Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[fredfertang]

Was awesome in county cricket - we had him and Stuart Law for a year or two - if we'd had any bowlers we'd have walked the Championship - they never stopped scoring runs all season

 

[Red]

It is a part of team balance but it isn't something that teams base their selection on. You won't pick an inferior batsman just because he is a better slip fielder. You can even have good fielders in the extras and bring them on periodically but you can't bring on 12th men as batsmen.

If you had to select from a squad, and you were selecting your #4 batsman, and it was between Sachin and G.Chappell, and your slips cordon was pretty weak, guess who Lillee, Marshall and McGrath/Hadlee would want in the team?

Slipping is a massive consideration in selection (as is all fielding), where all other things are basically equal.

Warne wasn't a great slip fielder, but he was adequate.

 

[archie mac]

So you are honestly saying that there would have no difference between facing an Australian attack for those 10 tests instead of India and South Africa?

There is no need to defend Bradman, but nothing wrong with a civil constructive conversation.

There would be a difference but Bradman still would have averaged near 100.

Nothing wrong with the conversation but I had the impression you were suggesting he would struggle against the Aust attack, which is obviously not true

he averaged 20 in rain affected matches
very reluctant to hit sixes (headley too)
SJS pointed out that , in past ,some experts thought hobbs was better than don , because he mastered all conditions. iirc

WG and bradman had advantage of playinga in a less competitive era. comparing them to modern greats is unfair.
bradman/wg is arguably greatest batsman/player ever. arguably.

So what if he didn't hit many sixes? He kept the ball on the ground but no doubt with modern bats, playing ODI he would have hit his fair share.

Yes there have been arguments about Bradman on sticky wickets but there are also occassions where he mastered bad pitches, once in a Test in 1938 comes to mind. I am also sure if he played on them as often as say Hobbs he would have mastered those too. It should be remembered pitches in Aust (not in Tests) were covered during Bradman's playing days.

His average against the county teams on his four tours of England suggests he had little trouble adjusting to the conditions.

 

[Red]

Gun Fielding XI
- Bob Simpson (1st slip)
- Jack Hobbs (point)
- Don Bradman (cover)
- Greg Chappell (2nd slip)
- Viv Richards (3rd slip/mid wicket)
- Cive Lloyd (square leg)
- Alan Knott (wk)
- Richie Benaud (gully)
- Richard Hadlee
- Malcolm Marshall
- Dennis Lillee

 

[kyear2]

There would be a difference but Bradman still would have averaged near 100.

Nothing wrong with the conversation but I had the impression you were suggesting he would struggle against the Aust attack, which is obviously not true
.

Struggled, no. Averaged 178 or 200, no.

The only point that I am making is that his average was significanly boosted by playing two series vs two very weak teams and if he were to have played those games againts more even opponents his average would not have been what it is.

 

[archie mac]

Struggled, no. Averaged 178 or 200, no.

The only point that I am making is that his average was significanly boosted by playing two series vs two very weak teams and if he were to have played those games againts more even opponents his average would not have been what it is.

I know what you are saying, I just think it's irrelevant.

I wonder if there is any Test cricketer with say 5000 Test runs who didn't play against some 'cash cows'? Bradman played three series against teams who were not ranked No1 or No2 in the world, how many weak teams did Sachin or Lara play and what percentage of matches?

Bradman all so lost seven years to the war. I imagine he would have playd in at least another 5 - five match series with it being Bradman let’s give him 500 runs per series (very average for him) and two tons per series. He may have been the first to score 10000 and would have had perhaps 40 Test tons. Although I am sure we would still have Clowns on here telling us he is over rated

 

[Coronis]

I know what you are saying, I just think it's irrelevant.

I wonder if there is any Test cricketer with say 5000 Test runs who didn't play against some 'cash cows'? Bradman played three series against teams who were not ranked No1 or No2 in the world, how many weak teams did Sachin or Lara play and what percentage of matches?

Bradman all so lost seven years to the war. I imagine he would have playd in at least another 5 - five match series with it being Bradman let’s give him 500 runs per series (very average for him) and two tons per series. He may have been the first to score 10000 and would have had perhaps 40 Test tons. Although I am sure we would still have Clowns on here telling us he is over rated

Actually probably missed the best years of his career =/ Not that the rest of his playing years were anything bad.

 

[archie mac]

Actually probably missed the best years of his career =/ Not that the rest of his playing years were anything bad.

