Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[sobers no:1]

The only possible way to compare players across eras is to first compare them to their peers and then compare the results from those comparisons.



.

in that case

wg , bradman , sfb , headley , hobbs >>>>>>> modern greats

dhyanchands , bradmans , WGs happens only in less competitive eras .

 

[the big bambino]

unfortuntaley i agree with you on this. There's no way a 45 year old would even average 35-40 nowadays no matter how good a player he has been

I wonder why people think that an argument that amounts to ageism is convincing.

 

[the big bambino]

poor posting
(sobers No.1 is at a level of his own in this regard though)

You really have a tin ear for sarcasm don't you? Its a piss take of the type of posting you just praised.

Btw have a look at the records of Lloyd and Boycott to name just 2 men in their 40s doing well. And as for the idea of past cricketers only being at club level I'm sure the fans of the future will be treated to majicians playing in 50 years time if Lara would be a club cricketer by then.

And you cricticise poor posting...

 

[the big bambino]

And Sachin is almost 40. Doing alright though. Or maybe a commentary on standards.

 

[centurymaker]

the game's already peaked IMO so we won't have that
even if standards do improve in the next 50 years, they won't be by much IMO- assuming that the game lasts that long

 

[centurymaker]

And Sachin is almost 40. Doing alright though. Or maybe a commentary on standards.

alright? he's looked finished/too old for cricket since early 2012.

 

[centurymaker]

You really have a tin ear for sarcasm don't you? Its a piss take of the type of posting you just praised.

Btw have a look at the records of Lloyd and Boycott to name just 2 men in their 40s doing well. And as for the idea of past cricketers only being at club level I'm sure the fans of the future will be treated to majicians playing in 50 years time if Lara would be a club cricketer by then.

And you cricticise poor posting...

well I only quicky looked through it ( didn't invest too much time reading it)

 

[sobers no:1]

You really have a tin ear for sarcasm don't you? Its a piss take of the type of posting you just praised.

Btw have a look at the records of Lloyd and Boycott to name just 2 men in their 40s doing well. And as for the idea of past cricketers only being at club level I'm sure the fans of the future will be treated to majicians playing in 50 years time if Lara would be a club cricketer by then.

And you cricticise poor posting...

Lloyd retired before 41 , boycott before 42
hobbs

so you think current and future cricketers are at club level compared to 30s-40s cricketers ?

 

[Red]

Lloyd retired before 41 , boycott before 42
hobbs

so you think current and future cricketers are at club level compared to 30s-40s cricketers ?

What is the actual point you are trying to make? Your posts are so confusing.

 

[the big bambino]

the game's already peaked IMO so we won't have that
even if standards do improve in the next 50 years, they won't be by much IMO- assuming that the game lasts that long

Yeah yeah sure. Every generation says that. We wont get any better. No more developments for humanity in any field.

Oh look. Greendige and Gooch played to their 40th year and past it respectively. Both exceeded their career averages in that time. Well if we downplay past eras on the grounds that Hobbs' succeeded past that age then maybe our era has alot of improving to do as well.

 

[the big bambino]

alright? he's looked finished/too old for cricket since early 2012.

I think you'll find he scotched the endtulkar jibes in his mid 30s.

 

[the big bambino]

well I only quicky looked through it ( didn't invest too much time reading it)

It showed.

 

[the big bambino]

Lloyd retired before 41 , boycott before 42
hobbs

so you think current and future cricketers are at club level compared to 30s-40s cricketers ?

You were the one who brought up cricketers over 40 don't blame me for hoisting you on your own petard.

 

[the big bambino]

Alec Stewart too.

 

[kyear2]

