All time XI

[Waughney]

1. butter fingers
2. out of rhythm bowler

3. Confusion (run out chance/s)
Brett Lee was out of form but he did bowl OK in that session and was incredibly unlucky not to pick up a wicket.

 

[Raj123]

3. Confusion (run out chance/s)
Brett Lee was out of form but he did bowl OK in that session and was incredibly unlucky not to pick up a wicket.

i meant the no. of noballs.
i forgot the runout. that was pretty amusing.

 

[luckyeddie]

and mark richardson....

Don't remember him playing in the Boxing Day test between Australia and India.

Still, I could be wrong...

 

[Waughney]

Amusing-maybe
Frustrating-yes!!

 

[SJS]

But couldnt it be that the fear of being hit on the head caused the pre 70s batsmen to ensure that they concentrated extra-hard on the delivery , as opposed to batsmen nowadays who are lulled into a sense of complacency because of the protective gear ?
IMO ,if we outlaw all protective gear now , the present batsmen ( the good ones atleast) will raise their game to avoid being hit.

Fair Point.

But conversely, the great players of an earlier era would adjust to the different circu,stances of this age and adjsut accordingly.

A player must be compared to his contemporaries only. If he is great in his era and head and shoulders above others, he would be head and shoulders above others in another era too. Thats why Bradman and Syd Barnes have to be the greatest batsman and the greatest medium pacer of all times.

 

[shankar]

Fair Point.

But conversely, the great players of an earlier era would adjust to the different circu,stances of this age and adjsut accordingly.

A player must be compared to his contemporaries only. If he is great in his era and head and shoulders above others, he would be head and shoulders above others in another era too. Thats why Bradman and Syd Barnes have to be the greatest batsman and the greatest medium pacer of all times.

...Unless they were 'head and shoulders' above the rest of their era not as much due to their innate cricketing skills(great eye,footwork,technique,etc..) as due to the extreme suitability of their type of cricket to the conditions of that era.

 

[Deja moo]

Role of Technology

Use of advanced technology is another factor.
In the past , lack of videos meant that opposition players would have found it hard to "find out" a player.If any player developed a radical new approach , he could very well dominate other players as the means of analysing him acutely would not have been available to players then. It would have taken pretty long to figure him out ( or maybe not at all ) by which time he could have taken the pants off the other players.

Nowadays , you innovate slightly, try a different technique , and you are immediately found out by a ruthless opposition who has all the technology in the world to analyse you right down to the colour of your underwear.
Hence you are not able to keep the rest of the pack sufficiently trailing behind and cant dominate them to the extent the older generation of players could.

 

[luckyeddie]

Works both ways, O/P.

Batsmen worth their salt will watch videos of bowlers (especially spinners) to be able to 'pick' them, and will also watch videos of their own technique in order to detect fundamental flaws (and ignore them in certain cases)

 

[Deja moo]

Works both ways, O/P.

Batsmen worth their salt will watch videos of bowlers (especially spinners) to be able to 'pick' them, and will also watch videos of their own technique in order to detect fundamental flaws (and ignore them in certain cases)

Doesnt that also mean that neither of the two are able to get far past each other ? Hence no great domination.

 

[luckyeddie]

Doesnt that also mean that neither of the two are able to get far past each other ? Hence no great domination.

Certainly does

 

[Deja moo]

Certainly does

So, no more Bradmen or Barnes's possible in the future

 

[SJS]

So, no more Bradmen or Barnes's possible in the future

Why not ? Let a batsman average nearly twice as high , for his career , as the next best of his era and we can call him the next Bradman.

Similarly for Barnes.

 

[Deja moo]

Why not ? Let a batsman average nearly twice as high , for his career , as the next best of his era and we can call him the next Bradman.

Similarly for Barnes.

Youre missing my point SJS.

My take is that modern technology will make it impossible for batsmen or bowlers to dominate each other as in the past.

Impossible may not be the right word, improbable more likely. But IMO, fro any future batsman to average as much as Bradman , he has to be a lot better batsman than Bradman was.

 

[SJS]

Youre missing my point SJS.

My take is that modern technology will make it impossible for batsmen or bowlers to dominate each other as in the past.

Impossible may not be the right word, improbable more likely. But IMO, fro any future batsman to average as much as Bradman , he has to be a lot better batsman than Bradman was.

Well, I suppose we can argue about it till the cows come home - and drop dead from boredom.

I am convinced that current bowling standards are among the lowest since the twenties(last century) and with Sehwag besides scores of others averaging in the fifties, Bradman would have averaged higher today than he did sixty years ago.

Lets leave it at that since there is no way this arguement can be settled. Its just one's opinion.