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

[centurymaker]

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.

would you mind posting your AT line-up?

keep in mind that you can only pick 4 from the following

viv richards, garry sobers, alan knott, gilly, mcgrath, ambrose, donald, warne, murali, gavaskar, holding, marshall, garner, tendulkar, lara, waugh, border, chappell, miandad, sehwag, imran khan, wasim akram, richard hadlee, botham, kallis, andy roberts, lillee, shaun pollock, barry richards, graeme pollock etc etc..

i'll give it a shot first (your team would probably look like this)-

Jack Hobbs 1
Len Hutton/ Sutcliffe 2
Donald Bradman 3
George Headley 4
Wally Hammond 5
Gary Sobers
Gilly/ knott
Marshall/ imran khan
Warne
Sydney Barnes 6
Lohmann 7

damn it even i managed to compile a team with 7 oldies.

my team (it'll own your xi )

Jack Hobbs
Gavaskar
Donald Bradman
Tendulkar/ viv richards
Gary Sobers
Gilly
Imran Khan/ Wasim Akram
Richard Hadlee/ Ambrose
Marshall
Warne
McGrath

 

[Prince EWS]

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?

Entirely irrelevant. I don't care in the slightest. The demands of Barnes's era were as such that he was tasked with developing a style that would be successful on bowler-friendly wickets (compared to today's time anyway - they were actually pretty plumb wickets relative to other periods in cricket's history), relative to that of his peers. Barnes was further ahead of the average cricketer during his time than McGrath was during his, and that's all that matters. Judging him on something he wasn't even attempting that would have served absolutely no purpose or gain to him makes about as much sense as me asking you whether you think McGrath would've been a success as a wicket keeper in the 1940s.

 

[vcs]

Entirely irrelevant. I don't care in the slightest. The demands of Barnes's era were as such that he was tasked with developing a style that would be successful our bowler-friendly wickets, relative to that of his peers. Barnes was further ahead of the average cricketer during his time than McGrath was during his, and that's all that matters. Judging him on something he wasn't even attempting that would have served absolutely no purpose or gain to him makes about as much sense as me asking you whether you think McGrath would've been a success as a wicket keeper in the 1940s.

You have the patience of a monk.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

The right context for Barnes's average.

Being the best of his contemporaries is the most we can reasonably ask of any sportsman and SFB passes that test in spades.

Anyway, the crux of the debate seems to be: who's the bigger force for evil? Boycott or Indian fanboys?

 

[centurymaker]

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.

Longevity is very under-rated on this forum.

I'd take a guy with 12,000 runs at an avg of 53 over a guy with 8,000 runs at an avg of 56 anyday (assuming they played in the same era, everything else constant etc)!

 

[Prince EWS]

Longevity is very under-rated on this forum.

I'd take a guy with 12,000 runs at an avg of 53 over a guy with 8,000 runs at an avg of 56 anyday (assuming they played in the same era, everything else constant etc)!

I'm a big advocate of longevity. Barnes and McGrath had Test careers spanning similar amounts of time though.

There's a difference between demonstrating the ability to perform over a long period, and playing for a team that happens to play heaps of Tests in a short period. Longevity, to me, is a measure of a time rather than matches.

 

[Prince EWS]

would you mind posting your AT line-up?

keep in mind that you can only pick 4 from the following

viv richards, garry sobers, alan knott, gilly, mcgrath, ambrose, donald, warne, murali, gavaskar, holding, marshall, garner, tendulkar, lara, waugh, border, chappell, miandad, sehwag, imran khan, wasim akram, richard hadlee, botham, kallis, andy roberts, lillee, shaun pollock, barry richards, graeme pollock etc etc..

i'll give it a shot first (your team would probably look like this)-

Jack Hobbs 1
Len Hutton/ Sutcliffe 2
Donald Bradman 3
George Headley 4
Wally Hammond 5
Gary Sobers
Gilly/ knott
Marshall/ imran khan
Warne
Sydney Barnes 6
Lohmann 7

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2331717-post129.html



Spot on! Especially since CricInfo wouldn't actually let me pick Lohmann and that was the team I picked on the CricInfo thing.

