Players of the past who would have better/worse records

[Ilovecric]

if they were playing today ?


The batsman would most likely have better records for a few reasons, the bowlers i'm not so sure.

 

[0RI0N]

4 batsmen, 2 Aus and 2 WI
V Trumper
G Greenidge
C Lloyd
R Simpson

All 4 would probably ave 50 + imo.
I'll throw this name out and see what the CW thinks:
GA Hick - would he ave 45+ if he made his debut in 2005 or later?

 

[L Trumper]

4 batsmen, 2 Aus and 2 WI
V Trumper
G Greenidge
C Lloyd
R Simpson

All 4 would probably ave 50 + imo.

He did a full 100 years ago what sehwag is doing now. One could only imagine the pandemonium he would create if he is playing now. May be SR around 125 and average in 45 - 55 range.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

He did a full 100 years ago what sehwag is doing now. One could only imagine the pandemonium he would create if he is playing now. May be SR around 125 and average in 45 - 55 range.

So you think that first-class cricket back in Trumper's day was stronger then International cricket today? Because Trumper didn't even average 45+ in first-class cricket and Clem Hill had a higher Test batting average.

 

[The Sean]

So you think that first-class cricket back in Trumper's day was stronger then International cricket today? Because Trumper didn't even average 45+ in first-class cricket and Clem Hill had a higher Test batting average.

Without wishing to get into more averages-are/aren't-everything shenanigans, it should be remembered that batting averages generally were much lower before WWI.

 

[Richard]

All of this is IIRR, but... Trumper's average in Shield cricket was about 55, and his long-time opening partner Reggie Duff's was nearly 20 runs lower. And Duff was regarded as an excellent batsmen.

No-one should underestimate just how dominant Trumper was in his day. It's, obviously, not possible to know how he'd go in different circumstances because Trumper was something of a free-spirited soul (one of the reasons for his immense popularity) who, like Ian Botham, could have been completely changed by small things. But there's undoubtedly huge similarities between he and Sehwag.

 

[Richard]

I'll throw this name out and see what the CW thinks:
GA Hick - would he ave 45+ if he made his debut in 2005 or later?

Hick could, to me, very conceivably have averaged 50+ if he'd debuted in 2001/02 or later.

 

[0RI0N]

All of this is IIRR, but... Trumper's average in Shield cricket was about 55, and his long-time opening partner Reggie Duff's was nearly 20 runs lower. And Duff was regarded as an excellent batsmen.

No-one should underestimate just how dominant Trumper was in his day. It's, obviously, not possible to know how he'd go in different circumstances because Trumper was something of a free-spirited soul (one of the reasons for his immense popularity) who, like Ian Botham, could have been completely changed by small things. But there's undoubtedly huge similarities between he and Sehwag.

One of your better posts amongst the 79000 odd Richard.(srs)
*
@wfdu_ben
You don't realize that most of the pre WWI wickets were very difficult to bat on.
I would also like to add
The Croucher Jessop: the Original Master Blaster.
He also scored very quickly on difficult wickets...consistenly.
Another batsman who would have done well post 2000.
Trumper,like the Croucher were batsmen well ahead of the time.

 

[social]

Hick could, to me, very conceivably have averaged 50+ if he'd debuted in 2001/02 or later.

Yeah sure

A few years wouldnt have fixed his technique or improved his mental frailty

 

[GotSpin]

Bradman would still be batting

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Yeah sure

A few years wouldnt have fixed his technique or improved his mental frailty

His still having trouble swallowing the pill that Matthew Hayden is better then any English batsman since Len Hutton.

 

[Richard]

Yeah sure

A few years wouldnt have fixed his technique or improved his mental frailty

A few years did fix his technique, actually - after being found to be inadequate by the West Indians of 1991, he was smashing the Australians of 1993 who tried similar tactics, then carving-up the South Africans who were arguably better still.

