Is it necessary to have seen footage of a player to truly judge his ability/value?

[SOPL]

This is a question which I've been pondering over for the past few days.

Many old-timers such as Richie Benaud, Geoffrey Boycott and the late Christopher Martin-Jenkins to name a few examples rate quite a large number of pre-WW2 batsman/bowlers extremely highly, based upon what is very obviously anecdotal evidence, statistical data (namely First-Class statistics) and possibly a few excitable accounts from nostalgics of the era.

Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton, Wooley, Headley, WG Grace, Trumper, Barnes, Miller, Lindwall, Donald Bradman to an extent (although I harbour the opinion that he should be excluded from this discussion due to his exemplary Test record) are merely a few of the names which crop up considerably regularly. Related to this, I also believe English commentators/experts/writers have an acute bias to English cricketers - particularly with their weightage towards performances in First-Class County Cricket.

Clearly, the English First-Class structure is better than that of other countries, but I have rarely ever heard of commentators/experts of non-English nationalities praising a player's performances in domestic cricket - whether that be the Quaid-e-Azam League/President's Trophy, the Sheffield Shield, the Ranji Trophy or any other domestic cricket leagues.

As there is hardly any footage available of these aforementioned players (there is a small amount of Sir Jack Hobbs but this is only poses of attacking shots), I'm itching to ask the question to posters here: Is it necessary to have seen footage of a player to truly judge his ability/value?

Can we really solely trust (possibly biased) accounts from the past to fully judge the ability of a pre-WW2 player in comparison to a player from the 70's, 80's, 90's or the current era whom we have seen footage of?

 

[NasserFan207]

Obviously people are biased and look at things they were personally involved in with tinted glasses, however if enough people who saw someone play say the same thing you can hardly ignore that.

 

[kyear2]

Certainly there is some hyperbole involved, but we also look at their stats. I have seen some footage of Headley, and I saw nothing in his technique to suggest he would struggle in modern times. There is lots of footage of Bradman and Hutton and one would come to a similar conclusion.

Lindwall was genuinely quick with a superb out-swinger, those skills translate into any era. Miller was aggressive and effective in short bursts.

Hobbs, again very little footage that I have seen, but his record against all bowlers speak for it self. Right?

 

[cnerd123]

The thing to consider is that if these older ATG players were modern players, they wouldn't be playing with the exact same technique they had back in the 1940s or whatever. They would grow, they would adapt. Bradman would learn to face faster, fitter bowlers and better infielders and learn how to benefit from bigger bats, helmets and flat pitches. A guy like Lindwall may have learnt reverse swing. Someone like Laker may have developed the doosra if that's what he needed in this time an age.

The fact that they were amongst the best cricketers in the world while they were playing is enough to suggest they possess sufficient talent and desire to have performed well even in the modern era.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think the crucial part of why we've a better understanding of players we've 'seen' or not isn't so much to do with an analysis of technique or the like (which we usually defer to experts over anyway) but more to do with the following of their career in real time. It gives us a much better understanding of their best, worst, how often they were at either and what abut their changing role in an always-changing team helped or not. When we see a player's record over a decade in the past it's especially hard to make sense of all these things. When you've lived through the career of a player and spent time berating that **** decision or debating their selection over someone in better form or who might have a better technique it humanises them and puts them into perspective.

 

[Cabinet96]

I think watching clips on youtube is pretty pointless myself. But yeah, it definitely gives you a much, much better understanding of a player's ability and value if you watch them throughout their career.

 

[watson]

Mark Ramprakash looked great on TV but more or less did bugger all in the Test arena. So film or TV footage is of little use unless you compare it against some stats. Same goes for Chanderpaul or Katich. Watching 5 minutes of them bat is enough to put you cricket for life. Excellent numbers though.

 

[Spark]

I think the crucial part of why we've a better understanding of players we've 'seen' or not isn't so much to do with an analysis of technique or the like (which we usually defer to experts over anyway) but more to do with the following of their career in real time. It gives us a much better understanding of their best, worst, how often they were at either and what abut their changing role in an always-changing team helped or not. When we see a player's record over a decade in the past it's especially hard to make sense of all these things. When you've lived through the career of a player and spent time berating that **** decision or debating their selection over someone in better form or who might have a better technique it humanises them and puts them into perspective.

(y)