Rank these 5 Test openers in order ( Boycott, Greenidge, Hayden, Sehwag, G Smith )

[Coronis]

You mean Garry Sobers who was facing Lillee at the end of his career?

I've said countless times, technique and ability raised mid 30's, definely after the war cricket was comparable to the modern era. From Lindwall and Miller the great pacers began to emerge and made the game and equitable one.

Ah you mean after the War when a 38-39 year old Bradman averaged 105 right?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Shortcomings - Wasn’t the best on a sticky, Bodyline tactics could put him on a regular ATG level.

I think his "failures" against Bodyline is highly exaggerated..... Averaged 56.5 against as new challenge he never faced before. If your worst is averaging 56.5, that certainly isn't regular ATG level. Also averaged 80 vs WI and their "leg theory". He is well known to not be great on stickies, though I believe he never paid much attention to them, as they were much less common than pre War.

 

[Coronis]

I think his "failures" against Bodyline is highly exaggerated..... Averaged 56.5 against as new challenge he never faced before. If your worst is averaging 56.5, that certainly isn't regular ATG level. Also averaged 80 vs WI and their "leg theory". He is well known to not be great on stickies, though I believe he never paid much attention to them, as they were much less common than pre War.

I mean its a shortcoming relative to his normal output. But is still at/above career output for other ATGs lol

 

[OverratedSanity]

Modern batsmen would suck balls if they had to face bodyline tactics too.

 

[Coronis]

Modern batsmen would suck balls if they had to face bodyline tactics too.

Without helmets or gloves and a tiny bat in their hands.

 

[shortpitched713]

Modern batsmen would suck balls if they had to face bodyline tactics too.

Generally I would agree, but it's not just the tactics it's also the bowlers which you have to consider. Larwood and Voce were not the same sauce as later bowlers who had a preference for short pitched bowling tactics.

In addition, the bad publicity from this one bodyline series I believe cooled the frequency which Bradman faced quick short pitched bowling as a tactic going forward in his career, an effect which I'm sure Bradman didn't mind at all. There was still something of a "gentlemanly" guardrail in the game, compared to the optimized hyper competitiveness of more recent times.

 

[Coronis]

Generally I would agree, but it's not just the tactics it's also the bowlers which you have to consider. Larwood and Voce were not the same sauce as later bowlers who had a preference for short pitched bowling tactics.

In addition, the bad publicity from this one bodyline series I believe cooled the frequency which Bradman faced quick short pitched bowling as a tactic going forward in his career, an effect which I'm sure Bradman didn't mind at all. There was still something of a "gentlemanly" guardrail in the game, compared to the optimized hyper competitiveness of more recent times.

I think the actual skill level of the bowler is less important with Bodyline tactics. All you need is the ability to bowl fast shortpitched deliveries, which both Larwood and Voce clearly did.

 

[shortpitched713]

I think the actual skill level of the bowler is less important with Bodyline tactics. All you need is the ability to bowl fast shortpitched deliveries, which both Larwood and Voce clearly did.

It's not the same speed and accuracy of a Garner and Holding coming at your chest and face.

 

[kyear2]

He also faced much worse bowlers in his career, period. It's what playing more matches against more teams will do, as well as playing a high proportion of weak teams.

Nobody is denying that the 50s were rough. But it's a low proportion of his career, and a lower proportion of runs.

He had a similar career trajectory to the guys who debuted in the mid 90s and feasted in the 2000s. Nobody claims they didn't have it easy despite the 90s being rough. They faced better bowlers than the guys you are listing. I'm not saying these guys had it rougher than Sobers, but can you imagine how much flack they would have gotten if they had played 40% of their matches against Zim, NZ and India, while not playing against 2 of the better bowling sides?

I have a lot of work to do, but this is just a bit disingenuous.
Again I will repeat that he failed miserably in NZ, there are theories as to why, but it doesn't discount that he didn't do well. Both Pakistan and especially India, had at least one very good bowler throughout a decent portion of his career.
But the final point was really ridiculous. He didn't face the the two better bowling teams of his time? SA refused to play teams of color and he couldn't play his own. You're phrasing this like he deliberately tried to avoid them.

But for the record, when he did face the SA's as he did on various levels, he performed with distinction.

Anders not forget he did all of this averaging what? 40 overs a match? If I vaguely really correctly, almost twice as much as Kallis?

 

[Bolo.]

I have a lot of work to do, but this is just a bit disingenuous.
Again I will repeat that he failed miserably in NZ, there are theories as to why, but it doesn't discount that he didn't do well. Both Pakistan and especially India, had at least one very good bowler throughout a decent portion of his career.
But the final point was really ridiculous. He didn't face the the two better bowling teams of his time? SA refused to play teams of color and he couldn't play his own. You're phrasing this like he deliberately tried to avoid them.

But for the record, when he did face the SA's as he did on various levels, he performed with distinction.

Anders not forget he did all of this averaging what? 40 overs a match? If I vaguely really correctly, almost twice as much as Kallis?

A good bowler doesn't make a good attack. They all had some real junk, and were all weak.

There being reasons for facing weaker attacks doesn't change the fact that he faced weaker attacks. You can only play what's put in front of you, but for every player, we use the quality of who they played to assess them. Sobers isn't unique.

I think Bradman scoring 134 RPT also counts as a heavy workload.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It's not the same speed and accuracy of a Garner and Holding coming at your chest and face.

Actually, Larwood did had the pace and accuracy, just for that.

 

[shortpitched713]

Actually, Larwood did had the pace and accuracy, just for that.

While certainly quick for his time, we simply don't have dequately reliable measurements from his era to really compare.

 

[capt_Luffy]

While certainly quick for his time, we simply don't have dequately reliable measurements from his era to really compare.

I have read about a study done in Wellington University, measuring the velocity of a handful of pacers. I believe they found Larwood the fastest at 154.5 kmph (or around that). And all I can say is, the innovations in sports science between the days of Larwood and Thomson are really significant in cricket, so if Thomson could bowl 160+, there is no reason to believe Larwood can't go at 150+.

 

[Coronis]

A good bowler doesn't make a good attack. They all had some real junk, and were all weak.

There being reasons for facing weaker attacks doesn't change the fact that he faced weaker attacks. You can only play what's put in front of you, but for every player, we use the quality of who they played to assess them. Sobers isn't unique.

I think Bradman scoring 134 RPT also counts as a heavy workload.

Poor bloke was stuck out in the middle with the bat for 27 overs on average. Plus the other 27 at the non strikers end.

In fact one could argue slower ATGs had a bigger workload than faster ones.