Hick modified his technique to cut-out the flaws of his early Test career, enjoyed the fruits of this between 1992/93 and 1995/96, and his later difficulties were the result of mental frailties. These frailties may well not have occurred had he not had earlier technical difficulties, difficulties which would have been extremely unlikely to have been exposed as mercilessly as they were 1991-1992 in 2001/02 or 2003/04 because of the lesser calibre of bowling.

What is more, with more sympathetic handling than he was allowed in his day - which did indeed abound later, and which for instance Andrew Caddick benefited hugely from - his mental frailties could easily have been reduced to irrelevance.

 

[Richard]

His still having trouble swallowing the pill that Matthew Hayden is better then any English batsman since Len Hutton.

That comment was not merely factually unsound, but both useless and precisely the sort of thing that the CC community is making an effort to stamp-out (ie, things that are specifically likely to divert a thread to a tired, long-since-stupifyingly-bored-the-pants-off-everyone route).

So I'd recommend you pack comments of the sort in.

 

[social]

A few years did fix his technique, actually - after being found to be inadequate by the West Indians of 1991, he was smashing the Australians of 1993 who tried similar tactics, then carving-up the South Africans who were arguably better still.

Hick modified his technique to cut-out the flaws of his early Test career, enjoyed the fruits of this between 1992/93 and 1995/96, and his later difficulties were the result of mental frailties. These frailties may well not have occurred had he not had earlier technical difficulties, difficulties which would have been extremely unlikely to have been exposed as mercilessly as they were 1991-1992 in 2001/02 or 2003/04 because of the lesser calibre of bowling.

What is more, with more sympathetic handling than he was allowed in his day - which did indeed abound later, and which for instance Andrew Caddick benefited hugely from - his mental frailties could easily have been reduced to irrelevance.

The definition of an "exceptional/great test batsman" (which an average of 50+ implies) does not include room for excuses.

Hick was a very ordinary test match batsman who was exposed in the Sheffield Shield well before his test debut and nothing after that was a surprise

 

[social]

If S.F. Barnes was an Australian playing in the 1990s/2000s, at best he would've had a very abbreviated test career and in all likelihood struggled to have a bowling average less than 50

Medium pace non-spinners = cannon-fodder

 

[GuyFromLancs]

I'm not sure about Hick averging 50+. Far too many "ifs" involved in that one. Hick, despite having natural talent, was exposed both technically and mentally in test cricket and his average of 31 is on par with Andrew Flintoff who at his best was a flawed destructive batsman and at his worst a terrible batsman.

 

[slippyslip]

David Hookes.

Player support these days is vastly better than it was in the 1970'/80's. Making his debut so young and all the hype from smashing Greig around would have been handled better.

No World Series circus.

His style would have suited the modern game more.

Better support for any technical problems and medical help for injuries.

 

[Richard]

The definition of an "exceptional/great test batsman" (which an average of 50+ implies) does not include room for excuses.

Hick was a very ordinary test match batsman who was exposed in the Sheffield Shield well before his test debut and nothing after that was a surprise

Exposed so well that he averaged 45+... what a thing. Hick was in reality never an ordinary Test batsman - he had two lengthy periods of being execrable, and one lengthy period of being excellent. That period was easily long enough to show that it was no fluke, it was ample proof that he could be a successful Test batsman with all right.

Hick when all was right was exceptional - and it's very conceivable that, with an understanding management and weak bowling attacks of the post-2001/02 era, he could have been exceptional for 10 years or more at Test level, rather than the mere 4 he achieved in his own day.

 

[Richard]

I'm not sure about Hick averging 50+. Far too many "ifs" involved in that one.

See, I don't think there are. Hick's case was a pretty simple one - early on his technique wasn't up to Test cricket, he solved that problem, enjoyed a lengthy period of success, then crashed and completely lost confidence, at the age of 29, never to be the same again.

Wouldn't be that difficult for both of those to be averted in more recent times.

 

[Pothas]

His still having trouble swallowing the pill that Matthew Hayden is better then any English batsman since Len Hutton.

you are fun.