mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
More or less agree, but have noticed i am happy to pick older era batsmen(even pre 1900) more than early era bowlers. I mean Hobbs definitely brings in the votes. Sydney Barnes and Larwood/Tate/Gregory are early era pacemen I'm comfortable picking, perhaps because footage exists of batsmen swaying/ducking out of the way of them in the case of Larwood. And Barnes/Tate are only meant to be medium pace anyway.Personally would be willing to go a bit further back but there is a bit of a hmmm I do go through with players from very early cricketing generations. Would still think of Spofforth and Lohmann as good picks if rating a team but despite their records would never personally put them over a more modern player who has excelled to a great degree like a Marshall/Steyn etc. Have a list of 366 players of pretty much I'll only go for those players in drafts like this, only 22 of those in the 1800s - those 2 you mentioned being 2 of those 22. Realistically I'd be surprised if I have more then 2 or 3 players with debuts before the 1940s in my final XI. With the game being so different then both in terms of quality as well as averages seeming bowler friendly think perspectives of players from late 1800s/early 1900s are likely to vary more widely too amongst fellow drafters - not only the typical biases/different priorities in rating players but they have generally performed in only 2/3 countries and to a lower standard although I guess its a bit like Pele in football - some would have him no doubt the greatest ever I've seen others say he was good but vastly overhyped I'm somewhere in between.
Spofforth has been marketed as express but you know he wasnt