenient or unpleasant.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

i think it is a little simpler than that. it is an accepted fact that different england teams (or understrength ones) used to tour simultaneously. or the best players used to skip tours, whether to play minnows and tour places considered to be inconvenient or unpleasant.

Players skip tours today though. Look at India in West Indies, England in Bangladesh etc...

 

[Cevno]

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.

So you disagree that More cricketers playing more cricket = More ATG cricketers most probably?

So basically in the "our generation he was referring to" it is tougher to get that 1.37 of a spot in the team there are thousands of professional cricketers competing while previously say there were say 100 competing to get that slot?

 

[hang on]

Players skip tours today though. Look at India in West Indies, England in Bangladesh etc...

and so? or rather, my point exactly---tours to minnow countries are skipped. hence, i wanted to know if south africa were treated as minnows around the time barnes was playing. ie if the losses england suffered at their hands were the consequence of a powerful team or a minnow team beating an understrength team.

 

[centurymaker]

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

england won their games comfortably........................................

 

[Prince EWS]

So you disagree that More cricketers playing more cricket = More ATG cricketers most probably?

So basically in the "our generation he was referring to" it is tougher to get that 1.37 of a spot in the team there are thousands of professional cricketers competing while previously say there were say 100 competing to get that slot?

Oh, well you do have a point about there being more teams. The top 10% has gone from meaning 3 players to 9 players. I don't think playing more matches is a point at all though.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

and so? or rather, my point exactly---tours to minnow countries are skipped. hence, i wanted to know if south africa were treated as minnows around the time barnes was playing. ie if the losses england suffered at their hands were the consequence of a powerful team or a minnow team beating an understrength team.

As i said though it is very difficult to know 100 years ago if it was a Kambli type falling out or players were not selected as the board thought it was a lesser team. Players were possibly unavailable back then as they were unpaid and couldn't get away from their jobs etc.

So hard to know 100 years on the ins and outs of the selection process.

 

[hang on]

whatever the ins and outs of the selection process are, if those acknowledged to be the best players are not selected, then it is a weak)er) team.

thought that there would enough written about it.....as there was in the case of headley and the tours of his time. perhaps someone who has a hobby over pouring over old wisdens would be able to speak to this.

 

[centurymaker]

So you disagree that More cricketers playing more cricket = More ATG cricketers most probably?

So basically in the "our generation he was referring to" it is tougher to get that 1.37 of a spot in the team there are thousands of professional cricketers competing while previously say there were say 100 competing to get that slot?

but pews is in a mood to just argue and disagree with us to pass his time

even he knows deep down how flawed his arguements have been. he's just bored.

next time i see pews pick more than 4 players from 1962 onwards (last 48 years/ 12 year intervals), I'll take him down

 

[Prince EWS]

but pews is in a mood to just argue and disagree with us to pass his time

even he knows deep down how flawed his arguements have been. he's just bored.

next time i see pews pick more than 4 players from 1962 onwards (last 48 years/ 12 year intervals), I'll take him down

Actually, I'd rather not be having this debate as I'm talking to someone about something pretty important at the moment, but it's sucked me in. I'm completely genuine about everything I've said.

 

[Uppercut]

but pews is in a mood to just argue and disagree with us to pass his time

even he knows deep down how flawed his arguements have been. he's just bored.

 

[BlazeDragon]

He ONLY played 27 test matches!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (even though they didn't play much test cricket in those days, 27 is hardly enough games)

Awta.

Plus I don't get why its being seen as that Mcgrath's average isn't even capable of touching the feet of Barnes. Barnes averaged 16.43 in only 50 innings while Mcgrath averaged 21.64 in 243 innings in a much more batting friendly era.

 

[Prince EWS]

Awta.

Plus I don't get why its being seen as that Mcgrath's average isn't even capable of touching the feet of Barnes. Barnes averaged 16.43 in only 50 innings while Mcgrath averaged 21.64 in 243 innings in a much more batting friendly era.

So McGrath's average is allowed to be higher because due to the era he played in, but Barnes isn't allowed to have played fewer matches due to the era he played in? Double standards, much?

Don't get me wrong, I think Barnes's average needs to be taken in with the right context too - but so does his number of matches.

 

[Cevno]

Oh, well you do have a point about there being more teams. The top 10% has gone from meaning 3 players to 9 players. I don't think playing more matches is a point at all though.

More matches and different variety of conditions with different type of players is a product of more teams with better infrastructure as is more players playing cricket professionally which will in turn lead to a better chance(whatever be the degree) of their being more ATG cricketers and also a bit of moderating of averages.
Unless ofcourse 2 countries are playing amongst themselves only again and again where the number of matches would count less.

This may be going a bit broader but -
Say if i am playing against 25 bowlers in one play ground A out of which 10 are of very good quality , and in another playground B playing against 5 bowlers again and again out of which 3 are of very good quality.
Obviously i would get used to bowlers in playground B earlier and more easily than playground A, and it is also more likelier that i will find a bogey bowler out of 25 than 5 using simple logic and since the 25 are more varied naturally whom i will struggle against until i adapt.
Same obviously applies to the bowlers and the batsman they bowl too and the number of them.And this is discounting the variation of conditions where i play the 25 bowlers in all sorts of different conditions in a hypothetical in several matches while i am playing the 5 bowlers in 2 conditions in less number of matches.

All after a certain extent is dependant on the situation though, and comes down to opinion and where i disagree with Boycott's logic at all.

 

[Prince EWS]

More matches and different variety of conditions with different type of players is a product of more teams with better infrastructure as is more players playing cricket professionally which will in turn lead to a better chance(whatever be the degree) of their being more ATG cricketers and also a bit of moderating of averages.
Unless ofcourse 2 countries are playing amongst themselves only again and again where the number of matches would count less.[

This may be going a bit broader but -
Say if i am playing against 25 bowlers in one play ground A out of which 10 are of very good quality , and in another playground B playing against 5 bowlers again and again out of which 3 are of very good quality.
Obviously i would get used to bowlers in playground B earlier and more easily than playground A, and it is also more likelier that i will find a bogey bowler out of 25 than 5 using simple logic and since the 25 are more varied naturally whom i will struggle against until i adapt.
Same obviously applies to the bowlers and the batsman they bowl too and the number of them.And this is discounting the variation of conditions where i play the 25 bowlers in all sorts of different conditions in a hypothetical.

Coddleswipe IMO. Even if true, all of that is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Cevno]

Coddleswipe IMO. Even if true, all of that is entirely irrelevant.

What's that? Not showing even in Google

And how is it irrelevant? Was addressing your number of matches point,though may have broadened the debate a bit,but you hinted towards something similar in a previous post too.

 

[Cevno]

Giving Boycott too much attention(way more than this article deserved) in any case

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Giving Boycott too much attention(way more than this article deserved) in any case

Deserves more than the original team to be fair.

 

[BlazeDragon]

So McGrath's average is allowed to be higher because due to the era he played in, but Barnes isn't allowed to have played fewer matches due to the era he played in? Double standards, much?

Don't get me wrong, I think Barnes's average needs to be taken in with the right context too - but so does his number of matches.

But it kind of does work both way doesn't it?

Let me ask you this do you believe Barnes would have kept that form if his career was as long as Mcgrath's or the average length of a modern day bowler's? And do you believe the Barnes would be capable of doing what Mcgrath did in such a batting friendly era?

I know this seems unfair to Barnes by attacking him from both ways but that was the problem with his career being so short.

 

[Cevno]

Deserves more than the original team to be fair.

DWTA. Doesn't for me.