Best all time XI for each country

[smash84]

 

[fredfertang]

as i say ive given you my opinion

what you do with it is up to you

i think the protective gear issue is a great clue as to the standard of cricket. as the standard has improved so has the need for protective equipment. Can you imagine players of today walking out to bat facing the quicks of the last 20 years with Green dimpled gloves, towels for thigh pads etc

there was no need for better protection back in the day as they werent quick enough. Larwood, Voce, Allen please

Helmets make a huge difference. but players today still get cleaned up regularly, far more than in days gone by. why? all those fans of old school cricket im sure will say its because of their greater skill, lightning fast reflexes etc....or maybe its because they simply werent quick enough and even as was suggested during bodyline, that deliberately trying to attack the batsman isnt in the spirit of the game

as mentioned before by myself, maybe you should revisit youtube (sorry to lazy to find the link) of the 1979 speedball comp featuring all the big names. only a beamer from Thomson reached what you would termas quick 147 the rest were in the med/quick bracket if you compare to what happens today

anyway im sure youre all sick of my opinion so i will leave it there

The protective gear point is an interesting one, although I think you are wrong to be so dismissive of the need for it in days of yore. Going back to cricketing pre-history there were many serious injuries caused as much through the poor quality of the wickets as anything else. I think the main reason for lack of protection then was the inability to produce anything readily usable at a reasonable cost given the materials available and the technology of the time.

As time went on pads and gloves developed and various players experimented with head protection on occasion, Patsy Hendren for one wearing some sort of reinforced cap against Larwood. There is also a famous photo of, I think, Fingleton, wearing all the body padding that the Australians started to wear in 32/33.

Once decent lightweight protection made its appearance in the late 70s it must have made a difference to batsmen's techniques and the way they approached their task - I well remember in my teenage days as an opening batsman of extremely limited talent that my approach to batting changed a lot the day I got my first pair of proper cricket boots and no longer had any reason to fear being hit on the foot.

So I think its difficult to justify that as a factor - if Bradman had had all the modern protection available to him I would think he would have gone after Larwood and Voce conventionally, through the leg side, and if he had Jardine may well have had to abandon the tactic after the second Test (Bradman missed the first when McCabe showed how it could be done)

 

[weldone]

as mentioned before by myself, maybe you should revisit youtube (sorry to lazy to find the link) of the 1979 speedball comp featuring all the big names. only a beamer from Thomson reached what you would termas quick 147 the rest were in the med/quick bracket if you compare to what happens today

The speed-guns were different than the ones used today, and were used for different purpose...

 

[Red]

as i say ive given you my opinion

what you do with it is up to you

i think the protective gear issue is a great clue as to the standard of cricket. as the standard has improved so has the need for protective equipment. Can you imagine players of today walking out to bat facing the quicks of the last 20 years with Green dimpled gloves, towels for thigh pads etc

there was no need for better protection back in the day as they werent quick enough. Larwood, Voce, Allen please

Helmets make a huge difference. but players today still get cleaned up regularly, far more than in days gone by. why? all those fans of old school cricket im sure will say its because of their greater skill, lightning fast reflexes etc....or maybe its because they simply werent quick enough and even as was suggested during bodyline, that deliberately trying to attack the batsman isnt in the spirit of the game

as mentioned before by myself, maybe you should revisit youtube (sorry to lazy to find the link) of the 1979 speedball comp featuring all the big names. only a beamer from Thomson reached what you would termas quick 147 the rest were in the med/quick bracket if you compare to what happens today

anyway im sure youre all sick of my opinion so i will leave it there

Players from the 1920s onwards bowled just as quick as players do today.

The players who are generally acknowledged as very quick by people who have seen a lot of cricket (such as Bradman, Benaud and Allan McIlvray) are Harold Larwood, Frank Tyson, Ray Lindwall, Keith Miller, Brian Statham and Thomson. We'd probably add Shoaib, Lee and a few other moderns to that.

And you selectively pick one of Thomson's slowest recorded times, because he was also clocked at over 160. If you don't think, bowlers in the past were quick, you need to think you know more and have seen more than Benaud, Bradman and plenty of others, as well as the facts!

See link: Records | All cricket records (including minor cricket) | Miscellaneous records | Bowling speeds (2) | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Spark]

yeah no trapol you have no idea what you're talking about. thompson a med-fast?

 

[smash84]

Players from the 1920s onwards bowled just as quick as players do today.

The players who are generally acknowledged as very quick by people who have seen a lot of cricket (such as Bradman, Benaud and Allan McIlvray) are Harold Larwood, Frank Tyson, Ray Lindwall, Keith Miller, Brian Statham and Thomson. We'd probably add Shoaib, Lee and a few other moderns to that.

And you selectively pick one of Thomson's slowest recorded times, because he was also clocked at over 160. If you don't think, bowlers in the past were quick, you need to think you know more and have seen more than Benaud, Bradman and plenty of others, as well as the facts!

See link: Records | All cricket records (including minor cricket) | Miscellaneous records | Bowling speeds (2) | ESPN Cricinfo

Are you sure Miller and Statham were express pace?

 

[Jager]

Are you sure Miller and Statham were express pace?

I've done a lot of reading on Miller and he was certainly brisk, from all recollections. His physique definitely looked capable of producing serious pace. Hutton said that he "never felt physically safe" against him due to his unpredictable nature and the pace he delivered the ball. With Statham, I have not done enough reading to have a valid opinion.

 

[trapol]

yeah no trapol you have no idea what you're talking about. thompson a med-fast?

