The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Muloghonto]

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.

Hobbs also faced Albert Cotter in 1905 on English wickets and remarked he 'was the fastest bowler he ever faced'. Cotter took 121 wickets for the tour at 20.19.

All those bowlers would have been at least as lethal I reckon as most fast bowlers around today.

Lethal at wicket-taking maybe but lethal at knocking the heads off of batsmen ? I doubt that. It simply was not cricket back then to injure people like that, which is why there are so few mentions of anyone being injured in county cricket back then. I certainly have not come across a single instance of a broken jaw or crushed cheekbone from that era. So it'd mean they simply did not bowl bouncers aimed at the heads as much.

Whereas looking from 1970s onwards, the injury galore every single season is pretty well documented.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

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.

Yeah but if it was logarithmic it could potentially go way below 0 at the other end. I suspect it's some kind of cumulative distribution function (which, to be fair, has similar asymptotic behaviour)

 

[watson]

Lethal at wicket-taking maybe but lethal at knocking the heads off of batsmen ? I doubt that. It simply was not cricket back then to injure people like that, which is why there are so few mentions of anyone being injured in county cricket back then. I certainly have not come across a single instance of a broken jaw or crushed cheekbone from that era. So it'd mean they simply did not bowl bouncers aimed at the heads as much.

Whereas looking from 1970s onwards, the injury galore every single season is pretty well documented.

I'm almost sure that McDonald regularly targeted batsman that annoyed him. But I'll have to find the sources again to confirm that.

 

[kyear2]

Sure Hobbs would he coped, some of the pitches he and Sutcliffe had to survive were down right close to unplayable. I came around to fully accepting Hobbs when I saw some clips of him facing an apparently rampant and rapid Gregory on a wet pitch alternating evading bouncers and protecting his wicket. Think Hobbs is a legitimate top 5 batsman if all time, period.
Hutton had to face the express Lindwall and the unpredictable Miller. Hammond would have been the less successful vs fast bowling than either row the two, especially struggling against the W.I quicks.

 

[Red]

If a batsman can cope with pace bowled outside off and average 50+, there's every reason to assume that he'll cope fine with some short stuff.

In these cross-era comparisons, you've got to give a bit of leeway and go with the "champion in one era would be..." idea.

But all that said, here's some David Frith suggesting that short bowling at the body was common well before bodyline...

Herbert Sutcliffe was no sensationalist: “The reason for my two car accidents,” he wrote in 1971, “was a burst blood vessel over the left eye which impaired my vision and a black-out followed.” Even in old age he allowed nothing to fluster him. The film evidence is still there: a Jack Gregory bouncer, a parry or a sway, a contemplative walk around the crease; elsewhere a sudden break from his stance as somebody moved behind the bowler: an imperious wave of the hand before resumption. As a senior pro during the red-hot Bodyline series, still mindful of the battering dished out by Australia in earlier years, it was often he – ahead of captain Douglas Jardine’s instruction – who ushered England’s leg-side cordon into position after a few new-ball overs from Harold Larwood and Bill Voce.

Frith's Encounters No.9: Herbert Sutcliffe

 

[Coronis]

I recall something being mentioned about Bodyline being partly revenge for the hammering Gregory and MacDonald dished out to England earlier.

 

[Muloghonto]

Sure Hobbs would he coped, some of the pitches he and Sutcliffe had to survive were down right close to unplayable. I came around to fully accepting Hobbs when I saw some clips of him facing an apparently rampant and rapid Gregory on a wet pitch alternating evading bouncers and protecting his wicket. Think Hobbs is a legitimate top 5 batsman if all time, period.
Hutton had to face the express Lindwall and the unpredictable Miller. Hammond would have been the less successful vs fast bowling than either row the two, especially struggling against the W.I quicks.

I used to believe the same, till i actually saw footage of Hobbs. Guy played cover drive with both feet in the air, i am sorry,he did not have the technique to survive the modern game. Its one thing to play with no feet movement but playing a drive with both feet in the air ? thats just schoolboy stuff.

It is a fact that the dearth of fast bowling was so acute in Hobbs and Sutcliffe's career that they opened their batting against spinners and military medium more often than anyone who would even be categorized as medium fast.

As for the occasional bouncer, yes they existed but fact remains, injuries to the head and hand were far less common pre WWII than post WWII. That can either mean all county players were better at playing the short stuff on dodgier wickets than their counterparts in the post war era or that they simply were so rare (headhunting) that due to the law of averages, hardly anyone got injured.
I don't need to point out which one is the more sensible option here.

Not to mention, half the players of that era did not play competetively, it was an amatuer pastime. Its a bit insulting to the pro era to eulogize the amatuer era greats on an even footing.

