Battle of the Cricketers

[Kweek]

Sobers..common Jamee not fair!

 

[twctopcat]

Garfield St Auburn Sobers, but only by a whisker.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Outrageously unfair, but Sobers has to get the vote.

 

[C_C]

Sobers.

But cor blimey! what is a dude from 80 years ago that never played anything more than decent 'fast' bowlers doing in such an elite company ?!

 

[archie mac]

Sobers.

But cor blimey! what is a dude from 80 years ago that never played anything more than decent 'fast' bowlers doing in such an elite company ?!

I suppose you are referring to JB Hobbs? in the year 2000 a group of experts chose him as one of the best 5 of the century

 

[Jason_M]

Marshall.

 

[C_C]

I suppose you are referring to JB Hobbs? in the year 2000 a group of experts chose him as one of the best 5 of the century

Am aware of that and i thought that to be completely ridiculous.
By their logic, they should've picked Edward Stevens as one of the greatest bowlers ever.

 

[archie mac]

Am aware of that and i thought that to be completely ridiculous.
By their logic, they should've picked Edward Stevens as one of the greatest bowlers ever.

I am not familiar with him?

 

[C_C]

I am not familiar with him?

Edward Stevens

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sobers.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sobers.

But cor blimey! what is a dude from 80 years ago that never played anything more than decent 'fast' bowlers doing in such an elite company ?!

Same thing he was doing as one of the cricketers of the century.

 

[archie mac]

Edward Stevens

Okay I only know him by his nick name

The list was for the 5 best Cricketers of the century, so Lumpy would not have qualified, nor his mates 'Shock White' or 'Silver Billy"

When I fininsh my time machine I am going to send you back C_C so you can see just how good the players of yesteryear were.

 

[C_C]

Okay I only know him by his nick name

The list was for the 5 best Cricketers of the century, so Lumpy would not have qualified, nor his mates 'Shock White' or 'Silver Billy"

When I fininsh my time machine I am going to send you back C_C so you can see just how good the players of yesteryear were.

okay okay not one of the 5 best cricketers of the century.
But lets elavate lumpy as one of the 5 best bowlers in history of the game. what says you ?

And players of the yesteryears were not as good as the late 50s-onwards players.
That is evidenced by the superior fitness regime of players today and the touch of professionalism in the game. I dont think anyone from the pre WWII era would have the same level of success in the post 50s era and all of them would take atleast a 20-25% hit in their numbers. That doesnt leave big Jack in stratospheric levels but merely the 'very good' level.

This is a bit like arguing that Bill Tillden would've beat Federer ( sic) or Sampras if he had a graphite racket and time-warped to this decade.

 

[archie mac]

okay okay not one of the 5 best cricketers of the century.
But lets elavate lumpy as one of the 5 best bowlers in history of the game. what says you ?

And players of the yesteryears were not as good as the late 50s-onwards players.
That is evidenced by the superior fitness regime of players today and the touch of professionalism in the game. I dont think anyone from the pre WWII era would have the same level of success in the post 50s era and all of them would take atleast a 20-25% hit in their numbers. That doesnt leave big Jack in stratospheric levels but merely the 'very good' level.

This is a bit like arguing that Bill Tillden would've beat Federer ( sic) or Sampras if he had a graphite racket and time-warped to this decade.

Not wanting to become involved in this argument with you yet again C_C, but I think you must compare a player against his contemporaries. So no Lumpy Stevens would not be one of the 5 greatest bowlers in history because he was not that far ahead of the other great bowlers of his time, Harris(Tom?) for instance.

 

[C_C]

Not wanting to become involved in this argument with you yet again C_C, but I think you must compare a player against his contemporaries. So no Lumpy Stevens would not be one of the 5 greatest bowlers in history because he was not that far ahead of the other great bowlers of his time, Harris(Tom?) for instance.

Relativistic comparison is quite different than empirical comparison.
Just to give you an example, i know insignificant amount of mathematics compared to some of the luminaries today but i know a helluva lot more mathematics than archemedes, who was one of the mathematical geniuses of his day.
Therefore, the conclusion 'archemedes knows more math than C_C or is better at mathematics than C_C ' is erroneous.

