All-time XI: England

[aussie]

Yet you ignore uncovered wickets, with no valid reason.

Oh dear. I just explained this to zaremba down at the bottom of this same post you quoted here.

 

[marc71178]

No, you didn't - you repeated your view again, one which ignores the whole concept of all time, because if all time doesn't include all conditions faced over time then I could argue it shouldn't include the players who played in all those conditions, so scrap the likes Hobbs etc.

 

[aussie]

No, you didn't - you repeated your view again, one which ignores the whole concept of all time, because if all time doesn't include all conditions faced over time then I could argue it shouldn't include the players who played in all those conditions, so scrap the likes Hobbs etc.

Well i disagree with this notion. Bradman played in the same era of uncovered wickets, lack or consistent 90 mph bowling etc like Hobbs but you wouldn't not pick him in an AUS ATXI. Most people given his freak nature, would expect him to adapt to change in test match conditions of the post-war era in hypotetical match-ups.

 

[marc71178]

I never said I agree with the notion, but if you discount older batsmen because they didn't play modern bowling, then you cannot go on to say modern batsmen would have adapted to conditions of the older eras.

 

[aussie]

I never said I agree with the notion, but if you discount older batsmen because they didn't play modern bowling,

I dont discount older batsmen totally, because they didn't face modern standards of bowling. But you can use instances in their careers of post-war batsmen, where they did face bowling conditions of modern standard (mainly facing 90 mph bowlers) & use it as a guide.

But dont make modern sound like its something of the last 10 years. Modern standard as i described before with:

- A regular diet of two new-ball bowlers of the 80-90 mph vs openers.

- change in the lbw rule.

- Introduction of helmets

- elimination of timeless tests

- 6 ball pers over in all natiosn except for AUS in the 60s & 70s

- No uncovered wickets, except the last phase of it in England during the 60s.

Has been very consistent in test cricket for more than 50 years now.

then you cannot go on to say modern batsmen would have adapted to conditions of the older eras.

I never suggested this. But at the same time modern batsmen should not have to face uncovered wickets. As i said before if uncovered wickets are to be in hypotetical match-ups, woud you also want to have timeless tests, 8-ball overs & the old LBW rule?

 

[marc71178]

If those are conditions that happened over time then yes, they need to be considered.

You cannot write off batsmen from years ago without similarly casting doubt over modern players

 

[Pothas]

I dont discount older batsmen totally, because they didn't face modern standards of bowling. But you can use instances in their careers of post-war batsmen, where they did face bowling conditions of modern standard (mainly facing 90 mph bowlers) & use it as a guide.

But dont make modern sound like its something of the last 10 years. Modern standard as i described before with:

- A regular diet of two new-ball bowlers of the 80-90 mph vs openers.

- change in the lbw rule.

- Introduction of helmets

- elimination of timeless tests

- 6 ball pers over in all natiosn except for AUS in the 60s & 70s

- No uncovered wickets, except the last phase of it in England during the 60s.

Has been very consistent in test cricket for more than 50 years now.




I never suggested this. But at the same time modern batsmen should not have to face uncovered wickets. As i said before if uncovered wickets are to be in hypotetical match-ups, woud you also want to have timeless tests, 8-ball overs & the old LBW rule?

A helmet was not used in a test match until 1978 and I think that was less than 50 years ago.

On a less pedantic note you seem incapable of recognising the fact that all time means al time and that a hypotheticla match up does not necessarily need to take place in 2009 but as no one else has managed to convey this message to you I don't really know why I am trying.

 

[aussie]

If those are conditions that happened over time then yes, they need to be considered.

What confusion is that?.

Why would you want to have timeless tests in hypotetical all-time matchups when for more than 60 years, all test matches have been generally for 5 days?.

Why would you want to use the old LBW rule, when it was changed & has had very common since the 1960s?..You do realize in the old LBW rule spinners where seriously disadvantaged. Most famously in the 1957 Birmingham test, where May & Cowdrey basically where kicking away all deliveries from Ramadin & Valentine that where pitched outside off-stump. In the last 50 years they probably would have gotten out long before getting those massive hundreds.

Plus why have 8-ball overs, when cricketes governing body decided to have all nations bowling 6-ball overs in all countries?.

Uncovered wickets was clearly something cricketers & administrators could not avoid in those days due to lack of proper ground maintenance - so the batsmen had develop techniques to counter it. Since spinners became almost unplayable. Surely batsmen of the who played under it, would have preferred to to have the pitch covered from rain.

You cant compare batting on an undercovered wickets as i said before to batting @ Perth or Kensington Oval at it peak, a sub-continent ranging turer or the Headingley greentop at is peak. On those surfaces although difficult for batting, the battle of bat vs ball at least it was wayyy more even.

I would say though post -war batsmen due to skills gained by batting on uncovered wickets, would probably be better at facing spin on a raging turner - than some of modern players of the past 20-30 years.