First of all I have never presented the argument that Bradman isn't the greatest batsman to play the game or is over-rated but to empirical evidence that his numbers are open to scrutiny as much as crtitics of Murali and Sachin in particular that argue that their stats are boosted by playing againts minnows and his comparative average is not that far ahead of his closest comtempoary as their final averages would attest.
The strongest bowling attack of Bradman's era was undoubtably his own especially on the flat, spin friendly tracks that he enjoyed at home, the second best was England by some distance and then the W.I attack. Bradman avaraged an amazing, marvelous 89 againts England and that alone is testament to his standing as the best batsman to play the game. Headley before the war averaged around 78 againts the same opponent if not always the againts the same bowlers. The point that I was making is that outside of England, Bradman played three series againts India (avg 178), South Africa (avg 201) and the W.I (avg 74) and all at home, Headley played his only other series vs Australia in Australia who did a wonderfuul job of scouting him during the tour matches long before it was in vouge and found an initial weakness that he, to his immence credit eliminated by the end of the series. Headley never got to face any of the minnows while Bradman faced all three and as any great batsman would appropriately cashed in. The fact was that based on playing againts comparative opponents their records are not that far apart and the fact that Bradman was playing on the strongest team of his era and in a extremely strong batting side (probably the strongest ever) and Headley was the sole quality batsman of his minnow team and the only obstacle between his side and defeat and he only got to play test matches infrequently (19 matches over 10 years) which would not have helped his consistency.
This comparrison is not to even infer that Headley was the superior to Bradman, but definately not half as good either.
The argument can futher extend to players of subsequent era's who faced tougher batting conditions, regulations and opponents.
It was well known that the Australian pitches between the war were not fast and as such not condusive to pace bowling hence the Australian reliance on spin bowling in their attacks and the rules of the day were very batsman friendly as well. The stumps initially were smaller than they are today and the size was increased because of the great man, the LBW rule was such that the ball had to pitch in line with the stumps to gain a positive decision, so anything pitching outside of the off stump would lead to a not out decision, again a reason why leg and lh spin was the prefered method to take wickets in that era. Both of these rule changes were made to made to assist bowlers and to help even the playing field between bat and ball. Finally regarding the level of competion Bradman, as previously discussed faced only one strong attack, and the only ATG bowlers he would have faced were Tate, Larwood and Verity and Verity apart none of them averaged below 29 vs Australia.
The closest modern rivals of the great man were Sobers, Pollock, G. Chappell, V. Richards, Tendulkar and Lara, they all would have faced more varied conditions, stronger teams, more quality bowlers and tougher regulations. Chappell and Viv in particular proved their worth beyond a shadow of a doubt in WSC taking on the best attacks even assembled and dominated, Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara took on the great attacks of the '90's which included such greats as Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, Mcgrath, Warne, Kumble and Muralitharan and more than held their own. Sobers too took on the great bowlers of his era and added to his work load being for long streaches the main strike bowler and at worse the third seamer for his team, and in both events bowling for extended periods (at times the stop bolwer) that would have had to affect his batting, and this would not have helped againts Davidson, Benaud, Gupte, Trueman, Statham, Mahmood and that memorable innings againts Lillee at his very best.
This is in no way to denigrate the fact that Bradman is the greatest batsman to play the game, but to say that he was twice the batsman of some of the players listed above is something that I cannot endorse and evidence and facts cannot support. Sobers in the 60's ran himself ragged with his schedule and bowling work load playing in every first class league to maximise his imcome, destroying his knees and sholder in the process and adding additional challenges to his scoring. The consistency of Tendulkar has been amazing and the totality of his numbers cannot be ignored, 100 international centuries and playing in the amount of grounds and various conditions is a monumental feat, so is the dominace of a Richards againts the fastest of bowlers and the match winning ability of Lara againts the highest quality of opposition.
Bradman is without question the best to have played this great game who encountered a perfect storm and fully capitalised, twice as good as these gentlemen at their very best, not by any objective measure.

 

[MartinB]

Lloyd retired before 41 , boycott before 42
hobbs

DK Lillee played the odd Prime Minster's 11 and other exibition One day games till the age of 50.

Picked up 8 overs 3 for 8 in this match when 50: Board 11 versus Pakistan

 

[sobers no:1]