No i said that (according to the 1979 speedball comp listed in the link above) the fastest ball bowled by EVERYONE including Thomson was141km. except for his last delivery which was a beamer that clocked a very fast 147km.

the diff between these alleged speeds and this is that you can watch actual footage of this as opposed to the other supposed testings.

As a NZer, listening to many ex players back in NZ and lastly Mark Taylor in the latest Aust vs India Test series last southern Hempishere Summer, 129km was an accurate description for Hadlees speed. (obv we are not talking about their effectiveness as bowlers)
The bowler who took me by surprise the most was Imran Khan. A good bowler obviously, but never thought he would be the second quickest behind Thomson

Those speeds in the link above in the first two tests look grossly inflated.

 

[trapol]

if some of you do get a spare hour or two perhaps go and watch footage on youtube of all those bowlers. Miller/Lindwall etc

im pretty sure afterwards you wont be saying they are as quick as Thomson/Shoaib/Lee/Tait etc or anywhere close

 

[Flem274*]

Spark, this is pretty much all trapol comes to CW to talk about outside of Scotty Styris and his mate Dave.

It's his pet theory and you're not going to convince him otherwise.

 

[Migara]

No, it just means that they were very good bowlers on flat normal wickets and down-right impossible on sticky wickets.

A modern era equivalent would be Derek Underwood. A very good bowler on dry wickets but "Deadly" (hence the nickname) on 'rain affected wickets' such as the Oval in 1968 where he took 7 for 50 in Australia's second innings.

5th Test: England v Australia at The Oval, Aug 22-27, 1968 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

No you cannot have it both ways. If batsmen of yester year had a disadvantage on sticky wickets and hence their averages should be treated more seriously, same applies for the bowlers. Their stats should be treated less seriously since they had undue advantage on sticky wickets.

And BTW, anil umble would have been worlds best bowler if he bowled on sticky wickets. Unlike others if you miss from Kumble most of the time you are lbw.

 

[Migara]

What is your argument? Bradman still averaged 51 against tactics designed to stop him. In the 80s any opposing batsman would be happy with an avg over 50 per series against the WIs. If you think cricketers weren't "brave" in bygone eras, have a look at the history of the cricket helmet, then come back and talk to me....

OK, what would you take? What would you like to face? WI four prong attack vs Larwood's bodyline?

 

[Migara]

Just out of interest (not sure) - isn't 'Leg Theory' currently banned with certain restrictions on leg-side fieldsmen?

If this is the case then any batting average over 50 made during the Bodyline Series would be remarkable as no player in any other era has ever had to play a barrage of bouncers under such atrocious conditions. They would be the worst by a significant margin.

In other words, how would someone like Viv Richards go against Lillee, Thomson, and Pascoe bowling 5-6 bouncers an over with a leg slip, a leg gully, a short square leg, a square leg, and 2-3 men out for the hook? And NO short boundary rope. The SCG/MCG would be as big as the SCG/MCG. I doubt Richards would average 30.

Richards would have beaten the **** out of them. If Lillee, Thommo and Pasco were replaced with Larwood and Voce, it is more of a possibility. If you had Tendulkar, Lara or Ponting I would have agreed. But Viv against fast bowling was an absolute monster.

 

[Jager]

OK, what would you take? What would you like to face? WI four prong attack vs Larwood's bodyline?

If you're comparing a four-pronged attack to Larwood on his own, then that's quite unfair. Are you talking about physical safety here or the safety of your wicket?

 

[watson]

Richards would have beaten the **** out of them. If Lillee, Thommo and Pasco were replaced with Larwood and Voce, it is more of a possibility. If you had Tendulkar, Lara or Ponting I would have agreed. But Viv against fast bowling was an absolute monster.

I don't think so. And Lillee and Thomo were bowling to conventional field placings.

West Indies vs Australia 1975-76 - YouTube

 

[Migara]

If you're comparing a four-pronged attack to Larwood on his own, then that's quite unfair. Are you talking about physical safety here or the safety of your wicket?

Bodyline attack vs an attack of Marshall, Holding, Roberts and Garner (although this combination played a handful of matches)

 

[Migara]

I don't think so. And Lillee and Thomo were bowling to conventional field placings.

West Indies vs Australia 1975-76 - YouTube

Shall we post what happened in the next tour?

 

[Jager]

Richards would have beaten the **** out of them. If Lillee, Thommo and Pasco were replaced with Larwood and Voce, it is more of a possibility. If you had Tendulkar, Lara or Ponting I would have agreed. But Viv against fast bowling was an absolute monster.

Viv was a superb player of fast bowling, one of the best ever, but I think you're making him out to be invincible.

 

[watson]

Shall we post what happened in the next tour?

You can if you like. But it still won't disprove the obvious - that accurate fast bowling bowled relentlessly at the batsman's throat at around 140 kph with a packed leg side field is near impossible to play successfully in the medium to long term.

I guess the only way to settle the debate conclusively is to send Richards back to 1932 in a time machine, give him some 1932 equipment, and then line him up against Larwood, Voce, Allen, and Bowes at the MCG with a packed leg-side field.

Do you have a time-machine handy Migara?

 

[Migara]

You can if you like. But it still won't disprove the obvious - that accurate fast bowling bowled relentlessly at the batsman's throat at around 140 kph with a packed leg side field is near impossible to play successfully in the medium to long term.

I guess the only way to settle the debate conclusively is to send Richards back to 1932 in a time machine, give him some 1932 equipment, and then line him up against Larwood, Voce, Allen, and Bowes at the MCG with a packed leg-side field.

Do you have a time-machine handy Migara?

I doubt Richards would average 30.

Can I borrow yours?