Ricky Ponting vs Victor Trumper

[sayon basak]

Take a look at this and try to understand my argument

oldest players in test

Bro really thinks he made an argument.

 

[Johan]

That’s 2 of the greatest fast bowlers in history really. And Hobbs was leagues above Boycott as a batsman. Boycott himself would fully agree with this statement. Then there would be some guy with some stupid opinion like in earlier posts.

Here is Boycott on Hobbs

Who's the next-best batsman after Bradman?

We all know who the greatest batsman of them all is, but who's second in line?

www-espncricinfo-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[Johan]

This is a good analogy.

yeah always works

 

[Coronis]

Here is Boycott on Hobbs

Who's the next-best batsman after Bradman?

We all know who the greatest batsman of them all is, but who's second in line?

www-espncricinfo-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Greatest batsman ever - learned to bat with a stump and a golf ball
Second greatest (arguably) batsman ever - learned to bat with a stump and a tennis ball

Future generations of batsmen could take a huge lesson.

 

[sayon basak]

Greatest batsman ever - learned to bat with a stump and a golf ball
Second greatest (arguably) batsman ever - learned to bat with a stump and a tennis ball

Future generations of batsmen could take a huge lesson.

What's next? A football?

 

[Coronis]

What's next? A football?

I mean if we want someone better than Bradman you’d try and go smaller than a golf ball. Its clearly related to size of the ball. Maybe a bouncy ball to get used to uneven bounce.

 

[sayon basak]

I mean if we want someone better than Bradman you’d try and go smaller than a golf ball. Its clearly related to size of the ball. Maybe a bouncy ball to get used to uneven bounce.

Maybe I'll become better than Bradman. My balls are smaller than golf ball.

 

[Coronis]

Maybe I'll become better than Bradman. My balls are smaller than golf ball.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you were continually hitting yourself with a stump tbh.

 

[DrWolverine]

Here is Boycott on Hobbs

Who's the next-best batsman after Bradman?

We all know who the greatest batsman of them all is, but who's second in line?

www-espncricinfo-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Geoff Boycott : Jack Hobbs
Suresh Menon : Sachin Tendulkar
Mike Coward : Sachin Tendulkar
Ian Chappell : Gary Sobers

Martin Crowe gave best batsman of each era(20 years)
First era : George Headley
Second era : Gary Sobers
Third era : Sunil Gavaskar
Fourth era : Sachin Tendulkar

 

[DrWolverine]

It is very smart of Crowe to say who is the best batsman of each era rather than say second best batsman ever..

 

[CodeOfWisden]

I already agreed pacers weren't as fast so playing longer was viable, a lot of it also comes down to the fact that the pitches were uncovered and that's why spinners never lost effectiveness with age. all these guys also played less Cricket than today, lost years to the war and thus their bodies were generally worn down less. we saw Jimmy Anderson play to 42 just because he ditched other formats and rested well, why can't spinners of today do that? they can as well, but they choose not to.

regardless, No it was a professional County match between Hampshire and Yorkshire where Boycott and Marshall faced when Boycott was 45 years old

https://stats.acscricket.com/Archive/Scorecards/45/45960.html

just for reference, here is Boycott making 76 and 125* against Sir Richard Hadlee at 45

https://stats.acscricket.com/Archive/Scorecards/46/46459.html

Again, the top 25 oldest players in test cricket were all pre 1950. That must give you enough idea about what the standard of test cricket used to be.
One off instances like Boycott, Misbah don’t really help your point here.

There are many batsman in that list, don’t know why you only presented an argument from spinners.


An average cricketer is past his prime at age of 35-36, I don’t think players pre 1950s were any sort of genetic freak.

Its okay to have an opinion that Hobbs was a better batsman than Boycott based on peer comparison, but what some people are implying here is that Hobbs was also technically better, which is a dumb opinion.

I rewatched Hobbs batting technique video on yt to see if there’s even an iota of truth in that but as I said its a dump opinion, the technique used in that day wouldn’t work against under 19 cricketers let alone international cricket.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Bro really thinks he made an argument.

Its too difficult for someone like you, i can understand.

Next time, try to use you brain and actually post an opinion instead of using one liners from your favourite sitcom.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Again, the top 25 oldest players in test cricket were all pre 1950. That must give you enough idea about what the standard of test cricket used to be.
One off instances like Boycott, Misbah don’t really help your point here.

There are many batsman in that list, don’t know why you only presented an argument from spinners.


An average cricketer is past his prime at age of 35-36, I don’t think players pre 1950s were any sort of genetic freak.

Its okay to have an opinion that Hobbs was a better batsman than Boycott based on peer comparison, but what some people are implying here is that Hobbs was also technically better, which is a dumb opinion.

I rewatched Hobbs batting technique video on yt to see if there’s even an iota of truth in that but as I said its a dump opinion, the technique used in that day wouldn’t work against under 19 cricketers let alone international cricket.

