The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Ruckus]

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?

Cricketer Jack Hobbs - British Pathé

SIR JACK HOBBS AND SUTCLIFFE - FIRST TEST - British Pathé

CAMERA INTERVIEWS - JACK HOBBS - British Pathé

JACK HOBBS THE WORLD FAMOUS CRICKETER - British Pathé

JACK HOBBS - THE WORLD-FAMOUS CRICKETER - British Pathé

Jack Hobbs in 1914 - YouTube

Jack Hobbs in 1914 part 2 - YouTube

There's plenty more on BP alone too...

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

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.

I disagree. I've seen modern players play shots with both feet in the air. I haven't at that point paused live TV and denounced their batsmanship as you have.

As I said previously, I'm not a great follower of cricket history and I prefer to judge players I've seen and judge them on that basis. Hence, I don't think it's unreasonable to know the sample size when I'm coming from a point where I must confess that I've seen pretty much bugger all of Hobbs or anyone of that vintage batting. If this is something you can point to one example of and damn him on that basis, I would feel that's pretty disingenuous. Whereas if you could point to half a dozen or more or at least some kind of more representative sample, then maybe I could appreciate your point of view more substantially.

I once saw Tendulkar given out Lbw ducking what turned out to be a slower ball. If I judged his career in isolation from that one incident, that'd be ridiculous. Whereas, if he had a tendency to misread such deliveries and was out on a number of occasions as such, then maybe decrying his ability would be more justified. Sample size is clearly a relevant issue in this case - how can it not be?

 

[the big bambino]

Gregory and MacDonald did bowl short and hit players. Their captain was our version of Jardine.
Cricketers were professional from the early stages of the game. For many it was their livelihood.
Yes standards improve...duh; but no one who is serious rates a player's greatness on just the era he was cast by chance to play in.
Hobbs did face express bowlers. As did Hutton, strange that it needs to be said to anyone who's read about the game.
The Hobbs' photo was staged - posed - a pretence - an affectation. I've seen a photo of Bradman facing up left handed. Rewrite the history books everybody...

 

[watson]

Here's a nice piece on Gregory and McDonald by Martin;

Cricket Web - Features: Gregory and McDonald, aka Fire and Brimstone

The consensus amongst their contemporaries seems to be that McDonald was the greater bowler, with one notable exception. Harold Larwood, who knew a bit about bowling fast, said of the pair, in an autobiography published in 1965, Jack Gregory I nominate as the greatest among the Australian fast bowlers. There was little to choose between him and Ted MacDonald in regard to speed but I think Gregory was just a little ahead of his great opening partner because he was a man of more terrifying appearance.

 

[Coronis]

Wow, never would have predicted that Peter May's peak would top Viv Richard's, or even Weekes' for that matter.

This is the period from which his rating rose up until his peak at the end of the 1956 Ashes, if you're interested.

 

[Muloghonto]

@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.

how can you be unaware that the new ball swings more under speed than the old ball ? any pacer should've seen that effect in their bowling

 

[Muloghonto]

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?

i didnt see a photo, i saw a clip. i dont care if he drove with both his feet in the air once every 50 drives. like i said, i've seen the bulk majority of tendulkar and lara's careers, amongst others. not once did they end up playing a drive with both feet in the air. that hobbs did it at all, puts his technique in the schoolboy zone.

 

[Muloghonto]

I disagree. I've seen modern players play shots with both feet in the air. I haven't at that point paused live TV and denounced their batsmanship as you have.

As I said previously, I'm not a great follower of cricket history and I prefer to judge players I've seen and judge them on that basis. Hence, I don't think it's unreasonable to know the sample size when I'm coming from a point where I must confess that I've seen pretty much bugger all of Hobbs or anyone of that vintage batting. If this is something you can point to one example of and damn him on that basis, I would feel that's pretty disingenuous. Whereas if you could point to half a dozen or more or at least some kind of more representative sample, then maybe I could appreciate your point of view more substantially.

I once saw Tendulkar given out Lbw ducking what turned out to be a slower ball. If I judged his career in isolation from that one incident, that'd be ridiculous. Whereas, if he had a tendency to misread such deliveries and was out on a number of occasions as such, then maybe decrying his ability would be more justified. Sample size is clearly a relevant issue in this case - how can it not be?

You can play an upper cut with both feet in the air. or a pull shot. but a drive ? sorry, that is basic cricketing error 101 i expect from schoolkids today.

that tendulkar delivery you speak of, was a short pitched ball that failed to rise. and it definitely was one of the biggest umpiring howlers i've ever seen.
yes, it hit him in line and about stump height...about four feet in front of the stumps and still rising!

 

[the big bambino]

ohnoitsyou is right. Its bcos bowlers relied on outright pace with a break back for variation. Swerve as it was called was probably pioneered, if not discovered by George Hirst. Quite often spinners opened with fast bowlers because the variation meant it was harder for batsmen to settle, a claim made by Grace. Often pace bowlers bowled the stock overs in the middle of the innings. So a set of affairs almost the reverse of today. The concept of pace bowlers operating together became popular with success of Gregory and McDonald.