 

[shaka]

Sobers

 

[archie mac]

Relativistic comparison is quite different than empirical comparison.
Just to give you an example, i know insignificant amount of mathematics compared to some of the luminaries today but i know a helluva lot more mathematics than archemedes, who was one of the mathematical geniuses of his day.
Therefore, the conclusion 'archemedes knows more math than C_C or is better at mathematics than C_C ' is erroneous.

I don't think it would take Archimedes(one of us as spelt it wrong, me most likely) very long to get up to speed, and then become one of the great minds of our time. I can't see why he could not?

 

[C_C]

I don't think it would take Archimedes(one of us as spelt it wrong, me most likely) very long to get up to speed, and then become one of the great minds of our time. I can't see why he could not?

That is an even bigger supposition than an empirical comparison, isnt it ?

He may've been come 'upto speed' if he was born 2000 years later or he may've been a nobody.
Why ? Simply because success is not garanteed, especially when success depends on upgrading your skills to a higher level. Whether Archimedes (thanks for the correction if i am wrong on the sp) would've learnt and mastered far more complicated stuff than he actually practiced in his day is speculation. He could've become Einstien MK-II or he could've been just a regular day highschool graduate, getting 'stuck' at Calculus for example.
There are plenty of people who absolutely ace their way through junior high only to get stuck at highschool or ace their way through highschool and get stuck at university. Archimedes could've been one of them.

 

[archie mac]

That is an even bigger supposition than an empirical comparison, isnt it ?

He may've been come 'upto speed' if he was born 2000 years later or he may've been a nobody.
Why ? Simply because success is not garanteed, especially when success depends on upgrading your skills to a higher level. Whether Archimedes (thanks for the correction if i am wrong on the sp) would've learnt and mastered far more complicated stuff than he actually practiced in his day is speculation. He could've become Einstien MK-II or he could've been just a regular day highschool graduate, getting 'stuck' at Calculus for example.
There are plenty of people who absolutely ace their way through junior high only to get stuck at highschool or ace their way through highschool and get stuck at university. Archimedes could've been one of them.

I would imagine almost all debate on this site, does not have scientific evidence to back up claims. But how do you know if we sent Federer (spelling) back to the times of Norman Brookes that he would not struggle with the old wooden racquets and differnet tennis balls and no fast courts?

And what of Steve Waugh playing in the 1920s with no helmet, sticky wickets that were left to the elements with no 'covers' allowed, different style bats, which if the batsman misshit the ball, it would more often than not be out caught and not go for 6 (ala Gilly)?

 

[C_C]

I would imagine almost all debate on this site, does not have scientific evidence to back up claims. But how do you know if we sent Federer (spelling) back to the times of Norman Brookes that he would not struggle with the old wooden racquets and differnet tennis balls and no fast courts?

And what of Steve Waugh playing in the 1920s with no helmet, sticky wickets that were left to the elements with no 'covers' allowed, different style bats, which if the batsman misshit the ball, it would more often than not be out caught and not go for 6 (ala Gilly)?

Actually courts back then were faster - they were mostly grass and grass is faster than concrete.
Federer wouldn't be as devastating with a wooden racket but if the oppostion ( say Tillden) had wooden rackets too, he would absolutely cream them ( i would be surprised if Tillden got a set off Federer) - simply because he has far higher technical proficiency, stamina, strength, flexibility and professionalism to win.

With Waugh, whatever he would've lost due to familiarity issues of the-then equipment and playing conditions, would've been more than made up for by playing against a lower quality field overall ( no, i do NOT consider Voce or Larwood to be of comparable skill and quality of Ambrose or Akram or Donald- nowhere close), playing with a far superior fitness level and professional drive.

Its a bit like taking me right now and zapping me 2500 years ago in acient Greece and speculating if my knowledge of mathematics would compare to Archimedes, simply because i no longer have a calculator or pen and paper. I find it ludicrous to suggest that the 'minor handicap' in terms of equipment would compare anywhere close to the far higher level of proficiency i have in mathematics.