hypothetical questions

[Mike5181]

I was reviewing this footage

YouTube - England's Glorious Victory! (1926)

What do you think of the batsmanship? In terms of technique.

Can someone post some longer footage.

There is one shot of a fast bowler - the rest seem to be slow mediums.

The fast bowler looks eh half decent? I would compare the rest to Ricky Ponting's sort of bowling YouTube - RICKY PONTING - GREAT ALL ROUNDER- so many wickets.

Interesting looking at that type of footage though. I have been watching quite a few of them on youtube.

 

[hang on]

at the risk of seeming excessively chuffed with myself, thought that some of this could add to the general discussion on here. interesting thread, btw, xander.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/49709-then-now.html

 

[Top_Cat]

The fast bowler looks eh half decent? I would compare the rest to Ricky Ponting's sort of bowling YouTube - RICKY PONTING - GREAT ALL ROUNDER- so many wickets.

Interesting looking at that type of footage though. I have been watching quite a few of them on youtube.

You have to be careful, though, as the trends of the time were different. Covered pitches mean we've all gotten used to sides picking 3 quicks and a only one spinner. So looking back at old games, it's temping to think the blokes picked were nuffy meds because that's all there was available. In fact, in that game, both sides picked two spinners and one quick with the rest of the overs taken up by batting all-rounders (Maurice Tate aside, of course). You'd never do that in modern times because pitches hold together for all 5 days so they'd be exposed. On uncovered decks, though, they'd had to have found a way to shore up the batting in case it rained and the ball started to spit but also have guys who could share the bowling load.

Was a different time with different needs. Anyone who watches a couple of minutes of Test footage from the 20's and decides that it reflects the number of quick bowlers available for selection is really missing a lot of info.

 

[Nate]

If Sreesanth cries alone in the woods, are there still tears?

 

[Mike5181]

Doesn't change anything. A trend doesn't necessarily mean quality. That's why i don't wear tight jeans and a purple shirt. All we have to go by are the short clips because obviously no one here lived in the 1920s. Yes, the conditions were different back then etc but would that stop those medium pacers getting hit out of the ground? No. I am sure we have all played on dirt pitches without helmets when we were growing up. I know i have.

 

[Cevno]

Malinga would completely dominate in those times.

Sehwag would probably be a all rounder and do very very well and Morgan would do well too after exposure to the current game.

 

[bagapath]

i think sehwag would have played in 50 tests before WW2. scored 4000 runs at 48. with 12 hundreds including one double and one triple.

malinga would have played in 30 tests and taken 130 wickets at 27.

morgan would have played 30 tests, touched the 2000 run mark at an average of 40.

In other words, Sehwag would have been a great player. Malinga and Morgan would have been very good.

The stats may vary according to the global trends of the respective eras. but their cricketing qualities would remain the same wherever you transport them in the time machine.

 

[salman85]

Provided that Malinga played in the 1920s,would Symonds' granda be accused of unfaithfulness?

Just thinking of the hairdos.

 

[Himannv]

I think the equipment is probably key here. The weight and thickness of the bats were probably different. Not sure if the weight of the ball was the same as it is now or lesser.

I dont think players like Malinga would have been seen back then. The lack of protective gear seems a concern tbh.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yes, the conditions were different back then etc but would that stop those medium pacers getting hit out of the ground?

Ever play on a damp pitch against blokes who know how to bowl on them?

Find it pretty arrogant that some people in recent threads, rather than reserving judgement or maybe offering some caveats/conditions to their posts because the evidence base is virtually nil, deign to judge an entire generation of players based on a few minutes of crap footage in a game which lasts days at a time.

 

[Hit Wicket]

The game has changed a lot from then till now. On an absolute pound by pound comparison as the OP is suggesting I have little doubt that on an average a modern cricketer will do much better in those times, and a cricketer from that era will fare much worse in today's game.

However, if either group actually grew up in another era and was exposed to the environment and training facilities and techniques of the other time, I expect at the very least all very good to great cricketers to perform at pretty much similar levels.

 

[Mike5181]

The game has changed a lot from then till now. On an absolute pound by pound comparison as the OP is suggesting I have little doubt that on an average a modern cricketer will do much better in those times, and a cricketer from that era will fare much worse in today's game.

However, if either group actually grew up in another era and was exposed to the environment and training facilities and techniques of the other time, I expect at the very least all very good to great cricketers to perform at pretty much similar levels.

Agree.

Ever play on a damp pitch against blokes who know how to bowl on them?

Find it pretty arrogant that some people in recent threads, rather than reserving judgement or maybe offering some caveats/conditions to their posts because the evidence base is virtually nil, deign to judge an entire generation of players based on a few minutes of crap footage in a game which lasts days at a time.

If there is no evidence then how are you not being arrogant as well? Duh. You don't know anymore about 1920s cricket than I do. Sport evolves. Deal with it. Stop putting cricketers from 90 years ago above the ones of today just because they played on lesser quality pitches. I already laid my argument out on the table and all you had to say was lets be careful guys that was the trend back then. You know the quality of players now is far greater then they were in the 20s your just to proud to admit it.

 

[Spark]

Your argument is based on a unsubstantiated assumption and a snippet of youtube footage. Hardly a place to be calling the kettle, let alone saying "You know the quality of players now is far greater then they were in the 20s your just to proud to admit it"

 

[Mike5181]

Your argument is based on a unsubstantiated assumption and a snippet of youtube footage. Hardly a place to be calling the kettle, let alone saying "You know the quality of players now is far greater then they were in the 20s your just to proud to admit it"

Its a "hypothetical" situation. How can there not be assumptions in a discussion like this? Nice call though.

 

[Spark]

So then how you can you say things like

You don't know anymore about 1920s cricket than I do. Sport evolves. Deal with it.

You know the quality of players now is far greater then they were in the 20s your just to proud to admit it.

 

[Mike5181]

Because unless he is 100 years old he hasn't seen 1920s cricket? And the second one is an assumption based on the idea that sport has evolved. I thought we just covered assumptions in hypothetical situations? Bit slooooooooooow maybe.

 

[Hit Wicket]

It's just asinine to deny that the modern game is much quicker, exposes a lot more facets, and requires much more physical fitness. It's common across all sports. On a pound to pound comparison, Jesse Owens would run slower than Usain Bolt. That's a given and has been recorded on video with stop watches.

The real question of comparison should be whether Owens would be able to run as quickly as Bolt if he trained in similar circumstances and facilities. Not whether Bolt is quicker than Owens - denying that every facet of cricket has similarly improved with more professionalism is just denying that Bolt ran 100 meters quicker than Owens.

 

[andyc]

Because unless he is 100 years old he hasn't seen 1920s cricket? And the second one is an assumption based on the idea that sport has evolved. I thought we just covered assumptions in hypothetical situations? Bit slooooooooooow maybe.

No one else in this thread is being aggressive, Mike. Cut the insults out.

 

[Spark]

It's just asinine to deny that the modern game is much quicker, exposes a lot more facets, and requires much more physical fitness. It's common across all sports. On a pound to pound comparison, Jesse Owens would run slower than Usain Bolt. That's a given and has been recorded on video with stop watches.

The real question of comparison should be whether Owens would be able to run as quickly as Bolt if he trained in similar circumstances and facilities. Not whether Bolt is quicker than Owens - denying that every facet of cricket has similarly improved with more professionalism is just denying that Bolt ran 100 meters quicker than Owens.

No one was saying otherwise tbf.

 

[Mike5181]

No one else in this thread is being aggressive, Mike. Cut the insults out.

And you think Sparks post added to the discussion. Looked like blatant baiting to me.