Bill O'Reilly vs Clarrie Grimmett

[archie mac]

Obviously not hard enough. There is a lot of footage of them. Detailed highlights of the 1930 and 1934 Ashes tours can be found on the DVD "1930s Cricket Legends," highlights of the vast majority of Ashes tests between 1926 and 1938 can be found from the British Pathe website, and film on a number of important Sheffield Shield matches from the 1930s is also available from various sources.



Contemporary authors can provide you with an in depth feel for the style of batting/bowling, strengths/weaknesses, contemporary opinions of a particular cricketer. Data on where they performed and against whom is usually easily accessible. IMO this is easily enough to make an informed opinion.

I normally would dismiss anyone who came up with the argument of TC as mindless drivel, but it particularly annoys me with TC, as he is obviously intelligent and seems well read on cricket history.

Under his theory you can not compare Olympic competitors, tennis players, actors or anyone else who we do not have copious amounts of clear vision, it is such a silly argument that I don't think I can be bothered with it anymore

 

[Ikki]

I'd say the comparison between Cricket and some Olympic events is flawed. Tennis quite obviously why.

 

[archie mac]

I'd say the comparison between Cricket and track and field events is flawed.

I am going to assume you are kidding

 

[Top_Cat]

I normally would dismiss anyone who came up with the argument of TC as mindless drivel, but it particularly annoys me with TC, as he is obviously intelligent and seems well read on cricket history.

Under his theory you can not compare Olympic competitors, tennis players, actors or anyone else who we do not have copious amounts of clear vision, it is such a silly argument that I don't think I can be bothered with it anymore

Makes two of us.

 

[Ikki]

I am going to assume you are kidding

No. Why would I be kidding? Would you care to explain why I'd be wrong?

 

[archie mac]

No. Why would I be kidding? Would you care to explain why I'd be wrong?

Maybe I confused you?

I was suggest comparing track and field with track in field

Tennis players with Tennis players

ETC

 

[Ikki]

Maybe I confused you?

I was suggest comparing track and field with track in field

Tennis players with Tennis players

ETC

But the comparisons are different. The sports are different. You could reasonably say who was a better track athlete because the sport and the conditions where that sport is played isn't very different. Whereas with Cricket it really is different. Same with Tennis. The modern racquets have changed the game immensely. It's almost like comparing apples and oranges in a sense. It's hard enough comparing games happening concurrently on different pitches because of the variance in conditions.

 

[archie mac]

But the comparisons are different. The sports are different. You could reasonably say who was a better track athlete because the sport and the conditions where that sport is played isn't very different. Whereas with Cricket it really is different. Same with Tennis. The modern racquets have changed the game immensely. It's almost like comparing apples and oranges in a sense.

Oh OK

You assume that a champion in one era would be a champion in any other era. You compare contemporaries, and see how much one was better than his peers

Also you imagine that if an old time champ was exposed to modern training and equitment, he would adapt and would still be a quality player of his sport.

I imagine a few would not make, it, but we are talking about the very best, when trying to work out who was better over eras.

In this case Grimmett and Tiger bowled at the same players, in the same era, so it should be much easier to compare them

 

[Ikki]

Oh OK

You assume that a champion in one era would be a champion in any other era. You compare contemporaries, and see how much one was better than his peers

Also you imagine that if an old time champ was exposed to modern training and equitment, he would adapt and would still be a quality player of his sport.

I imagine a few would not make, it, but we are talking about the very best, when trying to work out who was better over eras.

In this case Grimmett and Tiger bowled at the same players, in the same era, so it should be much easier to compare them

The first part I have no problem with - seeing how much better champs were in their era compared to others. The second part is where I have a problem where we start imagining. It's very subjective and hard to compare. It's even more subjective looking back at older players where the only thing you can rely on itself is subjective (commentary). I can respect people just staying away from that kind of comparison altogether.

 

[The Sean]

Armstrong is a bit like that, He also down grades Ponsford, very annoyed with the way he write, He should say IMO once in a blue moon, instead of suggesting his opinions are fact

Anyway good to see you back

Indeed, he's probably even harsher on Ponny than on Grimmett - considers him largely undeserving of his reputation.

Thanks mate. I'd like to say I won't be absent from the boards for so long next time, but I'm pretty sure I said that last time too.

 

[Matt79]

Glad to see you back as well mate. Place is poorer without you.

 

[a massive zebra]

Interesting to compare Grimmett and O'Reilly against the same opposition - I took it a bit further and looked at the four Test series they both appeared in together, i.e facing the same opposition and bowling on the same wickets:-

Grimmett 107 wkts @ 20.50
O'Reilly 89 wkts @ 22.88

The first series they both played in was O'Reilly's debut and he didn't do much, and although he was certainly more successful in the first Ashes series, they were both outstanding in 1934.

Resolving the wickets per opposition:-

Grimmett 30 vs England, 77 vs South Africa
O'Reilly 55 vs England, 34 vs South Africa

Although the South Africans had beaten the English twice in the early 30s, these were under-strength England sides, so there's no doubt the English were a superior side to the South Africans.

As you implicity state, those figures are distorted by Grimmett's remarkable success against the lesser sides (namely, South Africa) and also include O'Reilly's first series in which he was just finding his feet, by which time Grimmett was firmly established.

Personally, I think that O'Reilly was one of those greats who was able to find something extra against the best opposition.

While I agree that O'Reilly was just the kind of character to find something extra against the best opposition or when his team were in need of something special, a first class average of 16 suggests he could really cut it against the lesser sides as well.

 

[The Sean]

Glad to see you back as well mate. Place is poorer without you.

Thanks mate, nice to be back.

 

[Ikki]

Sean my fellow Miller-lover. Welcome back.

 

[The Sean]

Sean my fellow Miller-lover. Welcome back.

Thanks - I couldn't let you have the Nugget-love all to yourself!

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Thanks - I couldn't let you have the Nugget-love all to yourself!

Family forum.

 

[Matt79]

Thanks - I couldn't let you have the Nugget-love all to yourself!

Well the nuggets I can visualise:

but the ???

 

[Beleg]

I would definitely put greater stock by an opinion based on first hand observation rather than hearsay - which is what cricketing literature amounts to.

Grimmett's story is appropriately romantic.

 

[Matt79]

What about recorded first hand observations from people who know more about the game than yourself?

 

[Beleg]

^

Words, by their very nature, are one man's interpretation of a situation. And that holds true regardless of whether it's a book written by Hanif Mohammad or a forum post by aussie.

They do have their place - like statistical analysis they provide a basic framework to build upon. Ultimately, though, they (with a few exceptions) are opinions coloured by personal prejudice and not technical dissertations focused on comparative analysis. Knowledge alone does not imply an ability to draw the right conclusions. Somebody like Ian Chappel, for instance, can undoubtedly offer keener insights into the game than I can, however, he still needs to provide evidence backing his analysis - blanket statements issued by him might hold a lot of sway owing to his pedigree but this does not equal objective superiority.