But going back to the point. The fact that all these rules where eradicated & a very similar standard & style of cricket - test cricket ahs been played over the past 50 years. Is the reason why that standard with those updated rules & conditions should be guide in which hypotetical All-time matches should be played under.

You cannot write off batsmen from years ago without similarly casting doubt over modern players

As i told you before i was never talking about modern players. But who is best suited to partnering Hutton in the ENG ATXI from Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Boycott, Gooch & why Boycott or Gooch are the better options based on the structure of cricket over the past 50 years.

 

[aussie]

A helmet was not used in a test match until 1978 and I think that was less than 50 years ago.

I know. The list there as i said is the common trend of test cricket over the past 50 years, in which the introduction of helmets was part of evolution of the game during this period.

On a less pedantic note you seem incapable of recognising the fact that all time means al time and that a hypotheticla match up does not necessarily need to take place in 2009 but as no one else has managed to convey this message to you I don't really know why I am trying.

Haaa what? So when esle would you play these hypotetical match-ups then?.

 

[marc71178]

Seeing as most of the all time XI are dead, I'm guessing never

 

[aussie]

Seeing as most of the all time XI are dead, I'm guessing never

Haaa, everything about All-time XIs is our imagination son, of course these games will never happen. If the world ends next week, its all players from 1877-2009 that will considered in hypotetical match-ups to start in 2009. As students of the game the best we can do create the best match scenario's, based on how the game as evolved to put the players in.

 

[Days of Grace]

The solution is dead-simple.

Invent a time-machine, go back to different periods in the game's history, and kidnap the players you have picked, transport them to the present, and get them to play a game or three on today's pitches.

You then transport all those players back to 1912 and get them to play a game or three there.

 

[zaremba]

Haaa, everything about All-time XIs is our imagination son, of course these games will never happen. If the world ends next week, its all players from 1877-2009 that will considered in hypotetical match-ups to start in 2009.

The point that's being made is that all these match-ups are imaginary. If we can imagine them taking place in 2009, we can equally imagine them taking place in (say) 1912. Players of 1912 would be more used to the 1912 conditions, current players to the 2009 conditions. So to achieve a fair comparison between the players, it would make sense to play a series in 1912 (a "home" fixture for the 1912 players) followed by a series in 2009 (the "away" fixture).

[must.... stop.... wasting... time... with.... this.... ridiculous.... discussion.........]

 

[aussie]

The solution is dead-simple.

Invent a time-machine, go back to different periods in the game's history, and kidnap the players you have picked, transport them to the present, and get them to play a game or three on today's pitches.

You then transport all those players back to 1912 and get them to play a game or three there.

Ha, nah man. We dont have to do all that with non-existant things like time machines & all that. As i've suggested all we have to use a players career (mainly the post-war batsmen) as guide to how he would perform in modern conditions which is not just the 2000s era - but the general standrard & style of cricket since the 1960s.

 

[aussie]

The point that's being made is that all these match-ups are imaginary. If we can imagine them taking place in 2009, we can equally imagine them taking place in (say) 1912. Players of 1912 would be more used to the 1912 conditions, current players to the 2009 conditions. So to achieve a fair comparison between the players, it would make sense to play a series in 1912 (a "home" fixture for the 1912 players) followed by a series in 2009 (the "away" fixture).

[must.... stop.... wasting... time... with.... this.... ridiculous.... discussion.........]

Thats too confusing IMO. Even the guys on cricinfo aren't picking post-war & pre-war All-time XIs.

Plus this is not a waste of time, its a solid historical exercise that the boys on cricinfo are doing as well currently & its very likely after the pick all their All-time teams they may want to create hypotetical match-ups also. So the correct hypotetical conditions that should be used is a key facet of the argument.

 

[Pothas]

Thats too confusing IMO. Even the guys on cricinfo aren't picking post-war & pre-war All-time XIs.

Plus this is not a waste of time, its a solid historical exercise that the boys on cricinfo are doing as well currently & its very likely after the pick all their All-time teams they may want to create hypotetical match-ups also. So the correct hypotetical conditions that should be used is a key facet of the argument.

How is it possibly a solid historical exercise? if the word hypothetical is envolved then it is no longer historical. I am not saying history does never uses conjecture or that it does not make assumptions but it has to be more than hyopethical.

 

[marc71178]

Ha, nah man. We dont have to do all that with non-existant things like time machines & all that.

Of course we don't, because clearly the prospect of Bradman and Ponting batting together isn't non-existent

 

[aussie]

How is it possibly a solid historical exercise? if the word hypothetical is envolved then it is no longer historical. I am not saying history does never uses conjecture or that it does not make assumptions but it has to be more than hyopethical.

While deliberating over what the best hypotetical All-time XI could be for the various nations, you learn about the players & the history of the game.

 

[aussie]

Of course we don't, because clearly the prospect of Bradman and Ponting batting together isn't non-existent

Why do always quote a portion of post, when i have already explained this in the rest of that same post?

 

[marc71178]

No, you haven't - you're picking and choosing things to suit your argument but ignoring the bigger picture, in spite of the number of people picking the big holes in it.