CricketWeb decides the Greatest Players Post World War I

[stephen]

Agree except probably the bolded part. It was more interesting in many ways, but one thing that has changed for the better IMO is how batsmen approach chasing big totals. In old days the nerves and tension were palpable. Batsmen didn't have a clue what to do. They often messed things up after a strong start too. This is one aspect where modern day batsmen are better than old timers and this has nothing to do with better bats, shorter boundaries, 2 new balls, more field restrictions etc.

The late overs were much more difficult back then. The ball was a lot softer, harder to see (particularly under lights) and the bowlers had more in the pitch to play with. It was genuinely hard for a batsman to play themself in properly after about the 35th over. Your set batsmen had to score the bulk of the runs, which put extra pressure on them.

Nowadays the ball is harder and easier to see and the bowlers have less to work with in the pitch. Each run means less and so each run is less exciting. Seeing batsmen scamper back for the second at great risk just so the form batsmen was on strike was a lot more exciting than it is these days.

Honestly it's what was so exciting about Bevan chases. He set himself, turned over the strike and then hogged the strike to get the runs at the end.

 

[ankitj]

Do you count how many times in a day you say and type "Bevan"?

Yeah Bevan was a trendsetter. For India, Yuvraj showed the way followed by Dhoni and Raina later. Pakistan had Inzmam who was good at keeping in cool during chases.

 

[ankitj]

Thereby making it more interesting to watch

Umm, if lower skill makes for better cricket, OK. I think that's one thing that the batsmen of this generation should genuinely get credit for.

 

[stephen]

Umm, if lower skill makes for better cricket, OK. I think that's one thing that the batsmen of this generation should genuinely get credit for.

Actually if anyone should get the credit it's Hershall Gibbs and the 434 match. That really showed that no total was ever safe.

Today's skills are not significantly higher. Bats are better and balls easier to hit as the match goes on.

 

[ankitj]

Actually if anyone should get the credit it's Hershall Gibbs and the 434 match. That really showed that no total was ever safe.

Today's skills are not significantly higher. Bats are better and balls easier to hit as the match goes on.

I disagree. Bats are better, but the batters have more balls. In older days they just used to piss under scorecard pressure.

 

[Bolo]

In my childhood, I remember watching and admiring Donald, Klusenar, Kallis, even Cullinan, Fanie De villiers and Kirsten when India played SA. But don't remember admiring Pollock at all. Not sure why.

He was a bit dour and consistent rather than spectacular. I think this is not an uncommon view.

Talking about rsa india games, this view is off. He destroyed india at home and was responsible for RSAs only series win in India. Recency bias at play I think- he lacked penetration on slow wickets when old.

 

[Borges]

> CricketWeb decides the greatest players post World War I

So what has CricketWeb decided? I'm waiting with bated breath for the definitive answer to this perplexing question to be revealed; the suspense is killing me.

 

[weldone]

And questioned his ranking difference between Kallis and Sobers.

I just asked the reason.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Umm, if lower skill makes for better cricket, OK.

Being a bowler, yes.

And this lower skill thing is debateable anyway as others have pointed out.