_00_deathscar
International Regular
Nah his team still lost plenty, considering the guy was basically 2 batsmen.Either on paper or with consideration of form, it has to be the Invincibles IMO. Bradman needs to be nerfed.
Nah his team still lost plenty, considering the guy was basically 2 batsmen.Either on paper or with consideration of form, it has to be the Invincibles IMO. Bradman needs to be nerfed.
The whole point is they didn’t lose any.Nah his team still lost plenty, considering the guy was basically 2 batsmen.
All those bad players in his team must have really weighed it down ... oh wait, there were none. There were 11 good players. The difference between Gilchrist and Tallon is arguably huge though.Nah his team still lost plenty, considering the guy was basically 2 batsmen.
How,?Either on paper or with consideration of form, it has to be the Invincibles IMO. Bradman needs to be nerfed.
Bradman + miller is a ridiculous cheat code together. Between the two of them you get an average output of peak Smith from each batting spot and a fourth quick who's good enough to play as a frontline seamer.How,?
That's bullshitBradman + miller is a ridiculous cheat code together. Between the two of them you get an average output of peak Smith from each batting spot and a fourth quick who's good enough to play as a frontline seamer.
Bradman averages 100 and miller averages mid 30's. It's not exactly peak Smith, but 65-70 runs from each of their batting spots per dismissal.That's bull****
The wankfest for Richards is really insane. Also lol removing a bloke with 2 noms vs any of the blokes with 1 nom.In 1971 The Cricketer magazine celebrated its 50th anniversary by asking four eminent senior figures to choose their greatest twenty cricketers since 1921. The four were Ames, Gubby Allen, O'Reilly and Fingleton. Bradman was invited but declined.
All four played most of their cricket during the 1930s, so one might expect a weighting towards that time and towards England and Australia. Ames and Allen later became selectors and administrators, the two Australians respected journalists.
All four judges voted for nine players: Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton, Compton, Headley, Sobers, Lindwall and Tate.
Three votes were given to O'Reilly (was told to vote for himself but refused), Grimmett, Larwood, Bedser and McCabe.
Two nominations: Macartney, Ponsford, May, Worrell, Miller, Evans, Laker.
One: Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock, Weekes, Harvey, Hassett, Sutcliffe, Woolley, Leyland, Duleepsinhji, Rhodes, Trueman, Statham, Mailey, Freeman.
With 21 cricketers receiving two or more nominations, editor Swanton had to remove one to leave an overall Top 20. He removed Laker on the grounds of meeting "only limited success outside England."
Fingleton's comments were the most interesting, especially when quoting Herbie Collins' opinion that Headley was the most complete batsman he ever saw. Fingleton signed off by saying: "I must stress, finally, that statistics didn't matter a tinker's cuss with me. I estimated capacity and individualism. I looked at the subject in memory's eye."
For the top 20, all the blokes with one vote were already eliminated. There were 21 players with two or more votes, so one of them had to go.The wankfest for Richards is really insane. Also lol removing a bloke with 2 noms vs any of the blokes with 1 nom.
What sort of formula/decision making are you using to come up with these new figures?I've actually got his average doing him a disservice:
Standardised Averages - updated 15/8/2019
docs.google.com
Ah my bad.For the top 20, all the blokes with one vote were already eliminated. There were 21 players with two or more votes, so one of them had to go.
A similar exercise today would be interesting.For an idea of the establishment view at the time, The Cricketer complemented their selection with a similar exercise six years later when Arlott, Swanton and Frith chose all-time England and Australia teams shortly before the Centenary Test. They have already been posted here but are repeated for information:
England: Grace, Hobbs, Hammond, Compton, Woolley, Ames+, Tate, Larwood, Rhodes, Laker, Barnes. (Rhodes' batting was ignored.)
Australia: Trumper, Simpson, Bradman, Macartney, Harvey, Miller, Oldfield+, Lindwall, Trumble, Lillee, O'Reilly.
From the 1921-71 timeframe, only Simpson and wicket-keepers Oldfield and Ames did not receive votes in 1971, and Simpson only just made this side ahead of Ponsford on the grounds that he was more comfortable against fast bowling.
It is still Larwood and Tate ahead of Trueman. No mention in either exercise of the likes of Davidson or Barrington. They weren't even considered. Team balance meant no third opener in Hutton.
English writers were as certain of their top five English batsmen (Grace, Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton, Compton) as Indians are of theirs today (Gavaskar, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Kohli).
Some more recent ones:A similar exercise today would be interesting.
What sort of formula/decision making are you using to come up with these new figures?
Cheers.