Jack Hobbs vs Gary Sobers

[_00_deathscar]

We shouldn't. Or else we might end up thinking that Eddie Paynter is among the best after Don. But still, on closer scrutiny; we can see how the game changed over the years; when it began easier for batting and when it wasn't.
Also on a sidenote; you're really doing a disservice to two players in particular there (I would also argue for Pedernera, De Stefano's idol, who makes my Top 50, but these two much more); Jose Leandro Andrade and Matthias Schindler. Andrade was truly the first global star of football, winning a World Cup and 2 Olympic gold medals; all the while being a defensive player. At that time attacking players were given even more preference than today; but still he probably is the only defensive player to be widely regarded as the best of his time. He makes my ATG team as a defensive medio. And the other Sindelar. The best player of the World's first Great team, Wunderteam of Austria; and among the world's finest dribblers; a very good argument can be made for him to be superior to his rival Meazza.

Without wishing to derail the thread too much with football, this is also an argument for why I think going on too many old timers isn't necessarily great - football itself was so different back in the day (nevermind cricket), those early World Cups, whilst I'm sure the teams were still great, weren't necessarily a great indicator.
It's the "these cricket players only really played in 2 countries" argument. Given how much emphasis is placed on away performances and being consistent in a wide range of conditions, minnow bashing aside, it's really hard to envision how it was really a proper test for them (other than the best you can do is play your era) - and while you do go with the argument that the best will always adapt, there's also a pretty good chance that many from that group won't.

Spinners in particular - these English and Australian and South Africans produced a bucketlist of ATG spinners 50+ years back - and then? Just Warne? Maybe MacGill (nowhere close to ATG)? That strikes as a bit odd...

Anyway Matthaeus takes that particular spot, easily - in every way you mentioned. Then there's the likes of Busquets etc, and that particular role has changed so much over the decades as well.

 

[Coronis]

Without wishing to derail the thread too much with football, this is also an argument for why I think going on too many old timers isn't necessarily great - football itself was so different back in the day (nevermind cricket), those early World Cups, whilst I'm sure the teams were still great, weren't necessarily a great indicator.
It's the "these cricket players only really played in 2 countries" argument. Given how much emphasis is placed on away performances and being consistent in a wide range of conditions, minnow bashing aside, it's really hard to envision how it was really a proper test for them (other than the best you can do is play your era) - and while you do go with the argument that the best will always adapt, there's also a pretty good chance that many from that group won't.

Spinners in particular - these English and Australian and South Africans produced a bucketlist of ATG spinners 50+ years back - and then? Just Warne? Maybe MacGill (nowhere close to ATG)? That strikes as a bit odd...

Anyway Matthaeus takes that particular spot, easily - in every way you mentioned. Then there's the likes of Busquets etc, and that particular role has changed so much over the decades as well.

Strikes me as a bit odd that India randomly started popping out quality pacers after 80 years of mediocrity. **** happens

 

[honestbharani]

India randomly started popping out quality pacers

I wont call the MRF pace foundation random at all tbh. @_00_deathscar s point still stands and is actually more reasonable.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Without wishing to derail the thread too much with football, this is also an argument for why I think going on too many old timers isn't necessarily great - football itself was so different back in the day (nevermind cricket), those early World Cups, whilst I'm sure the teams were still great, weren't necessarily a great indicator.
It's the "these cricket players only really played in 2 countries" argument. Given how much emphasis is placed on away performances and being consistent in a wide range of conditions, minnow bashing aside, it's really hard to envision how it was really a proper test for them (other than the best you can do is play your era) - and while you do go with the argument that the best will always adapt, there's also a pretty good chance that many from that group won't.

Spinners in particular - these English and Australian and South Africans produced a bucketlist of ATG spinners 50+ years back - and then? Just Warne? Maybe MacGill (nowhere close to ATG)? That strikes as a bit odd...

Anyway Matthaeus takes that particular spot, easily - in every way you mentioned. Then there's the likes of Busquets etc, and that particular role has changed so much over the decades as well.

I wont call the MRF pace foundation random at all tbh. @_00_deathscar s point still stands and is actually more reasonable.

You guys are forgetting one thing, pitches especially in England but also Australia to an extent; used to be very suitable for spinners well into the late 50s. And that was widely because in an uncovered pitch; spin is much more deadlier than pace.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Australia had 0 ATG quick till WW2 ( in half of its history, a case for Spofforth tho). Since, then there have been arguably 5 (Lindwall, Davidson, Lillee, McGrath, Cummins). Not much of a thing to be made out of.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Australia had 0 ATG quick till WW2 ( in half of its history, a case for Spofforth tho). Since, then there have been arguably 5 (Lindwall, Davidson, Lillee, McGrath, Cummins). Not much of a thing to be made out.

Before WWII, there were 0 ATG quicks altogether. For the time being, a case can be made for Spofforth and Richardson.

