Herbie Taylor, Billy Zulch, Dave Nourse, Philip Hands, Tommy Ward, not going to pretend it was a World Class batting but was Test standard, especially at home. And his demolition job of them has no close comparison.
That's no doubt factored into the argument. Yes, that team was relatively weak, but to average 12 WPM a match?? When the bowlers bowling alongside you are also good? Come on now, that's great no doubt.
The big harp on Murali (well one of them) is his record vs minnows, and they were no way as impactful on his numbers as were SA to Barnes.
The big harp on Murali's record is his record in India really. And well, his numbers weren't as good as Barnes either. And didn't I just said SA batting wasn't exactly minnow for the era??
There were minnows. But again we shall just agree to disagree.
I disagree then. I think guys from every era should be judged and rated among themselves.
Cherry picking at its most blatant.
Exactly. Making this comparison is ridiculous.
It's 11-10.
Yes I know it's not like I was hiding that? I acknowledged that in my post.
Yeah, cricketers from that era should just not be compared at all with modern ones.
Gentle reminder that time between Barnes' retirement and Don's debut is less than that of Viv and Smith.
Everybody from Hobbs downwards said standards declined after WW1. Four years' development were lost. Virtually every cricketer returning from the war carried a physical injury. Mental scars were covered up (eg Macartney).
Don is more recent, and has enough sample size and outlier effect to transcend era.
Barely recent, as pointed out.
Sure but cricket had evolved a bit more. Main thing is average and sample
Cricket has evolved more, significantly much more, between the time Viv retired and Smith debuted.
Seems we agree overall then
Yeah I don't agree at all. If we're talking test cricket, surely today's game is reasonably comparable comparable to the 70s and 80s. That's when modern fast bowlers were much more prevalent and medium pacers became mostly obsolete.
The English pitches mostly. They were much more bowler friendly in the former no doubt in general. But I believe you don't think the pitches were all, do you?? The batting techniques, the equipments, the training facilities, the player diets, the majority of rules (except a few lbw laws), the mentality of the players, were mostly the same. Not to mention the very widespread belief that cricket went backwards post WWI due to the 4 year gap, and people dying and getting injured. One of the reasons Rhodes' FC bowling average post War is actually better. And the last thing, a touring WI team faced Barnes in 1925, when he was already 50+; and at the end of the tour they unanimously agreed that he was the best bowler they faced there.