First of all I have never presented the argument that Bradman isn't the greatest batsman to play the game or is over-rated but to empirical evidence that his numbers are open to scrutiny as much as crtitics of Murali and Sachin in particular that argue that their stats are boosted by playing againts minnows and his comparative average is not that far ahead of his closest comtempoary as their final averages would attest.
The strongest bowling attack of Bradman's era was undoubtably his own especially on the flat, spin friendly tracks that he enjoyed at home, the second best was England by some distance and then the W.I attack. Bradman avaraged an amazing, marvelous 89 againts England and that alone is testament to his standing as the best batsman to play the game. Headley before the war averaged around 78 againts the same opponent if not always the againts the same bowlers. The point that I was making is that outside of England, Bradman played three series againts India (avg 178), South Africa (avg 201) and the W.I (avg 74) and all at home, Headley played his only other series vs Australia in Australia who did a wonderfuul job of scouting him during the tour matches long before it was in vouge and found an initial weakness that he, to his immence credit eliminated by the end of the series. Headley never got to face any of the minnows while Bradman faced all three and as any great batsman would appropriately cashed in. The fact was that based on playing againts comparative opponents their records are not that far apart and the fact that Bradman was playing on the strongest team of his era and in a extremely strong batting side (probably the strongest ever) and Headley was the sole quality batsman of his minnow team and the only obstacle between his side and defeat and he only got to play test matches infrequently (19 matches over 10 years) which would not have helped his consistency.
This comparrison is not to even infer that Headley was the superior to Bradman, but definately not half as good either.
The argument can futher extend to players of subsequent era's who faced tougher batting conditions, regulations and opponents.
It was well known that the Australian pitches between the war were not fast and as such not condusive to pace bowling hence the Australian reliance on spin bowling in their attacks and the rules of the day were very batsman friendly as well. The stumps initially were smaller than they are today and the size was increased because of the great man, the LBW rule was such that the ball had to pitch in line with the stumps to gain a positive decision, so anything pitching outside of the off stump would lead to a not out decision, again a reason why leg and lh spin was the prefered method to take wickets in that era. Both of these rule changes were made to made to assist bowlers and to help even the playing field between bat and ball. Finally regarding the level of competion Bradman, as previously discussed faced only one strong attack, and the only ATG bowlers he would have faced were Tate, Larwood and Verity and Verity apart none of them averaged below 29 vs Australia.
The closest modern rivals of the great man were Sobers, Pollock, G. Chappell, V. Richards, Tendulkar and Lara, they all would have faced more varied conditions, stronger teams, more quality bowlers and tougher regulations. Chappell and Viv in particular proved their worth beyond a shadow of a doubt in WSC taking on the best attacks even assembled and dominated, Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara took on the great attacks of the '90's which included such greats as Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, Mcgrath, Warne, Kumble and Muralitharan and more than held their own. Sobers too took on the great bowlers of his era and added to his work load being for long streaches the main strike bowler and at worse the third seamer for his team, and in both events bowling for extended periods (at times the stop bolwer) that would have had to affect his batting, and this would not have helped againts Davidson, Benaud, Gupte, Trueman, Statham, Mahmood and that memorable innings againts Lillee at his very best.
This is in no way to denigrate the fact that Bradman is the greatest batsman to play the game, but to say that he was twice the batsman of some of the players listed above is something that I cannot endorse and evidence and facts cannot support. Sobers in the 60's ran himself ragged with his schedule and bowling work load playing in every first class league to maximise his imcome, destroying his knees and sholder in the process and adding additional challenges to his scoring. The consistency of Tendulkar has been amazing and the totality of his numbers cannot be ignored, 100 international centuries and playing in the amount of grounds and various conditions is a monumental feat, so is the dominace of a Richards againts the fastest of bowlers and the match winning ability of Lara againts the highest quality of opposition.
Bradman is without question the best to have played this great game who encountered a perfect storm and fully capitalised, twice as good as these gentlemen at their very best, not by any objective measure.

good one.


lbw rule , size of the stumps ..etc applicable for every players of that era. so that does not count IMO

 

[kyear2]

I wasn't trying to prove that he wasn't the best of his era. He was.
All I was trying to prove is that to me the gap isn't as big as perception, especially to modern players.

