110 years ago today...

[Prince EWS]

He wasn't his brother!, that's a load of Pollocks!!

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Greatest test batsman undoubtedly

Greatest test cricketer is Sobers for me.

Greatest cricketer / batsman is arguable.. Because WG with his batting alone is a strong contender.

I rank them in this order
1.Sobers
2.Don
3.WG

Gap

4. Procter

Rest

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Considering he was striking twice as fast as Hammond (if I'm not wrong).. he would be absolutely gun in LOIs. He'd just bat the entire 20 overs most of the time.

Hammond matched Bradman's career 6 tally in a single innings though

 

[trundler]

Hammond matched Bradman's career 6 tally in a single innings though

A four is only two less and hitting it into gaps is more important. As a master of placement, he would take to it like a duck to water.

 

[Starfighter]

Hammond matched Bradman's career 6 tally in a single innings though

So what? Ken Barrington hit as many career sixes as Wally Hammond (in nine fewer innings might I add) and he's hardly lauded for his attacking qualities.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Hammond matched Bradman's career 6 tally in a single innings though

A four is only two less and hitting it into gaps is more important. As a master of placement, he would take to it like a duck to water.

Then I need something else to downgrade him. Hmm.. What about sticky wickets?
Just kidding.
But I am curious about Vijay Merchant stats. 70 plus fc avg. probably against weaker teams, but still its an achievement.. Why nobody rates him even among 2nd to Bradman league?

Also, George Headley averaged 70 plus against England. Bradman averaged less than 90.
Before war, Headley avgd close to 80 against England compared to Bradman's 90.

Bradman's Dominace for that period is actually not that huge. Its still huge though.
Did Headley face weaker English team always?

Also, Do we rate allrounders properly?

For example,
If Mcgrath the bowler is as good as a batsman averaging 55, then Hadlee is worth of 75 avg batsman. Right?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Hammond matched Bradman's career 6 tally in a single innings though

So what? Ken Barrington hit as many career sixes as Wally Hammond (in nine fewer innings might I add) and he's hardly lauded for his attacking qualities.

I just wanted to comment in this thread.

 

[trundler]

Then I need something else to downgrade him. Hmm.. What about sticky wickets?
Just kidding.
But I am curious about Vijay Merchant stats. 70 plus fc avg. probably against weaker teams, but still its an achievement.. Why nobody rates him even among 2nd to Bradman league?

Also, George Headley averaged 70 plus against England. Bradman averaged less than 90.
Before war, Headley avgd close to 80 against England compared to Bradman's 90.

Bradman's Dominace for that period is actually not that huge. Its still huge though.
Did Headley face weaker English team always?

Also, Do we rate allrounders properly?

For example,
If Mcgrath the bowler is as good as a batsman averaging 55, then Hadlee is worth of 75 avg batsman. Right?

Headley mostly faced 2nd string English attacks. Touring sides to the Caribbean weren't anywhere close to full strength. Bradman, on the other hand, had to face Bodyline devised especially to curb his run scoring. Huge difference there. Bradman's dominance is still unparalleled.

I'd say you're not rating all rounders properly. All rounders have to be compared with other all-rounders relatively. You can't just add up their individual disciplines. Sobers is the greatest all rounder of all time no doubt but I wouldn't say he's Bradmanesquely better than Imran, or Miller.

 

[OverratedSanity]

So what? Ken Barrington hit as many career sixes as Wally Hammond (in nine fewer innings might I add) and he's hardly lauded for his attacking qualities.

Get over it. Barrington is amazing.

 

[trundler]

Get over it. Barrington is amazing.

Is he letting his personal dislike of him get in the way?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Indubitably

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Hammond matched Bradman's career 6 tally in a single innings though

Headley mostly faced 2nd string English attacks. Touring sides to the Caribbean weren't anywhere close to full strength. Bradman, on the other hand, had to face Bodyline devised especially to curb his run scoring. Huge difference there. Bradman's dominance is still unparalleled.

I'd say you're not rating all rounders properly. All rounders have to be compared with other all-rounders relatively. You can't just add up their individual disciplines. Sobers is the greatest all rounder of all time no doubt but I wouldn't say he's Bradmanesquely better than Imran, or Miller.

If we are selecting a team, yes.. We dont have to compare a batsman to an allrounder normally. But when you rank great cricketers.. Its an important issue.