Yes, it is a scary thought. Although at the time Australian players often retired in their early 30s. Ponsford and Woodfull for instance, but perhaps Bradman may have gone on, despite his writng that he had decided the 1938 tour would be his last to England.

 

[sobers no:1]

I know what you are saying, I just think it's irrelevant.

I wonder if there is any Test cricketer with say 5000 Test runs who didn't play against some 'cash cows'? Bradman played three series against teams who were not ranked No1 or No2 in the world, how many weak teams did Sachin or Lara play and what percentage of matches?

Bradman all so lost seven years to the war. I imagine he would have playd in at least another 5 - five match series with it being Bradman let’s give him 500 runs per series (very average for him) and two tons per series. He may have been the first to score 10000 and would have had perhaps 40 Test tons. Although I am sure we would still have Clowns on here telling us he is over rated

sachin and lara played modern cricket. THAT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE . u wont understand.
i feel sorry 4 u

if he was an allrounder with batting avg: 55 and bowling avg: of 23. no doubt he is the best ever.
99.94 is insane. 99.94% sure ,its not possible now

 

[Coronis]

sachin and lara played modern cricket. THAT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE . u wont understand.
i feel sorry 4 u

if he was an allrounder with batting avg: 55 and bowling avg: of 23. no doubt he is the best ever.
99.94 is insane. 99.94% sure ,its not possible now

How do you know? I'd say Bradman would've averaged even better these days, what with the many opportunities to play against much weaker teams, far more often.

Bradman is the best batsman, statistically to ever play the game. By a MILE. Nobody comes close. There is a reason for that. Averaging half of what he did is considered a great achievement.

 

[sobers no:1]

How do you know? I'd say Bradman would've averaged even better these days, what with the many opportunities to play against much weaker teams, far more often.

Bradman is the best batsman, statistically to ever play the game. By a MILE. Nobody comes close. There is a reason for that.

much weaker teams how do you know ?
at least they r 100% professionals
they r waeker compared to today's stronger teams .

they wont allow a 45yr old man making runs at an avg of 55

 

[smash84]

much weaker teams how do you know ?
at least they r 100% professionals
they r waeker compared to today's stronger teams .

they wont allow a 45yr old man making runs at an avg of 55

Sobers debuted within 10 years of Bradman's retirement. So cricket had gone on to another level in those 10 years?

 

[archie mac]

sachin and lara played modern cricket. THAT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE . u wont understand.
i feel sorry 4 u

if he was an allrounder with batting avg: 55 and bowling avg: of 23. no doubt he is the best ever.
99.94 is insane. 99.94% sure ,its not possible now

I can't argue with that logic. Mainly because I don't understand it

 

[archie mac]

Gun Fielding XI
- Bob Simpson (1st slip)
- Jack Hobbs (point)
- Don Bradman (cover)
- Greg Chappell (2nd slip)
- Viv Richards (3rd slip/mid wicket)
- Cive Lloyd (square leg)
- Alan Knott (wk)
- Richie Benaud (gully)
- Richard Hadlee
- Malcolm Marshall
- Dennis Lillee

Good fielding team but surely you could have found some fast bowlers who were outstanding in the field?

Jonah Jones (long on or perhaps long off, my memory is starting to go!) springs to mind as does George L. (slip) and perhaps Joel Garner (gully). This would mean some changes to your team though

 

[Coronis]

much weaker teams how do you know ?
at least they r 100% professionals
they r waeker compared to today's stronger teams .

they wont allow a 45yr old man making runs at an avg of 55

You're kidding right? Bangladesh, Zimbabwe etc. never heard of 'em?

 

[sobers no:1]

Sobers debuted within 10 years of Bradman's retirement. So cricket had gone on to another level in those 10 years?

yes to an extent .
bradman - arguably greatest batsman . so is sobers + fielding and bowling .

 

[archie mac]

You're kidding right? Bangladesh, Zimbabwe etc. never heard of 'em?

Not to mention the 45 yo comment. Bradman was in fact 40 and only just 40 when he retired from Test cricket

 

[archie mac]

yes to an extent .
bradman - arguably greatest batsman . so is sobers + fielding and bowling .

There is no argument from anyone with any idea about the game of cricket

 

[sobers no:1]

Not to mention the 45 yo comment. Bradman was in fact 40 and only just 40 when he retired from Test cricket

jack hobbs

 

[sobers no:1]

You're kidding right? Bangladesh, Zimbabwe etc. never heard of 'em?

what if
1930s eng = today's BD ??