 

[Muloghonto]

If a batsman can cope with pace bowled outside off and average 50+, there's every reason to assume that he'll cope fine with some short stuff.

In these cross-era comparisons, you've got to give a bit of leeway and go with the "champion in one era would be..." idea.

But all that said, here's some David Frith suggesting that short bowling at the body was common well before bodyline...



Frith's Encounters No.9: Herbert Sutcliffe

Thats silly. There are plenty of batsmen who are just fine with pace bowing outside off but crap themselves when its shortpitched into the body. Saurav Ganguly and Suresh Raina are the two clear-cut examples of that.

Playing the short ball requires a neutral stance. You cannot be too much on the front foot (or you die) and you cannot be too much on the backfoot or you get yorked. It requires not only a certain amount of technique, it also requires confidence, quick reflexes and a great eye. Its not a given that those who play the short ball well will play the full ball well ( Ritchie Richardson, Chris Gayle) and vice versa ( Suresh Raina, Saurav Ganguly)

And no, i will not give the leeway of 'champion of one era would be champion on any other', for it makes a mockery of the highly elusive skill of adaptation, by making adaptation a default assumption than what it really is: a rare and commendable accomplishment. If adaptation was so easy willy nilly, then every tom dick and harry would adapt to chinks exposed in their game, instead of fading away after a great start. Therefore, adaptation is NOT an assumption i am willing to make.

 

[Red]

I used to believe the same, till i actually saw footage of Hobbs. Guy played cover drive with both feet in the air, i am sorry,he did not have the technique to survive the modern game. Its one thing to play with no feet movement but playing a drive with both feet in the air ? thats just schoolboy stuff.

It is a fact that the dearth of fast bowling was so acute in Hobbs and Sutcliffe's career that they opened their batting against spinners and military medium more often than anyone who would even be categorized as medium fast.

As for the occasional bouncer, yes they existed but fact remains, injuries to the head and hand were far less common pre WWII than post WWII. That can either mean all county players were better at playing the short stuff on dodgier wickets than their counterparts in the post war era or that they simply were so rare (headhunting) that due to the law of averages, hardly anyone got injured.
I don't need to point out which one is the more sensible option here.

Not to mention, half the players of that era did not play competetively, it was an amatuer pastime. Its a bit insulting to the pro era to eulogize the amatuer era greats on an even footing.

It's a big mistake to think early era cricket was like a Sunday social match, which is what "amateur pastime" suggests. That's actually insulting.

While it was more common to open the bowling with a spinner due to the more receptive nature of pitches at the time, there were still plenty of quick bowlers around.

Jack Gregory was every bit as quick as the WIs bowlers of the 70s.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

How many versions of the both feet off the ground shot from Hobbs have you seen? Is it a reasonable sample to draw the conclusion that all his cover drives were played in that way, or is the sample limited due to the fact there is very little useful footage left from that era?

 

[Muloghonto]

It's a big mistake to think early era cricket was like a Sunday social match, which is what "amateur pastime" suggests. That's actually insulting.

While it was more common to open the bowling with a spinner due to the more receptive nature of pitches at the time, there were still plenty of quick bowlers around.

Jack Gregory was every bit as quick as the WIs bowlers of the 70s.

There is nothing insulting in saying that I take my job more seriously than my hobby because my livelihood depends on it.
Amatuer X is less competetive than professional X simply because of the same difference between hobby and a job. Doesnt mean every single hobbyist is half-arsing it or every single professional is putting 100% in their jobs, but by and large, that is the case for the masses. People more often than not take it easier on a hobby than work.
It is insulting to suggest though that 100 people working at something professionally are producing just the same type of results as 100 hobbyists having fun.

And I don't care if Jack Gregory was every bit as quick as the WI bowlers of the 70s (though that is a tall claim i am inclined to toss aside, elite speed, ie, consistent 90mph+ is something that not just anyone who looks fast is capable of). What i do care about, is the fact that when you do open with a spinner, the pace bowler is getting shafted because the pace bowler loses a lot more when the shine of the ball is gone and it is softer.
This is why no pace bowler willingly prefers bowling first change to opening the bowling.

 

[Muloghonto]

Sampling size, in this case, does not really matter. I've seen probably 400 of Tendulkar's innings, about 200+ of Lara's innings, i did not see a single instance of them playing a cover drive with both feet in the air. So i don't care if Hobb's did it infrequently, the fact that he did it, puts his callibre in the 'schoolboy' status.

 

[Ruckus]

There is nothing insulting in saying that I take my job more seriously than my hobby because my livelihood depends on it.
Amatuer X is less competetive than professional X simply because of the same difference between hobby and a job. Doesnt mean every single hobbyist is half-arsing it or every single professional is putting 100% in their jobs, but by and large, that is the case for the masses. People more often than not take it easier on a hobby than work.
It is insulting to suggest though that 100 people working at something professionally are producing just the same type of results as 100 hobbyists having fun.

