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

[Furball]

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.

Worth pointing out as well Barnes' problems with officialdom and the fact that cricket administrators are (largely) a different breed these days. I doubt Barnes would have miss many (if any) Tests for the reasons he missed games during his career.

 

[kyear2]

First let me say that Boycott is right and that the ICC team is a farce, and in comparrison, unless the ICC anounces an official al time team based on experts opinions, the the cricinfo effort is officially reconised as the "ALL TIME TEAM".
I believe that if one is to critise any team, one has to provide reasons for doing so.
With regard to Barnes, he was from an era where most of the players were part time players at best and novices at worst. The fact that no one for sure can ever describe his style of bowling, and the fact that the era when he bowled, what he bowled could not even be called pitches, he missed out for me.
He joins a deserving list of players, who for one reason or another (era, games played ect.) just falls just below first team consideration. Barry Richards, Victor Trumper, Syd Barnes and George Headley.
Another such player is Hobbs, who by his own by his own accomplishments (100 hundreds after 40 yrs old) discredits him self. That a almost 50 yr old can be scoring at that rate shows again the level of competition he played againts. Also the LBW rules of his day were liberal at best, where once the ball pitched outside the off stump one could not be out, and he and Sutcliffe were 2 of the greatest exponents/benefactors of this rule, who used it to blunt spinners and fast men alike.
The rest is just personal preference, with Gilchrist over Knott, because for all of his defaulters he kept capably to Warne all those years, with more dismissals that the GREAT Healy. Mcgrath over Lillee because he proformed better all over the world (sub continent) and bowled well with Warne for so long.
MY personal Team
Sunil Gavaskar (though would prefer Barry Richards, who just didn't play enough tests)
Len Hutton (before war was along with Headley, challeging Bradman for best batsman in world)
Don Bradman (99.94, the greatest, only Headley was even comparable at #3 at his peak)
Viv Richards (struggled with him, Chappel or Hutton, but best player of fast bowling, the Master Blaster)
Sachin Tendulkar (longevity and almost 100 intl 100's, just ahead of genius but inconsistentcy of Lara)
Gary Sobers (greatest cricketer and all rounder, match winning ability puts him well ahead of Kallis)
Adam Gilchrist (changed the position, his bat put him aheam of Knott and Ames, underrated keeper)
Imran Khan (top bowling all rounder, was first master of reverse swing, comes on first change)
Malcolm Marshall (20.94, s/r of 46, greatest fast bowler ever, pace and versatility puts him over Hadlee)
Shane Warne (greatest leg spinner and great slip fielder.just beats out Murilitharan)
Glenn Mcgrath (accuratcy goes unmatched, big game bowler who is Sachin of bowlers, just b4 lillee)

 

[BlazeDragon]

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.

Not exactly his matches against SA were only within a span of two years and his stats are a LOT less impressive if you only include Australia.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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.

Even if you do say that first class matches meant more in those days you still can't say its at the level of international cricket. Not to say that its not still not impressive though.

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

Except that he averaged 89.78 against England the strong side.

 

[Jarquis]

Only 90?

 

[GotSpin]

Even if you do say that first class matches meant more in those days you still can't say its at the level of international cricket. Not to say that its not still not impressive though.



Except that he averaged 89.78 against England the strong side.

Why not? First Class was of more importance and often a better indicator. There's no valid reasons to suggest Bradman would have averaged lower today.

lol only 90....Bearing in mind he averages 112 if you exclude the bodyline series

 

[Jarquis]

I don't actually think 'only 90' if that wasn't obvious.
Go back and check the post centurymaker made about Barnes/SA.

 

[GotSpin]

I don't actually think 'only 90' if that wasn't obvious.
Go back and check the post centurymaker made about Barnes/SA.

Are you talking to me?

I know you weren't being serious in your 'only 90' comment.

I was commenting on the previous post that an average of just 90 is somewhat indicative of Bradman being unable to average what he did in todays game because, of course, there are no weak sides today and multiple batsmen average 89.78 against the best team of the time.

 

[GotSpin]

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.

You could be onto something here

 

[BlazeDragon]

Why not? First Class was of more importance and often a better indicator. There's no valid reasons to suggest Bradman would have averaged lower today.

Why would you say that? How many cases have there been of good first class/county players falling at international level? Batsman get a spot in international level only by doing good in the first class level.

I never suggested that Bradman would average lower today I'm the one who made that whole speech earlier saying today's players have tougher is hypocritical remember?

There was a discussion going on over longevity when we were debating about Mcgrath vs Barnes and I said that I don't think Bradman would average in the 90's if he played as many match as people do today but he would still probably be a lot ahead of everyone else.

 

[Burgey]

CHappell ahea of 10dulkar

Why isn't that arguable, Bun?

The inclusion of Kapil Dev is a flat out joke. He was a great player, but he wasn't even the best all rounder of his era.

 

[vcs]

Why would you say that? How many cases have there been of good first class/county players falling at international level? Batsman get a spot in international level only by doing good in the first class level.

I never suggested that Bradman would average lower today I'm the one who made that whole speech earlier saying today's players have tougher is hypocritical remember?

There was a discussion going on over longevity when we were debating about Mcgrath vs Barnes and I said that I don't think Bradman would average in the 90's if he played as many match as people do today but he would still probably be a lot ahead of everyone else.

So you never suggested it, but then go on to say it in the same post?

 

[GotSpin]

Why would you say that? How many cases have there been of good first class/county players falling at international level? Batsman get a spot in international level only by doing good in the first class level.

I never suggested that Bradman would average lower today I'm the one who made that whole speech earlier saying today's players have tougher is hypocritical remember?

There was a discussion going on over longevity when we were debating about Mcgrath vs Barnes and I said that I don't think Bradman would average in the 90's if he played as many match as people do today but he would still probably be a lot ahead of everyone else.

Isn't this a contradiction...?

Back then test matches were played less so First Class matches were not only of a higher standard but were in held in higher regard, not the proving grounds for young players that it is today

 

[benchmark00]

So you never suggested it, but then go on to say it in the same post?

Haha that is quality.

 

[BlazeDragon]

So you never suggested it, but then go on to say it in the same post?

Well the you must be seeing thing I don't because I don't see anywhere in my post that says "Bradman would average lower in today's generation" or anything like that. All it says that I don't think Bradman wouldn't average in the 90's if he played as many match as players play today but I still think it be a lot higher than everybody else. I don't think I even mentioned today's generation until it was brought up.

Is putting thing on bold making it a little easier for you?

 

[Athlai]

Blaze you're still doing the same thing.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Isn't this a contradiction...?

Back then test matches were played less so First Class matches were not only of a higher standard but were in held in higher regard, not the proving grounds for young players that it is today

Your have proof to back that up? Because from what I have seen its Bradman's 99.94 in test matches that people brag about and talk about. I have barely seen people outside of this forum page even mention his first class average of 95. A whole bunch of people including Aussies don't even know about it.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea chappell ahead of Tendulkar is certainly a valid choice if you want to go that route.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Blaze you're still doing the same thing.

Please kindly show me in my quotes where you get the idea that I am suggesting "Bradman would average lower if he played in today's generation."

It has nothing to do with today's generation I am talking about his own generation.

 

[Athlai]

Please kindly show me in my quotes where you get the idea that I am suggesting "Bradman would average lower if he played in today's generation."

You imply he wouldn't if he played as many matches as they play today. Which is as much a part of today's generation as anything else.