 

[sobers no:1]

I wasn't trying to prove that he wasn't the best of his era. He was.
All I was trying to prove is that to me the gap isn't as big as perception, especially to modern players.

you have to adjust with the conditions available.. be it rules , helmets..
for me the real difference is the level of competence


( bradman was best of his era. no doubt.. bt hammond and headley wd equal him on modern era .. wont digest .. dont try it )

 

[social]

First of all I have never presented the argument that Bradman isn't the greatest batsman to play the game or is over-rated but to empirical evidence that his numbers are open to scrutiny as much as crtitics of Murali and Sachin in particular that argue that their stats are boosted by playing againts minnows and his comparative average is not that far ahead of his closest comtempoary as their final averages would attest.
The strongest bowling attack of Bradman's era was undoubtably his own especially on the flat, spin friendly tracks that he enjoyed at home, the second best was England by some distance and then the W.I attack. Bradman avaraged an amazing, marvelous 89 againts England and that alone is testament to his standing as the best batsman to play the game. Headley before the war averaged around 78 againts the same opponent if not always the againts the same bowlers. The point that I was making is that outside of England, Bradman played three series againts India (avg 178), South Africa (avg 201) and the W.I (avg 74) and all at home, Headley played his only other series vs Australia in Australia who did a wonderfuul job of scouting him during the tour matches long before it was in vouge and found an initial weakness that he, to his immence credit eliminated by the end of the series. Headley never got to face any of the minnows while Bradman faced all three and as any great batsman would appropriately cashed in. The fact was that based on playing againts comparative opponents their records are not that far apart and the fact that Bradman was playing on the strongest team of his era and in a extremely strong batting side (probably the strongest ever) and Headley was the sole quality batsman of his minnow team and the only obstacle between his side and defeat and he only got to play test matches infrequently (19 matches over 10 years) which would not have helped his consistency.
This comparrison is not to even infer that Headley was the superior to Bradman, but definately not half as good either.
The argument can futher extend to players of subsequent era's who faced tougher batting conditions, regulations and opponents.
It was well known that the Australian pitches between the war were not fast and as such not condusive to pace bowling hence the Australian reliance on spin bowling in their attacks and the rules of the day were very batsman friendly as well. The stumps initially were smaller than they are today and the size was increased because of the great man, the LBW rule was such that the ball had to pitch in line with the stumps to gain a positive decision, so anything pitching outside of the off stump would lead to a not out decision, again a reason why leg and lh spin was the prefered method to take wickets in that era. Both of these rule changes were made to made to assist bowlers and to help even the playing field between bat and ball. Finally regarding the level of competion Bradman, as previously discussed faced only one strong attack, and the only ATG bowlers he would have faced were Tate, Larwood and Verity and Verity apart none of them averaged below 29 vs Australia.
The closest modern rivals of the great man were Sobers, Pollock, G. Chappell, V. Richards, Tendulkar and Lara, they all would have faced more varied conditions, stronger teams, more quality bowlers and tougher regulations. Chappell and Viv in particular proved their worth beyond a shadow of a doubt in WSC taking on the best attacks even assembled and dominated, Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara took on the great attacks of the '90's which included such greats as Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, Mcgrath, Warne, Kumble and Muralitharan and more than held their own. Sobers too took on the great bowlers of his era and added to his work load being for long streaches the main strike bowler and at worse the third seamer for his team, and in both events bowling for extended periods (at times the stop bolwer) that would have had to affect his batting, and this would not have helped againts Davidson, Benaud, Gupte, Trueman, Statham, Mahmood and that memorable innings againts Lillee at his very best.
This is in no way to denigrate the fact that Bradman is the greatest batsman to play the game, but to say that he was twice the batsman of some of the players listed above is something that I cannot endorse and evidence and facts cannot support. Sobers in the 60's ran himself ragged with his schedule and bowling work load playing in every first class league to maximise his imcome, destroying his knees and sholder in the process and adding additional challenges to his scoring. The consistency of Tendulkar has been amazing and the totality of his numbers cannot be ignored, 100 international centuries and playing in the amount of grounds and various conditions is a monumental feat, so is the dominace of a Richards againts the fastest of bowlers and the match winning ability of Lara againts the highest quality of opposition.
Bradman is without question the best to have played this great game who encountered a perfect storm and fully capitalised, twice as good as these gentlemen at their very best, not by any objective measure.

I think that this is a pretty fair assessment

Bradman himself admitted (in the Bradman Tapes iirc) that he never had to face an attack of anything like the unrelenting pace and quality of the WI team of the 70s/80s

This was something of a revelation considering the nonsense that his contemporaries (e.g. O'Reilly and Harvey) spouted about standards "in their day."

Bradman: genius + ultimate professional in an amateur game + ordinary competition + rules favoring batsmen = 99.94