Exactly!!!! His technique was **** and would have never worked today, Just like Smi...... Oh wait

And ofcourse players were crapped because some batsmen and spinners were able to play till mid 40s, I mean imagine if some pacer did something similar till 42 nowadays. Ofcourse not possible like Ande....... Oh wait

 

[Johan]

Again, the top 25 oldest players in test cricket were all pre 1950. That must give you enough idea about what the standard of test cricket used to be.
One off instances like Boycott, Misbah don’t really help your point here.

There are many batsman in that list, don’t know why you only presented an argument from spinners.


An average cricketer is past his prime at age of 35-36, I don’t think players pre 1950s were any sort of genetic freak.

Its okay to have an opinion that Hobbs was a better batsman than Boycott based on peer comparison, but what some people are implying here is that Hobbs was also technically better, which is a dumb opinion.

I rewatched Hobbs batting technique video on yt to see if there’s even an iota of truth in that but as I said its a dump opinion, the technique used in that day wouldn’t work against under 19 cricketers let alone international cricket.

Again, So?

All you're telling me is older cricketers played less, were under less mental stress and liked to play Cricket for longer (they played 5 international games a year)...and half of them are spinners...and most of them were past prime by the end like any modern cricketer would be...I mean, duh? all of it makes sense to me, you're not really proving to me it has anything to do with the standards or status quo changing, I reckon you should get into technicalities of Cricket and explain your viewpoint beyond "older players managed to play longer in a less hectic era" which, duh, just feels like logical progression to me.

none of the guys you listed there are average cricketers though? Doctor Grace and 1800s cricket I don't count anyway, but regardless, you mention Headley who played one test in 1954...and failed and never played a game again. or Wilfred Rhodes, a spinner who played for years through bowling decline on reputation...more or less, you haven't established a correlation between "some spinners and declining batters in X time played this long and thus Cricket's standards were lower" when all it says to me was that less matches = more years.

now, Hobbs is a vastly superior Batsmen to Boycott, nobody who saw both even entertained the idea of Boycott being a superior batter, Boycott himself does not support the idea, and he saw from Hammond to Hutton to Viv to Sachin to Smith.

The Point I made via bringing up Boycott was simple, if you reserve yourself to playing test and county, and stay injury free, you can indeed play on the top level until mid 40s, sure your prime would be behind you like it was with Boycott but that did not stop Boycott from making hundreds against the two Greatest fast bowlers to ever exist.

I rewatched Hobbs batting technique video on yt to see if there’s even an iota of truth in that but as I said its a dump opinion, the technique used in that day wouldn’t work against under 19 cricketers let alone international cricket

and I mean, this is just silly, a 50 year old Hobbs in clearly promotional material does not look cutting edge!? crazy! Anyway, any argument of technical improvements just goes out the window when you actually see the game today and their inability to play basic leg breaks and even straight deliveries, if anything, the technique has detoriated since the time of the Gavaskars and Boycotts, and I don't see anything to say their technique is any different than the ones during Hobbs's and Hammond's era.

Though, believe me, I'd love for this to be correct and for Joe Root to be a Greater Batsmen than Sunil Gavaskar because muh 50 years passed and technique garbage yada yada, but it just isn't convincing enough considering how you've presented it.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Its okay to have an opinion that Hobbs was a better batsman than Boycott based on peer comparison, but what some people are implying here is that Hobbs was also technically better, which is a dumb opinion.

I rewatched Hobbs batting technique video on yt to see if there’s even an iota of truth in that but as I said its a dump opinion, the technique used in that day wouldn’t work against under 19 cricketers let alone international cricket.

Bradman says Hobbs was the most technically correct player of all time. And there is a random guy who says Hobbs wouldn’t have survived u19 cricket right now. Just stop this nonsense…

One could look at Smith and Bumrah just from outside and think neither would make a school team. And those 2 are actually the best batsman and bowler of this generation.

 

[sayon basak]

Here are the batting techniques of Hobbs and Bradman.

Their stance look very similar. If we dismiss Hobbs, then we should also dismiss Brad....oh actually he does.

And are we really expecting a 50 year old Hobbs to be as technically sound as Modern batters in their prime?

 

[DrWolverine]

Again, the top 25 oldest players in test cricket were all pre 1950. That must give you enough idea about what the standard of test cricket used to be.

This is why it is just ridiculous to compare pre war batsmen to modern day greats.

 

[Johan]

You can't rate Sunil Gavaskar either then, and Fab 4 would be better than Brian Lara per standards arguments.


I'm guessing Ben Duckett > Sunil Gavaskar



someone just needs to explain to me the concept of rating Gavaskar and Viv but not Hobbs

 

[Coronis]

iirc modern players actually tend to play a lot less cricket than older players, particularly English players.

Even Bradman on a single tour of England would play more cricket than almost any current player in a single year.

 

[sayon basak]

Why 100? Why not, let's say, 69?