 

[Sunil1z]

Australia had 0 ATG quick till WW2 ( in half of its history, a case for Spofforth tho). Since, then there have been arguably 5 (Lindwall, Davidson, Lillee, McGrath, Cummins). Not much of a thing to be made out of.

This post confirms my belief that Australia weren’t much ahead of other Teams till 1995 . It was after that WI tour that they started pulling ahead and became defacto no.1 Cricket Team by 2007 ( all time ) .

 

[Coronis]

This post confirms my belief that Australia weren’t much ahead of other Teams till 1995 . It was after that WI tour that they started pulling ahead and became defacto no.1 Cricket Team by 2007 ( all time ) .

I mean - you still would feasibly have an ATG XI of:

Simpson
Morris
Bradman
Chappell
Harvey
Border
Marsh+ (presumably)
Lindwall
Davidson
Lillee
O’Reilly

Still beats all the current ATG XIs imo, closer with the Windies than now but Bradman and O’Reilly give them a big edge.

 

[Sunil1z]

I mean - you still would feasibly have an ATG XI of:

Simpson
Morris/Trumper
Bradman
Chappell
Harvey
Border
Marsh+ (presumably)
Lindwall
Davidson
Lillee
O’Reilly

Still beats all the current ATG XIs imo, closer with the Windies than now but Bradman and O’Reilly give them a big edge.

Sorry, this ATXI isn’t beating WI .

 

[Coronis]

Sorry, this ATG isn’t beating WI .

Why not? Australia have better openers, Bradman, Chappell and Border and a comparable 3 man pace attack with a far superior spinner.

 

[Sunil1z]

Why not? Australia have better openers, Bradman, Chappell and Border and a comparable 3 man pace attack with a far superior spinner.

You think your bowling attack is comparable to Marshall + Ambrose + Garner+ Holding?

And your batting attack is superior to Sobers+ Lara+ Richards + Headley ?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I mean - you still would feasibly have an ATG XI of:

Simpson
Morris
Bradman
Chappell
Harvey
Border
Marsh+ (presumably)
Lindwall
Davidson
Lillee
O’Reilly

Still beats all the current ATG XIs imo, closer with the Windies than now but Bradman and O’Reilly give them a big edge.

Why no Miller?

 

[Coronis]

You think your bowling attack is comparable to Marshall + Ambrose + Garner+ Holding?

And your batting attack is superior to Sobers+ Lara+ Richards + Headley ?

Yup. O’Reilly is a huge factor, if you go with Holding - you only have Sobers bowling spin (he was mostly effective with pace) and Lillee, Lindwall and Davidson are all ATG pacers. Bradman is Bradman. Windies mostly have better batsmen there, but we have Bradman. He’s further ahead of Sobers Lara or Viv or Headley than they are of Marsh or Dujon - more than enough to overcome the distance between Chappell, Border and Harvey vs the rest of the middle order.

 

[Coronis]

Why no Miller?

Why would I have Miller? He’s not good enough to make it with the bat or the ball. Despite having Bradman and especially without Gilly I don’t think its worth it to significantly weaken the batting to add a 5th bowler. I understand there are people who would though.

 

[Sunil1z]

Yup. O’Reilly is a huge factor, if you go with Holding - you only have Sobers bowling spin (he was mostly effective with pace) and Lillee, Lindwall and Davidson are all ATG pacers. Bradman is Bradman. Windies mostly have better batsmen there, but we have Bradman. He’s further ahead of Sobers Lara or Viv or Headley than they are of Marsh or Dujon - more than enough to overcome the distance between Chappell, Border and Harvey vs the rest of the middle order.

You think O’Reilly would be a factor after what Lara did to Warne ?
Australia ATXI are inferior to WI ATXI without Gilchrist, McGrath and Warne imo .
Although I think Warne would make no difference against WI ATXI and IND ATXI he would destroy other ATXI so he definitely gives your side boost against other SENA countries + PAK + SL .

 

[Coronis]

You think O’Reilly would be a factor after what Lara did to Warne ?
Australia ATXI are inferior to WI ATXI without Gilchrist, McGrath and Warne imo .
Although I think Warne would make no difference against WI ATXI and IND ATXI he would destroy other ATXI so he definitely gives your side boost against other SENA countries + PAK + SL .

Yes.

 

[Coronis]

I wont call the MRF pace foundation random at all tbh. @_00_deathscar s point still stands and is actually more reasonable.

Considering their actual quality recent pacers have nothing to do with that foundation, sure.

 

[honestbharani]

Considering their actual quality recent pacers have nothing to do with that foundation, sure.

Bumrah was literally unearthed at MRF but sure, continue.

 

[Socerer 01]

MRF foundation gets clowned on due to the negative image from the past but they’ve done good work and served as the inspiration point for other places to do their own work

 

[Sunil1z]

I think Chennai wasn’t the ideal place to start pace foundation because of weather (humidity)Should have opened it in Mohali or Himachal (Colder weather)