How successful would 'The Don' be if he was playing in the current era?

[Mister Wright]

I don't - I blame them the other way around.

So your poor batting ability has caused your bad eyesight?

 

[C_C]

Rubbish, to say Hick and Hooper are equal of Tendulkar and Lara is totally ridiculous. It's not even correct to say that their records are as good as Tendulkar at the domestic-First-Class level.

Hick has a FC record that is very close to tendy and behind slightly only on average. but he has played far more and far more runs and tons has he scored.
Hooper has a better record allround than Lara in FC level.

I'd love to know where you get this idea from.

Sir Don's comments <the interview where he said Tendulkar reminds him of himself> and his books. He mentioned that though he enjoyed the amatuer setting, one of the keys to his success was relentless drive and dedication- aka professionalism.

 

[SJS]

Haha. Don't blame your poor eyesight on your lack of batting ability.

If you had appalling eyesight and brilliant hand-eye coordination, does that mean your hand-usage was equally appalling to match perfectly with your eyesight ??

Kidding.

 

[Richard]

So your poor batting ability has caused your bad eyesight?

No - the other way around!

 

[Richard]

Hick has a FC record that is very close to tendy and behind slightly only on average. but he has played far more and far more runs and tons has he scored.

So? He's scored more runs and centuries because he's played more.
So the fact that he's scored more runs and tons doesn't matter at all - Tendulkar has the better average, Tendulkar is the better performer.
Ask any Worcs fan who they'd prefer see bat for their life, in a Championship game. Almost any would say Tendulkar.

Hooper has a better record allround than Lara in FC level.

Yes, so? If Lara had played as much poor-standard cricket as Hooper has I'm sure he'd average far higher.
Lara just hasn't benefited from the constant sulks that have resulted in Hooper playing more First-Class and less Test cricket.

Sir Don's comments <the interview where he said Tendulkar reminds him of himself> and his books. He mentioned that though he enjoyed the amatuer setting, one of the keys to his success was relentless drive and dedication- aka professionalism.

Just because someone is not paid does not mean they do not have a professional attitude - that they look to make the best of their ability.

 

[Mister Wright]

No - the other way around!

You're confusing yourself Richard.

 

[Richard]

Hmm - you're confusing me (and maybe yourself too) is how it seems to me.

 

[Neil Pickup]

"Don't blame the fault on the factor" is the correct formation - e.g. "Don't blame the crushing Ashes defeat on Brett Lee"

Also, ""Don't blame the factor for the fault" can be used - e.g. "Don't blame Brett Lee for the crushing Ashes defeat"

Hence "Don't blame your inept batsmanship on your poor eyesight" is correct.

 

[Richard]

Well I do blame it on that.
Sorry if anyone thinks I'm wrong to!

 

[cricketfan]

I can add nothing to this topic compared to my learned friends but I need an answer on something. My father told me many times Bradman was far more popular in England than he was in Australia. Any comments?

 

[benchmark00]

Can you construct a line of best fit graph? haha....

 

[C_C]

So? He's scored more runs and centuries because he's played more.
So the fact that he's scored more runs and tons doesn't matter at all - Tendulkar has the better average, Tendulkar is the better performer.
Ask any Worcs fan who they'd prefer see bat for their life, in a Championship game. Almost any would say Tendulkar.

Yes, so? If Lara had played as much poor-standard cricket as Hooper has I'm sure he'd average far higher.
Lara just hasn't benefited from the constant sulks that have resulted in Hooper playing more First-Class and less Test cricket.

Just because someone is not paid does not mean they do not have a professional attitude - that they look to make the best of their ability.

batting superiority is not JUST average.
numerous other factors need to be considered.
And you cannot argue that average is end all-be all, therefore tendy is better FC player than Hick and then turn around and say Hooper, who has a higher FC average than Lara, is inferior.
That is inconsistent.

I've read a LOT of books from the early days of cricket and the picture painted is of namby pamby men playing it like a sunday league player only to be punctuated by some highly professional players like the Don, Headley, Nayudu, Hammond, etc.
getting paid doesnt mean you are proffessional in some cases but do so in most.Simply because of human psychology.MOST people pay a lot more attention towards activities that rule their living standards than ones that dont. playing full time and not having a day job gives you a lot more sense of focus.

 

[Richard]

I can add nothing to this topic compared to my learned friends but I need an answer on something. My father told me many times Bradman was far more popular in England than he was in Australia. Any comments?

I don't know - certainly he wasn't popular in Australia amongst the O'Reilly-Fingleton clan. But I think the national-icon status - certainly later in life - in Australia for him said something at least.
While playing, it is perfectly conceivable that he was more popular in Britain - certainly his mastery of the art of being a gentleman helped add to the awe everyone held his ability in.

 

[Richard]

batting superiority is not JUST average.
numerous other factors need to be considered.
And you cannot argue that average is end all-be all, therefore tendy is better FC player than Hick and then turn around and say Hooper, who has a higher FC average than Lara, is inferior.
That is inconsistent.

The only other factor that really matters is how often you get the chance to play.
If Lara had played as much in domestic-First-Class-cricket as Hooper, while missing as much Test-cricket, I can categorically assure you he'd have a better average.
Tendulkar is a better player than Hick in domestic-First-Class-cricket - averages, amongst many many other things, demonstrate that.

I've read a LOT of books from the early days of cricket and the picture painted is of namby pamby men playing it like a sunday league player only to be punctuated by some highly professional players like the Don, Headley, Nayudu, Hammond, etc.
getting paid doesnt mean you are proffessional in some cases but do so in most.Simply because of human psychology.MOST people pay a lot more attention towards activities that rule their living standards than ones that dont. playing full time and not having a day job gives you a lot more sense of focus.

In which case England should have been overwhelmingly superior to everyone, because most of their players in Test-cricket up to 1950 or so were professionals and no-one from any other countries was.
Being paid for a job doesn't make one more committed or skilled at it - just ask some of the amateurs who played in the early days of English cricket.