"Born before Tests" draft

[Teuton]

mr > trundler > scc

 

[mr_mister]

a man i've barely heard of, can't recall ever seen being drafted, but his record indicates he's not bad

Vijay Manjrekar

 

[trundler]

I'll take Archie MacLaren.

MacLaren
Shrewsbury
Worrell
Donnelly
Bates
Briggs
Lohmann

 

[mr_mister]

I wanted to discuss Maclaren for a while so I will now. Not taking a shot at you picking him trundler but I had him then swapped for CB Fry

at first glance they seem similar, their careers overlapped strongly with each other and both averaged around 32-33 in tests, but Maclaren hit 5 tons to Fry's 2, plus got that 424 score in FC. So I assumed there must have been little separating them but Maclaren was slightly better. You know, and they had standard averages for the time period.

However Maclaren's low 30s average extends to his FC record while Fry's shoots up to.... 50? Was Fry like, way better than everyone else at that time or something? What's the possible explanation for this

 

[trundler]

I just picked the better test player. Maybe CB Fry played more post War (he retired in 1921) when FC teams were generally much weaker because of casualties in the War. I know this explains Freeman's ridiculous FC record. MacLaren started earlier and played more too.


I'm not AMZ though so I'm just guessing

 

[mr_mister]

yeah true, this is a job for AMZ or AndrewB

but he only started 2 years earlier than Fry fwiw

and surely the 3-4 seasons Fry played post-WW1 when he was like, 46-50 years old couldn't have helped his average too much you'd think


anyway I'll wait for Andrew to enlighten me!

 

[Pothas]

Yeah I don't think Fry did much post-war. It is really hard to judge these guys Test records, selection was not at all like it is today, people like Fry did not even tour.

 

[mr_mister]

yeah it's just odd because in my mind, it goes Grace, Ranji on a tier, then like the 10 other big names (Shrewsbury, Hayward, Jackson, Fry, Johnny Tyldesley, MaClaren) etc etc are all on the same level, but it seems Fry is a class above all them based on his FC average

and Jackson seems like he was right up there based on his test record but his FC record drags him back down to earth

 

[trundler]

It's impossible to differentiate between old-timey medium pacers and left arm spinners too. You look at a guy's FC record and he's taken 5 wickets a game at 12 but then he's got 8 tests over 15 years under his belt and he's averaging only 24.

 

[AndrewB]

I think Hove was a fairly flat pitch in this era? From 1900-1909, looking at some of the more successful counties, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Surrey drew about 37% of their championship games; Sussex drew more than half of theirs.

 

[Line and Length]

Shouldn't we be judging this draft on performances at the very highest level - ie Test matches? That is what I have been basing my selections on.

 

[trundler]

Yes but up to the late 18th century test matches weren't fully representative, selection was an entirely different process and FC cricket was still highly regarded. Wasn't the Gentleman v Players still the hottest contest of the season? Even Australia only became a consistently good test team towards the end of the century* and SA were hopeless. So things are a bit murky. The line between FC and test is blurry pre Golden Age.

 

[Line and Length]

I'll stick with Tests - even though my options are getting thin.

 

[mr_mister]

Shouldn't we be judging this draft on performances at the very highest level - ie Test matches? That is what I have been basing my selections on.

oh definitely for like, anything after WW1 when Hobbs pretty much made people like Trumper who were 'FC batting gods yet averaged under 40 in tests' obsolete.

But yeah as trundler said when comparing say Fry to MaClaren and other 1800's guys I personally think comparing their FC record would give you a better indication of who was the better player.

 

[AndrewB]

Shouldn't we be judging this draft on performances at the very highest level - ie Test matches? That is what I have been basing my selections on.

To be honest, you can judge your picks using any method you like; they get judged by other people when we have the poll at the end of the draft, and it's entirely up to you whether you pick the XI you think is best, or the XI you think will get the most votes. It's generally assumed that you're picking an XI to play a Test match (except for LOI or T20 specific drafts); but it's reasonable to say that (e.g.) Fred Grace would probably have done OK in Tests, based on his FC record, if he'd had the chance to play in more than one. (It's equally reasonable to say "Well, maybe CB Fry was scoring huge runs for Sussex around the turn of the century, but when Australia visited in 1902, he scored 0, 0, 1 and 4, so I don't rate him as a Test batsman").

 

[ataraxia]

SCC times out.

Michaelf > AndrewB > kk > Fuller

 

[ataraxia]

FWIW Ranji averaged 56 in FC, it wasn't just Fry benefiting from the Hove pitch.

 

[mr_mister]

yeah, I still had Grace-Ranji as the best 2 english bats of the era,(1877-til whenever Hobbs came around) I just didn't know Fry was potentially right on their heels, in my mind he was way back in the running due to only 2 test tons(and a far longer test career than Ranji - Grace of course we excuse him for his peak coming several years before tests were invented)

 

[ataraxia]

yeah, I still had Grace-Ranji as the best 2 english bats of the era,(1877-til whenever Hobbs came around)

Personally I view Grace and Ranji as belonging to two different eras - Grace's FC career may have extended through most of Ranji's career but after 1895 Grace wasn't what he used to be.

In fact, Grace's FC career started 7 years before Ranji was born.

 

[a massive zebra]

Personally I view Grace and Ranji as belonging to two different eras - Grace's FC career may have extended through most of Ranji's career but after 1895 Grace wasn't what he used to be.

In fact, Grace's FC career started 7 years before Ranji was born.

I don't disagree that Grace and Ranji were from different eras, but to claim Grace wasn't what he used to be "after 1895" is a very poor choice of year. Between 1895 and 1898, Grace went through a late renaissance and was in the best form he had been for around a decade. Just take a look at his stats in these seasons as opposed to the seasons directly preceding 1895:

Grace made 30 first-class appearances in 1890, scoring 1,476 runs, with a highest score of 109 not out, at an average of 28.38 with 1 century and 9 half-centuries.
Grace made 24 first-class appearances in 1891, scoring 771 runs, with a highest score of 72 not out, at an average of 19.76 with 0 centuries and 5 half-centuries.
Grace made 21 first-class appearances in 1892, scoring 1,055 runs, with a highest score of 99, at an average of 31.02 with 0 centuries and 8 half-centuries.
Grace made 28 first-class appearances in 1893, scoring 1,609 runs, with a highest score of 128, at an average of 35.75 with 1 century and 11 half-centuries.
Grace made 27 first-class appearances in 1894, scoring 1,293 runs, with a highest score of 196, at an average of 29.38 with 3 centuries and 5 half-centuries.
Grace made 29 first-class appearances in 1895, scoring 2,346 runs, with a highest score of 288, at an average of 51.00 with 9 centuries and 5 half-centuries.
Grace made 30 first-class appearances in 1896, scoring 2,135 runs, with a highest score of 301, at an average of 42.70 with 4 centuries and 11 half-centuries.
Grace made 25 first-class appearances in 1897, scoring 1,532 runs, with a highest score of 131, at an average of 39.28 with 4 centuries and 7 half-centuries.
Grace made 26 first-class appearances in 1898, scoring 1,513 runs, with a highest score of 168, at an average of 42.02 with 3 centuries and 8 half-centuries.

A more accurate statement would have been "after 1898 Grace wasn't what he used to be".