Edit: (omg; not the driving with feet in the air business again...)

 

[Muloghonto]

Gregory and MacDonald did bowl short and hit players. Their captain was our version of Jardine.
Cricketers were professional from the early stages of the game. For many it was their livelihood.
Yes standards improve...duh; but no one who is serious rates a player's greatness on just the era he was cast by chance to play in.
Hobbs did face express bowlers. As did Hutton, strange that it needs to be said to anyone who's read about the game.
The Hobbs' photo was staged - posed - a pretence - an affectation. I've seen a photo of Bradman facing up left handed. Rewrite the history books everybody...

one or two professionals in a field of amatuers is what leads to statistical absurdities like those of Bradman, Barnes, etc. its because the few superior professionals get to disproportionately exploit a field that is on average, amatuer and lacking in development.

Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton- they did not face headhunting on a regular basis, neither did they face it from top notch bowlers. Gregory ? McDonald ? sure, they might've been fast. Did they headhunt regularly ? No. Even if they did on the rare occasion, facing any amatuer guy who can crank 140K is not the same as facing the likes of Andy Roberts or Malcolm Marshall trying to head-hunt you. Or else, 80 years from now, someone might say 'look, bangladeshi batsmen faced Varun Aaron and his 150ks and smashed him. Put them in an ATG team too, they can face top quality hostile bowling!'.

 

[Muloghonto]

ohnoitsyou is right. Its bcos bowlers relied on outright pace with a break back for variation. Swerve as it was called was probably pioneered, if not discovered by George Hirst. Quite often spinners opened with fast bowlers because the variation meant it was harder for batsmen to settle, a claim made by Grace. Often pace bowlers bowled the stock overs in the middle of the innings. So a set of affairs almost the reverse of today. The concept of pace bowlers operating together became popular with success of Gregory and McDonald.

Edit: (omg; not the driving with feet in the air business again...)

fast bowlers relying on outright pace..gee, you dont say! i didn't get the memo that fast bowlers today dont rely on outright pace- or for any era for that matter.
i don't care what Grace said, any bowler can figure out that the ball is easier to grip- both in your hand and off the pitch- when its old and thus older ball favors spin more and the ball with the shine still there (new ball) moves more when bowled at pace.
That these guys 100 years ago couldnt figure out this basic aspect to cricket bowling only further demonstrates how hopelessly amaturish and incompetent they were in empiric terms.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Theres a reason that Hobbs and Hutton never faced serious headhunting. Prior to headgear, far to many people were seriously injured or killed for anyone to seriously target batsmen. That doesn't mean batsmen weren't capable of handing it, far from it they had to be really good at at least avoiding the short ball, it only takes one ball to ruin a carer.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

fast bowlers relying on outright pace..gee, you dont say! i didn't get the memo that fast bowlers today dont rely on outright pace- or for any era for that matter.
i don't care what Grace said, any bowler can figure out that the ball is easier to grip- both in your hand and off the pitch- when its old and thus older ball favors spin more and the ball with the shine still there (new ball) moves more when bowled at pace.
That these guys 100 years ago couldnt figure out this basic aspect to cricket bowling only further demonstrates how hopelessly amaturish and incompetent they were in empiric terms.

Maybe the ball did so much of the pitch that people never really cared and when pitches started to flatten out people started to work harder at getting movement in the air. Why do you think reverse swing developed in Pakistan of all places?

 

[Muloghonto]

Theres a reason that Hobbs and Hutton never faced serious headhunting. Prior to headgear, far to many people were seriously injured or killed for anyone to seriously target batsmen. That doesn't mean batsmen weren't capable of handing it, far from it they had to be really good at at least avoiding the short ball, it only takes one ball to ruin a carer.

thats not true, headgear did not become common till the mid/late 80s and even in the early/mid 80s there were only a few batsmen worldwide who wore any sort of headgear. yet, the 70s and 80s pacers headhunted regularly and there were batsmen who survived it.

hobbs and hutton did not face such headhunting because it was simply not gentlemanly enough in the amatuer era to do so.

[quoteMaybe the ball did so much of the pitch that people never really cared and when pitches started to flatten out people started to work harder at getting movement in the air. Why do you think reverse swing developed in Pakistan of all places?[/quote]

how the ball behaves is in its physical properties. a softer and rougher ball favours spin, a harder and shinier ball favours lateral movement at speed.
not knowing that is cannot be attributed to a different state of the game because the cricket ball has been fundamentally the same and these are properties of the ball. they can only be put down to either incompetence or incapability to use the ball optimally.

those things have not changed, neither did they chance in pakistan, where last i checked, they too opened with two pacers, regardless of reverse swing or not.

the reverse swing was invented in pakistan because of their necessity to be challenging in the middle of the innings. pakistan before the rise of abdul qadir and tauseef ahmed, were not a particularly good spin side. they had competent spinners but none that would blow away a side or be even the slightest bother for spin stalwarts of that era like india or england.
so they tried to get more happening with their pace bowlers, bent the rules and invented reverse swing.

