Second Spitter
State Vice-Captain
That's a fantastic piece of mythology..
Computer simulations have accurately clocked available footage of Larwood deliveries as ranging between 137 to 142 kph. Albert Cotter was claimed by contemporaries to be every bit as fast as Larwood. Gregory and McDonald operated at speeds only a little slower than Larwood. The point being that early 20th century batsman had the skill and technique to handle true fast bowling.Probably, but he probably won't flat out die like Hobbs or Sutcliffe would, who were used to opening against spinners and military medium pacers. Hammond faced real pace,but those that are pitched fast & full or short of good length, with the occasional 'warning' bouncers. Not the headhunting barrage that Marshall could conjure at will.
1. Hutton - 945Someone might like to create the 'Highest ICC Rated Team' from all available Test match players.
Wow, never would have predicted that Peter May's peak would top Viv Richard's, or even Weekes' for that matter.1. Hutton - 945
2. Hobbs - 942
3. Bradman - 961
4. Ponting - 942
5. May - 941
6. Sobers - 938/715 (669)
7. Flower - 895
8. Imran - 922
9. Lohmann - 931
10. Barnes - 932
11. Muralitharan - 920
Couldn't bring myself to pick Walcott, Sanga or de Villiers for the w/k spot, despite their higher batting ratings.
In another thread you've just told us sport is all about entertaining and winning is entertaining.PS: I gotto say that the purpose of picking an alltime XI is self-defeating for the sport. Whats the point of creating an XI that would bore people by winning 8 outta 10 matches ?
In another thread you've just told us sport is all about entertaining and winning is entertaining.
Make your mind up.
So you decided you'd be a WK snob, but still pick Andy Flower?Couldn't bring myself to pick Walcott, Sanga or de Villiers for the w/k spot, despite their higher batting ratings.
Again, what does that have to do with intimidatory bowling ? show us some references for how many noses did Kortright or Spofforth break. Or how many concussions they handed out. I've read a lot of cricket books talking about pre-war cricket, read a lot of Cardus too but i find very little mention about people getting their hands and heads broken. Such bowling was uncool back then, a fact underscored by the hue and cry of the Bodyline series.Computer simulations have accurately clocked available footage of Larwood deliveries as ranging between 137 to 142 kph. Albert Cotter was claimed by contemporaries to be every bit as fast as Larwood. Gregory and McDonald operated at speeds only a little slower than Larwood. The point being that early 20th century batsman had the skill and technique to handle true fast bowling.
Also, there are only two fast bowlers who have hit the side-screen on the half volley after bouncing the batsman - Kortright and Thomson. And Kortright played from 1889 to 1907.
Its a logarithmic scale. 1000 is impossible, unless you are talking about a guy who debuts with a 100 and follows it up with 150,200,250,300,350,400,450 and 500 in the next consecutive innings.Oh, and 961 is so harsh on Bradman. Let's just decide he was 1500.
???Its a logarithmic scale. 1000 is impossible, unless you are talking about a guy who debuts with a 100 and follows it up with 150,200,250,300,350,400,450 and 500 in the next consecutive innings.
Decided I'd go with, you know, the first person who kept wicket for the majority of their test career.So you decided you'd be a WK snob, but still pick Andy Flower?
Don't be absurd. Hobbs coped with Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald without a helmet on all sorts of pitches unfamiliar to modern players. Gregory and McDonald were not 'military medium pacers', I assure you. Gregory was just flat out quick, and McDonald was quick enough.Probably, but he probably won't flat out die like Hobbs or Sutcliffe would, who were used to opening against spinners and military medium pacers. Hammond faced real pace,but those that are pitched fast & full or short of good length, with the occasional 'warning' bouncers. Not the headhunting barrage that Marshall could conjure at will.
I tire of repeating myself. Its not about the speeds bowled at. I am sure a half volley at 95mph is not the same challenge as a rib tickler at 88mph.Don't be absurd. Hobbs coped with Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald without a helmet on all sorts of pitches unfamiliar to modern players. Gregory and McDonald were not 'military medium pacers', I assure you. Gregory was just flat out quick, and McDonald was quick enough.
Its a logarithmic scale. 1000 is impossible, unless you are talking about a guy who debuts with a 100 and follows it up with 150,200,250,300,350,400,450 and 500 in the next consecutive innings.
Bodyline changed everything. The field placement got banned (leg theory) but no restrictions were put on how many balls you can bowl at the heads or noses of batsmen. They saw the effect- who were ATG opening bats reduced to being bed ridden, even the untouchable Don had his figures cut in half.It's a bit later than post war (1953) but the South African attack of Adcock and Ironside had absolutely no qualms about knocking the block off of the opposition batsmen. Bert Sutcliffe and Lawrie Miller in particular could testify to that. It certainly wasn't a new practice in the 1970s. Peter Heine, another quick of the same vintage was certainly not backwards about his intentions to hurt the opposition batsman, informing Trevor Bailey that "I want to hurt you."
I'm not a big cricket historian, so can't really comment on pre-war, but Adcock and Heine were fast and dangerous and willing to do what it took to get the batsmen out.
In his autobiography Wally Hammond states that McDonald bowled at '90 mph'. Obviously this a best guess so may not be accurate. Suffice to say though, McDonald was a fast bowler of the Larwood variety.Don't be absurd. Hobbs coped with Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald without a helmet on all sorts of pitches unfamiliar to modern players. Gregory and McDonald were not 'military medium pacers', I assure you. Gregory was just flat out quick, and McDonald was quick enough.
Hmm, i am not 100% sure, but it seems to me that the reason no-one ever crossed the 1000 rating points- both as batsmen or bowler- is because there must be a mathematical limiting factor. Otherwise, nobody has ever gone through a purple patch in batting or bowling to attain the 1K ? I assumed it to be logarithmic, since it'd make sense why it gets so bloody hard to acquire rating points near the top end of the scale.