Yep, I wouldn't go so far as to say they were hobbyists, but they definitely weren't of the same professional standard as today. Do people really think that players who worked other jobs on the side could really have been as good as players who dedicate most hours of their life to it? Come off it. This isn't a slight at older era players, it's simply an admission that the standards weren't the same, and couldn't have been by design.

 

[Red]

Yep, I wouldn't go so far as to say they were hobbyists, but they definitely weren't of the same professional standard as today. Do people really think that players who worked other jobs on the side could really have been as good as players who dedicate most hours of their life to it? Come off it. This isn't a slight at older era players, it's simply an admission that the standards weren't the same, and couldn't have been by design.

They were playing the highest standard of the day, the same as modern players. It's all just fantasy talk anyhow, but I've no doubt that champions who were able to magically cross eras would still be champions in another.

I know allowances would have to be made, but adjustment would happen in most cases.

 

[Muloghonto]

They were playing the highest standard of the day, the same as modern players. It's all just fantasy talk anyhow, but I've no doubt that champions who were able to magically cross eras would still be champions in another.

I know allowances would have to be made, but adjustment would happen in most cases.

'Highest standards of the day' is not equal throughout time, when you consider the fact that today's 'highest standard of the day' are produced by dedicating 100% effort & time to perfect one's cricket, while 80 years ago, it came after you took 40 hours of work and 10-15 hours of commuting to work out of the week.

It is a slight to the professional to say that he is just as good doing something on a primary basis as an amatuer who is doing it on limited time and secondary basis after doing his day job.

 

[Ruckus]

Well discussing standards definitely isn't fantasy talk. There's plenty of primary sources to form opinions about it on, plus many secondary ones which can be used to corroborate those. My beef isn't that they were playing the highest standard of the day (or course they were), it's that the highest standard wasn't the same. If competitiveness and overall standards were to have increased across the board back then, who knows just how well the Hobbs, Hammonds etc. would have fared. Perhaps other players who were now giving their full attention to the sport would have flourished, perhaps new technical weaknesses would have been exposed in the 'better' players bringing them down to a lower level. These are the kind of things that happen all the time in modern cricket when the stakes are raised. It is fantasy talk to speculate about the absolute ability of players from those eras, for reasons like those. I think it does a disservice to the game of test cricket as a whole by making silly comparisons like those anyway. The legacy of the older era players should be how they captured the imagination of the public in their time and contributed to the development of the great game. Isn't that enough...

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Sampling size, in this case, does not really matter. I've seen probably 400 of Tendulkar's innings, about 200+ of Lara's innings, i did not see a single instance of them playing a cover drive with both feet in the air. So i don't care if Hobb's did it infrequently, the fact that he did it, puts his callibre in the 'schoolboy' status.

There's that proof that your scientific rigour isn't as exceptional as Isaac Newton's then.

 

[Muloghonto]

There's that proof that your scientific rigour isn't as exceptional as Isaac Newton's then.

Stop talking out of your back end for a change. If the objective is to find something wrong and we find something wrong, the investigation ends there.
If the cop pulls you over for speeding, its because he saw you speed once. Not that he gathered data for your habits and concluded how often you speed.
The same rationale applies here.

My contention is that Hobbs did not have the quality of batsmanship expected of professional greats. To that, i raise the evidence that he drove with both his feet off the air. The investigation ends here, because like speeding, how often he did it, is irrelevant, the fact that he did and no modern batsman ever does something like that, is sufficient to rest the case.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

@Muloghonto, you are aware of how many people have died of short bowler prior to WW1 Right?

Another interesting fact is that IIRC, until 1910 no one was aware that the new ball behaved differently to the old one. Which is why you got spinners opening the bowler while the tearaway quicks were left as change bowlers.

 

[Red]

Stop talking out of your back end for a change. If the objective is to find something wrong and we find something wrong, the investigation ends there.
If the cop pulls you over for speeding, its because he saw you speed once. Not that he gathered data for your habits and concluded how often you speed.
The same rationale applies here.

My contention is that Hobbs did not have the quality of batsmanship expected of professional greats. To that, i raise the evidence that he drove with both his feet off the air. The investigation ends here, because like speeding, how often he did it, is irrelevant, the fact that he did and no modern batsman ever does something like that, is sufficient to rest the case.

Lol. Wha?

You saw a photo of Hobbs driving with his feet in the air on one occasion and you conclude he must have always done it because a policeman only fines you if he catches you speeding on one occasion even though you might not always speed so Hobbs must have always drove with his feet in the air and therefore he isn't as good as modern players and couldn't cope with pace bowling. Lol wha?