 

[fredfertang]

hobbs and hutton did not face such headhunting because it was simply not gentlemanly enough in the amatuer era to do so.

For someone who clearly has some knowledge of the history of the game you do make some silly comments

 

[ohnoitsyou]

thats not true, headgear did not become common till the mid/late 80s and even in the early/mid 80s there were only a few batsmen worldwide who wore any sort of headgear. yet, the 70s and 80s pacers headhunted regularly and there were batsmen who survived it.

hobbs and hutton did not face such headhunting because it was simply not gentlemanly enough in the amatuer era to do so.

Maybe the ball did so much of the pitch that people never really cared and when pitches started to flatten out people started to work harder at getting movement in the air. Why do you think reverse swing developed in Pakistan of all places?

how the ball behaves is in its physical properties. a softer and rougher ball favours spin, a harder and shinier ball favours lateral movement at speed.
not knowing that is cannot be attributed to a different state of the game because the cricket ball has been fundamentally the same and these are properties of the ball. they can only be put down to either incompetence or incapability to use the ball optimally.

those things have not changed, neither did they chance in pakistan, where last i checked, they too opened with two pacers, regardless of reverse swing or not.

the reverse swing was invented in pakistan because of their necessity to be challenging in the middle of the innings. pakistan before the rise of abdul qadir and tauseef ahmed, were not a particularly good spin side. they had competent spinners but none that would blow away a side or be even the slightest bother for spin stalwarts of that era like india or england.
so they tried to get more happening with their pace bowlers, bent the rules and invented reverse swing.

Which was exactly what i was saying, Pakistan fast bowlers started to utilise reverse swing because their pitches were so flat, which is the same logic i apply to swing developing so late in the history of the game.

What i forgot to mention previously (but have said before) is that uneven bounce was much much worse in the earlier eras, couple that with length deliveries being much better wicket taking deliveries and there is a reason for using bouncers sparingly.

 

[watson]

Jack Egan, an expert on archived footage of cricket history remarked during his video 'The Cricket Archives. Australian Cricket Films 1905 - 1961';

Old times are good times of course, but it's pretty obvious that the facilities have improved a fair bit since the 1930s. I've got no doubt that the standard of cricket has improved too, as it has in all the sports where results can actually be measured. The is no comparison for instance between fielding then and now. The players now are a lot fitter and they're younger too, and bowling, especially fast bowling is a lot more consistent than it was 50 or 60 years ago. Still it's true as the saying goes, a champion in one era would be champion in another era.

So you are right MULOGHONTO in concluding that modern players are better than their counterparts from before the Second World War. However, this conclusion needs to be heavily qualified. Geoff Armstrong makes an important statement in his book 'The 100 Greatest Cricketers';

Sir Donald Bradman was just one of many experts who argued strongly that Arthur Morris was the best left-handed opener he saw, but veterans who watched Morris in his prime never conceded that he was superior to Warren Bardsley, who went in first for Australia from 1909 to 1926.

It is important because it reminds us that there is chain of experts and eyewitnesses who take us back to the turn of the 20th century, and the conclusion they draw is that the skill of Test match players has remained fairly constant over the various generations. Therefore, when we say modern players are 'better' we are talking about incremental improvements in skill, not quantum leaps.

Ashley Mallet is a respected writer and has seen all the best fast bowlers since the 1950s - from Lindwall to Steyn. Yet for him, Ray Lindwall is the doyen of fast bowlers, and better than Malcolm Marshall;

Ray Lindwall heads my list of the five best fast bowlers I have seen. This artist-cricketer changed his pace with all the subtle artifices any fast bowler of any era has achieved, and he did what all great bowlers must do: broke the rhythm of the batsman. At his peak he had the power to slay by thunder or defeat by guile.

Ashley Mallett on the five best fast bowlers he has seen | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

So again, we have an eyewitness who transcends generations, and concludes that the best fast bowling really hasn't improved significantly in about 50 years.

Your opinion MULOGHONTO that great players from around WWII, or even WWI, are significantly weaker than their modern counterparts lacks the backing of experts and historians who know more than you do.

Therefore, it is very likely indeed that a quality batsman like Bardesley, or a quality bowler like Gregory, would cope admirably with the rigors of 21st century cricket. And of course the reverse is true, a modern Test batsman or bowler of inferior quality wouldn't survive the rigors of early 20th century cricket for more than a short while.

 

[watson]

Also Muloghonto, you obviously haven't studied basic High School history as I can't find any references to credible sources or experts in your posts. I'm sorry, but unless your opinion is joined to a credible source or expert then I can't take it seriously.

 

[Red]

i didnt see a photo, i saw a clip. i dont care if he drove with both his feet in the air once every 50 drives. like i said, i've seen the bulk majority of tendulkar and lara's careers, amongst others. not once did they end up playing a drive with both feet in the air. that hobbs did it at all, puts his technique in the schoolboy zone.

 

[the big bambino]

Mulowhatever: You said earlier in the thread you tire of repeating yourself. I tire of you repeating yourself too.