 

[Howe_zat]

Anyway, the crux of the debate seems to be: who's the bigger force for evil? Boycott or Indian fanboys?

Boycott has ...fanboys?

I'm deeply troubled.

 

[centurymaker]

I'm a big advocate of longevity. Barnes and McGrath had Test careers spanning similar amounts of time though.

There's a difference between demonstrating the ability to perform over a long period, and playing for a team that happens to play heaps of Tests in a short period. Longevity, to me, is a measure of a time rather than matches.

well yea, i'd say it's a mix of the two with time being the main factor

for example ponting peaked for 4 years (02-03 and 05-06) but he played so many tests in that period that it's more like a 5-6 year peak. (i know this isn't really longevity but this is the first example that came to my head).

 

[BlazeDragon]

Entirely irrelevant. I don't care in the slightest. The demands of Barnes's era were as such that he was tasked with developing a style that would be successful on bowler-friendly wickets (compared to today's time anyway - they were actually pretty plumb wickets relative to other periods in cricket's history), relative to that of his peers. Barnes was further ahead of the average cricketer during his time than McGrath was during his, and that's all that matters. Judging him on something he wasn't even attempting that would have served absolutely no purpose or gain to him makes about as much sense as me asking you whether you think McGrath would've been a success as a wicket keeper in the 1940s.

That's not true at all. Other great bowlers from Barnes era like Blythe, Foster, Whitty all averaged pretty close to Barnes. Barnes's superiority over them is arguably just as much as Mcgrath's superiority over greats of his his era like Murali, Warne, Wasim, Waqar, Pollock etc.

 

[weeman27bob]

Boycott has ...fanboys?

I'm deeply troubled.

"Oh Geoffrey, please tell me how good your nan was just one more time. "

 

[Prince EWS]

That's not true at all. Other great bowlers from Barnes era like Blythe, Foster, Whitty all averaged pretty close to Barnes. Barnes's superiority over them is arguably just as much as Mcgrath's superiority over greats of his his era like Murali, Warne, Wasim, Waqar, Pollock etc.

None of those players are 'the average cricketer'. I'd also argue that if you standardised those averages then Barnes would leave them for dead but I do realise the possible problems involved with using a system I invented to support my opinion.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Longevity is very under-rated on this forum.

I'd take a guy with 12,000 runs at an avg of 53 over a guy with 8,000 runs at an avg of 56 anyday (assuming they played in the same era, everything else constant etc)!

Yes it is. As great as Don Bradman is I really don't think his average would be in the 90's if he played more matches. It would still most likely be higher than everybody else but not I highly doubt it would be in the 90's.

 

[centurymaker]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2331717-post129.html



Spot on! Especially since CricInfo wouldn't actually let me pick Lohmann and that was the team I picked on the CricInfo thing.

holy ****, i know you too well now

do I get a prize for this btw

 

[weeman27bob]

Yes it is. As great as Don Bradman is I really don't think his average would be in the 90's if he played more matches. It would still most likely be higher than everybody else but not I highly doubt it would be in the 90's.

As soon as you say that though, you've got to disregard statistics as a whole, because what if everyone had played more matches?

 

[Prince EWS]

Bradman made 234 matches in First Class cricket and still averaged 95. You can argue that he played in a good batting era (and he did) but his high Test average wasn't a samplesizelol.

 

[BlazeDragon]

As soon as you say that though, you've got to disregard statistics as a whole, because what if everyone had played more matches?

You mean played as many match as people of this era?

Yes it kind of does that's why think comparing people of different eras is a bad idea.

 

[Furball]

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

I would take Kapil, purely because my preference for a number 8 batsman would be for him to be an aggressive gamebreaker capable of smashing a dejected attack out of the game or launching aggressive counter attacks.

 

[Jarquis]

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

Meh, everyone Bradman played was a weak side. No way a batsman could average 99.94.

 

[Jarquis]

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.

You're ignoring the fact that McGrath maintained his performances for 13 years and 2 months while Barnes managed it for 12 years and 2 months.
He had a career as long as a modern day players, they just didn't play as often in that era. That's hardly Barnes' fault.