• 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.

Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

archie mac

archie mac

International Coach
sobers no:1 said:
jack hobbs :wallbash:
Click to expand...
Oh, perhaps you could use his name. He was older than that from memory when he retired from Test cricket.

I think someone like Lara could have went on scoring runs into his 40s, so not as if it won't happen again one day, in fact I bet it does
 
sobers no:1

sobers no:1

Banned
archie mac said:
Oh, perhaps you could use his name. He was older than that from memory when he retired from Test cricket.

I think someone like Lara could have went on scoring runs into his 40s, so not as if it won't happen again one day, in fact I bet it does
Click to expand...
not in an ATG level. avg: of 55 :wacko:
 
archie mac

archie mac

International Coach
Prince EWS said:
Haha, it's just such a fallacy though. His argument basically amounts to "He was so good that it's impossible to believe he was any good at all."
Click to expand...
True, and I thought Richard could be painful but even he of 'first chance theory' wouldn't write this tosh:-O
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
sobers no:1 said:
ok. leave it then
can u explain , y jack hobbs @45 = sachin tendulkar @ 25
Click to expand...
Hobbs > Tendulkar, simply because he was a better batsman. Why is it so hard to believe that batsmen back then were as good as, or better, than modern batsmen?
 
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
archie mac said:
True, and I thought Richard could be painful but even he of 'first chance theory' wouldn't write this tosh:-O
Click to expand...
I still think the First Chance Theory is a brilliant idea - the fact that it is so flawed that it's bollocks shouldn't detract from the quality of the thinking that created it
 
sobers no:1

sobers no:1

Banned
Coronis said:
Hobbs > Tendulkar, simply because he was a better batsman. Why is it so hard to believe that batsmen back then were as good as, or better, than modern batsmen?
Click to expand...
:wacko:

hobbs arguably better than tendulkar.

hobbs at the age of 45 = sachin tendulkar @ 25 is bull****
 
the big bambino

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2 said:
So you are honestly saying that there would have no difference between facing an Australian attack for those 10 tests instead of India and South Africa?

There is no need to defend Bradman, but nothing wrong with a civil constructive conversation.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that Bradman's nationality was the greatest obstacle to him facing an Australian attack...
 
centurymaker

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
Coronis said:
Hobbs > Tendulkar, simply because he was a better batsman. Why is it so hard to believe that batsmen back then were as good as, or better, than modern batsmen?
Click to expand...
Nah that's bull. If you imported an ATG batsman straight from those days, He'd be no better than a domestic cricketer. Standards have improved enormously.

But I believe trying to judge players in absolute terms like that is completely wrong, not to mention pretty much impossible. The only possible way to compare players across eras is to first compare them to their peers and then compare the results from those comparisons.



.
 
the big bambino

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
sobers no:1 said:
WG and bradman had advantage of playinga in a less competitive era..
Click to expand...
Saying it doesn't make it so you know. Both faced full strength test XIs whereas Gavaskar faced 3rd strength sides for a good bulk of his career. So the opposite is true. Sunny played less competitive XIs. Adjusting his peformances for the weakness of his opponents and the fact he played on feather beds I'd estimate Gavaskar's real average to be in the low 30s. Hardly enough to keep him in a middle range test side (but a regular for India granted) let alone mention of a greatest ever XI.

Btw do you realise his partner in your XI only played 4 tests against a dispirited, fatigued and rent Australian side who lost their one test class new ball bowler mid series after bowling hurt in the 1st 2 tests?

Talk about over rated...
 
centurymaker

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
the big bambino said:
Saying it doesn't make it so you know. Both faced full strength test XIs whereas Gavaskar faced 3rd strength sides for a good bulk of his career. So the opposite is true. Sunny played less competitive XIs. Adjusting his peformances for the weakness of his opponents and the fact he played on feather beds I'd estimate Gavaskar's real average to be in the low 30s. Hardly enough to keep him in a middle range test side (but a regular for India granted) let alone mention of a greatest ever XI.

Btw do you realise his partner in your XI only played 4 tests against a dispirited, fatigued and rent Australian side who lost their one test class new ball bowler mid series after bowling hurt in the 1st 2 tests?

Talk about over rated...
Click to expand...
poor posting
(sobers No.1 is at a level of his own in this regard though)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top