For Example
Mcgrath, Lara, Hadlee

If you rate Lara in the league of Mcgrath, Hadlee is a much greater cricketer than Lara and Mcgrath.
If you rate Hadlee and Lara same level then Mcgrath is clearly inferior.


Look like a Taboo subject.

 

[trundler]

No, not really. Different roles have to be compared to others of the kind for a meaningful comparison.

 

[a massive zebra]

Also, George Headley averaged 70 plus against England. Bradman averaged less than 90.
Before war, Headley avgd close to 80 against England compared to Bradman's 90.

Headley mostly faced 2nd string English attacks. Touring sides to the Caribbean weren't anywhere close to full strength. Bradman, on the other hand, had to face Bodyline devised especially to curb his run scoring. Huge difference there. Bradman's dominance is still unparalleled.

Yeah in those days England only regularly fielded their best eleven against arch rivals Australia. For instance, between his debut and final Test, Harold Larwood played 15 of the 19 Tests against Australia (79%) and 6 of the 30 Tests against lesser teams (20%). Also, between his debut in 1924 and the 1930 Ashes series, Maurice Tate played 20 out of the 20 Ashes Tests (100%) and 12 of the 27 Tests against lesser teams (44%).

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Hammond matched Bradman's career 6 tally in a single innings though

No, not really. Different roles have to be compared to others of the kind for a meaningful comparison.

So, you are saying there is no Greatest cricketer.. Just greatest batsman, greatest bowler.. Etc

 

[trundler]

So, you are saying there is no Greatest cricketer.. Just greatest batsman, greatest bowler.. Etc

I'm saying that depends on how much you're better than others of your kind. When judging greatest cricketer, other things like impact on the game also come into play. I think Bradman is the greatest since he was averaging thrice the era average or indeed 45 or so more than an ATG. There is definitely an argument for Grace and Sobers too.

 

[a massive zebra]

But I am curious about Vijay Merchant stats. 70 plus fc avg. probably against weaker teams, but still its an achievement.. Why nobody rates him even among 2nd to Bradman league?

Vijay Merchant played a full part in two Indian tours to England at a time when overseas sides toured England extensively, playing against virtually all the counties. While Merchant's record in English first class cricket is excellent, a simple statistical comparison with his performances in Indian first class cricket suggests the standard of bowling in India was then some way short of the English standard (and/or the pitches were much flatter):

English tours
1936 1,639 runs @ 49.66 with 3 centuries
1946 2,385 runs @ 74.53 with 7 centuries
Total 4,024 runs @ 61.91 with 10 centuries

Indian domestic
For Bombay 3,955 runs @ 101.41 with 17 centuries
For Hindus 1,965 runs @ 109.16 with 7 centuries
For Bombay & Hindus 5,920 runs @ 103.86 with 24 centuries

I think what really proves the limited standard of bowling in Indian first class cricket at the time is his comparatively poor record for India:

1,572 runs @ 40.30 with 4 centuries

A fair proportion of these matches would have been played in India on the same pitches in which he played for Bombay and Hindus; the major difference being they were played against international sides where the standard of bowling could not have been in doubt.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Hammond matched Bradman's career 6 tally in a single innings though

Vijay Merchant played a full part in two Indian tours to England at a time when overseas sides toured England extensively, playing against virtually all the counties. While Merchant's record in English first class cricket is excellent, a simple statistical comparison with his performances in Indian first class cricket suggests the standard of bowling in India was then some way short of the English standard (and/or the pitches were much flatter):

English tours
1936 1,639 runs @ 49.66 with 3 centuries
1946 2,385 runs @ 74.53 with 7 centuries
Total 4,024 runs @ 61.91 with 10 centuries

Indian domestic
For Bombay 3,955 runs @ 101.41 with 17 centuries
For Hindus 1,965 runs @ 109.16 with 7 centuries
For Bombay & Hindus 5,920 runs @ 103.86 with 24 centuries

I think what really proves the limited standard of bowling in Indian first class cricket at the time is his comparatively poor record for India:

1,572 runs @ 40.30 with 4 centuries

A fair proportion of these matches would have been played in India on the same pitches in which he played for Bombay and Hindus; the major difference being they were played against international sides where the standard of bowling could not have been in doubt.

But, nobody else managed to do the same against those Attacks. Only him.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah, Indian domestic batting records have always been inflated. Sachin and VVS both average 80+ in Ranji cricket from a significant number of games.

 

[sledger]

Yeah, there's often a debate about who the best batsman is, but there is no denying that he just about shades it. Lara unlucky to come in second.