• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Fred Trueman vs Joel Garner

Trueman vs Garner

  • Total voters
    23
Johan

Johan

International Vice-Captain
DrWolverine said:
9 batsmen scored 200+ runs after turning 43.

3 batsmen scored 200+ runs after turning 45.

2 batsman scored 200+ runs after turning 47.

It is hard to believe even with so much advancement in science and fitness that not a single batsman post WW 2 features in that list.

My issue with rating pre War batsmen(except Don Bradman who was just light years ahead of the rest) is I am not sure how competitive the sport was.
Click to expand...
@Coronis debunked this argument

Boycott was casually making hundreds against 80s bowlers and averaging 60+ playing county at the age of 42 to 46.

a big thing people here are ignoring is that Hobbs spent so many years being all sick and away from the game that gis body wasn't even as broken and battered as Boycott's was when he was averaging 60 in county cricket, there is nothing weird about Hobbs doing well in his 40s.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
DrWolverine said:
9 batsmen scored 200+ runs after turning 43.

3 batsmen scored 200+ runs after turning 45.

2 batsman scored 200+ runs after turning 47.

It is hard to believe even with so much advancement in science and fitness that not a single batsman post WW 2 features in that list.

My issue with rating pre War batsmen(except Don Bradman who was just light years ahead of the rest) is I am not sure how competitive the sport was.
Click to expand...
That's definitely my stance for pre WWI.

My issue with the period between the wars has more to do with the damn pitches and lesser extent bowlers. The LBW rule not changing till '35 doesn't help either.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
That's definitely my stance for pre WWI.

My issue with the period between the wars has more to do with the damn pitches and lesser extent bowlers. The LBW rule not changing till '35 doesn't help either.
Click to expand...
Yeah a radically different game and tempo in that period.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
My issue is just watching clips from that era that reeks of low intensity club game cricket and telling myself that there is enough evidence that his skillset and success in that background is translatable. I don't have that confidence.

Same reason I dropped Barnes from my XI.
Click to expand...
For me Barnes was never an option.

Can't select someone where I'm not even confident of what they even bowled and the descriptions were at the very least hyperbolic.
 
sayon basak

sayon basak

International Captain
Johan said:
@Coronis debunked this argument

Boycott was casually making hundreds against 80s bowlers and averaging 60+ playing county at the age of 42 to 46.

a big thing people here are ignoring is that Hobbs spent so many years being all sick and away from the game that gis body wasn't even as broken and battered as Boycott's was when he was averaging 60 in county cricket, there is nothing weird about Hobbs doing well in his 40s.
Click to expand...
Guess this post will just be ignored.
 
DrWolverine

DrWolverine

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
Yes because he is such an outlier that it makes one have confidence in his selection that he is going to give worldclass++ output even though @kyear2 and I agree he will have a significant dropoff if put in post WSC environment.
Click to expand...

A young Bradman would still be the best batsman today but don’t think he would average 99.94
 
DrWolverine

DrWolverine

International Debutant
PlayerComparisons said:
Hobbs has a brilliant technique that would work well against guys like Marshall and Steyn

Click to expand...
The game looks so ancient. If Jack Hobbs was born today with the same technique and had the same access to coaching like everyone else, most likely he would have become a great cricketer but there are too many ifs and buts in that argument and discussion..
 
Johan

Johan

International Vice-Captain
That isn't even a game, it's a 50 year old Hobbs trying to look stylish in a commerical
 
sayon basak

sayon basak

International Captain
DrWolverine said:
The game looks so ancient. If Jack Hobbs was born today with the same technique and had the same access to coaching like everyone else, most likely he would have become a great cricketer. But there are too many ifs and buts in that argument.
Click to expand...
And guess what? It wasn't even a game. They were just capturing some footage. Obviously they will not bowl at Larwood's pace while taking a video.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
DrWolverine said:
The game looks so ancient. If Jack Hobbs was born today with the same technique and had the same access to coaching like everyone else, most likely he would have become a great cricketer but there are too many ifs and buts in that argument and discussion..
Click to expand...
Exactly. There are far less ifs and buts about an exceptionally tested guy like Tendulkar being able to succeed in the 30s. I can't think of an argument of him not succeeding if given similar opportunities to other cricketers then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top