• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Jasprit Bumrah vs Bill O’Reilly

Who is the better test bowler?

  • Total voters
    29
sayon basak

sayon basak

International Regular
capt_Luffy said:
I mean, you can but he specifically doesn't. Also, time travelling cricket is a managerial nightmare in this regards. What kind of bat they get? What laws? Is there DRS?? And should games be played in 1870s? What about a few games even older?
Click to expand...
And what if I go back in time and kill Bradman's grandpa, how the hell is gonna Bradman play in the AT XI?
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
capt_Luffy said:
I mean, you can but he specifically doesn't. Also, time travelling cricket is a managerial nightmare in this regards. What kind of bat they get? What laws? Is there DRS?? And should games be played in 1870s? What about a few games even older?
Click to expand...
I mean why should only older players be forced unilaterally to adapt to current laws and conditions? Why don’t current players also have to face that challenge hypothetically?
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Coronis said:
I mean why should only older players be forced unilaterally to adapt to current laws and conditions? Why don’t current players also have to face that challenge hypothetically?
Click to expand...
By logic, it should be because the game 'evolved' and 'improved', as all the changes are supposed to be taken as positive input only. Logically, it should be; in practice is a different thing.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
capt_Luffy said:
By logic, it should be because the game 'evolved' and 'improved', as all the changes are supposed to be taken as positive input only. Logically, it should be; in practice is a different thing.
Click to expand...
Nah makes no sense to me. If we can take players from any time in this situation why can’t I take a matting wicket from South Africa or a deadly Australian sticky? Why can’t I bring back some bats where the sweet spot isn’t giant? Why can’t I bring back the back foot law?
 
Last edited:
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Coronis said:
Nah makes no sense to me. If we can take players from any time in this situation why can’t I take a matting wicket from South Africa or a deadly Australian sticky? Why can’t I bring back some bats where the sweet spot isn’t giant? Why can’t I bring back the back foot law?
Click to expand...
As well, it can be perceived that the game has 'evolved' from those primitive pitches, bats and laws. So should be the natural progression really. Again, the changes being practically better or not is different, but they certainly are perceived as such to be applied.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
capt_Luffy said:
As well, it can be perceived that the game has 'evolved' from those primitive pitches, bats and laws. So should be the natural progression really. Again, the changes being practically better or not is different, but they certainly are perceived as such to be applied.
Click to expand...
I actually read a study recently regarding the front foot law and that its considered to be an important reason for many injuries nowadays. iirc Pollock said the most common injury spot for fast bowlers in his day was that front foot.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
I also understand that people don't like it when someone changes their stance, as it's more convenient to have a caricature than nuance. However, I want to change my opinion on Hobbs in particular. Reading into his career, it really was incredibly long and did span acrosseras, with a different group of bowlers all together at the end as compared to the beginning (likely a stronger group, with better approaches). So my current re-evaluation is that indeed Hobbs likely could have a bit more quality to his batting than Shakib al Hasan.

However, this is just a Hobbs specific change in evaluation for me. I still poo poo all over the older time eras batsmen, and believe in general they faced weaker bowling, and thus demonstrated considerably less skill, especially the earlier in time you get before WWII, it was likely a crapshoot.

So we could update to something like Trumper and Hill couldn't tie Watson and Katich's shoelaces when it comes to demonstrated batting skill. I really still believe like this.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
Actually looking at it again, Katich ended up with a way, way better batting average than I remembered at the time. So Watson probably couldn't tie his shoelaces either, but anyway, you get my point.
 
Johan

Johan

International Debutant
shortpitched713 said:
I also understand that people don't like it when someone changes their stance, as it's more convenient to have a caricature than nuance. However, I want to change my opinion on Hobbs in particular. Reading into his career, it really was incredibly long and did span acrosseras, with a different group of bowlers all together at the end as compared to the beginning (likely a stronger group, with better approaches). So my current re-evaluation is that indeed Hobbs likely could have a bit more quality to his batting than Sachin Tendulkar.
Click to expand...
Agree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top