Tendulkar/Hobbs vs Marshall/McGrath

[Johan]

Why you gotta do Sanga like that?

I'm on Himaanv payroll

 

[subshakerz]

I do have a cut off point actually

2015

Good for you.

 

[Johan]

Good for you.

Good

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think people who don't rate a player in the poll should click on the thread itself, nor do I think someone should start a poll involving a player he doesn't rate.

Huh? I rate Hobbs despite the era questions I have. I have made that clear.

 

[subshakerz]

Had you done even a sliver of research instead of your usual anti Ambrose bs, you'd know the man was not fit.

Welcome to something called context. And recall that I readily accepted this when you told me rather than attacked you for using excuses. Now don't attack others who use it.

 

[shortpitched713]

And Viv was an all timer at slip and one of the exceptional fielders of all time.

So like, we'd call it even, no?

 

[kyear2]

Hobbs > Macko > Tendulkar for me, the way Hobbs was averaging 57 to the next best in 40s and then the 3rd best in 30s before the war, is unprecedented.

And that's fair as well.

I have Marshall and Hobbs 3 and 4, so not a big difference

 

[shortpitched713]

And what would you consider Smith and say, Bumrah? Not outliers?

No one breaks the norm in the way Bradman did, nor will they ever get anywhere close. They've had great runs, as modern players go. Of course.

You could simulate the history of Test cricket 9,994 times and only get 1 Bradman.

 

[Coronis]

No one breaks the norm in the way Bradman did, nor will they ever get anywhere close. They've had great runs, as modern players go. Of course.

You could simulate the history of Test cricket 9,994 times and only get 1 Bradman.

You were literally talking about Hobbs and Barnes

 

[subshakerz]

If you can't read, I can't help you.

I said it's not as big an issue in that comparison and context because Sachin has equal weaknesses vs the best pacers of his time.

Try to read without bias and it'll come to you.

Yes and this is called downplaying McGrath stat weakness. Because you see context here and not other places.

 

[shortpitched713]

Um, what? You have seen the recently posted statistics where Hobbs was averaging more than double what other top order batsmen were averaging right?

Are we ignoring the percentage that Barnes was averaging?

 

[shortpitched713]

How does this idea support your argument? Unless you think change somehow stops at a random point? Wouldn’t changes continually increase over a smaller period of time based on this philosphy?

The argument was that there was less cricket being played at a certain point. I'm arguiing that so much else was changing in the world, and cricket was growing internationally, as well as new forms of media like television bringing so much more exposure, these massive changes in the world of cricket happened in a specific period. Compared to that, the last 40 years for instance saw the addition of only minnows to the list of Test playing nations.

 

[shortpitched713]

You were literally talking about Hobbs and Barnes

These 2 were extremely good players for their time, and something you would expect to come up for pioneering players in their sport. Not really like Bradman though.

 

[kyear2]

Barry didn't have a test career, that's why he is downgraded. Otherwise, I have no problem if someone says that Barry was skillfully better than Gavaskar, just like I do not have any problem with someone saying that Akhtar, Bond or Asif were skillfully better than half of the ATG bowlers.

Goes beyond skill and he played for well over a decade.

But here's where the lack of mental dissonance really becomes hilarious if not sad. And it acan be looked at quantitatively or qualitatively, well start with the former.

Our favorite child Capt, Luffy to be specific, chooses Grace for such XI's. Now that selection surely can't be based on his test career at the dawn of the format can it? Of course not, that's purely based on a first class career when the game bore no resemblance to the game we play today.

O'Reilly's 19 tests vs England isn't solely what pushes him to the rank of the 3rd greatest spinner of all time, that's largely based on his first class career.

Now B.A. Richards played, 4 tests, 5 more tests which were officially recognized as tests when he played them and 5 WSC tests, which a large part of our community ranks alongside tests, Johan for instance uses it when speaking of the careers of Lillee, Chappell and Richards. The main hold out is again our child Capt, and the main reason he does is that he needs to be consistent in the fallacy that the "tests" that Sunny took full advantage if and made hay, holds any merit in comparison. And to be clear, one was clearly of a higher standard and the performances looked at as such.

So that's 14, not in any way quantitatively different from the 19 of O'Reilly vs England or the 19 Headley had before the war. And FC, and tour performances nor only adds greatly to their legacies, but was the norm up until the 80's.

Qualitatively is a bit more striking for me personally. We have some, not many but a small crazy few who would profess that Grace would have performed better against fast bowlers like Lillee and co than one B.A., totally ignoring the fact that he actually performed and excelled vs such fast bowlers. But somehow 22 tests in the 19th century bears more credence. It's sincerely idiotic.
Hobbs too garners quite a bit of his fast bowling bona fides from first class cricket.

And to address your point, it wasn't just talented, it was based on sustained performances against, over a decade's worth.
In an era of Gavaskar, Chappell, Boycott, Lloyd, Pollock, Gooch etc etc, and all of Bob Willis, John Snow, Mike Procter, Jeff Thompson and Dennis Lillee (only referencing the bowlers), ranks Barry ahead of all of them, especially his rival openers. And all of them making special mention that they rank him either as the best they've played against or alongside either Viv or Garry. This wasn't some of them, this was all of them.

So I'll just end off with this, everyone on the forum with the exception of myself, @peterhrt and @fredfertang would rank Sunny and Pollock ahead of Richards, fair. Isn't in the least bit striking, instructional or insightful that none of the bowlers who bowled to them did?

 

[subshakerz]

Goes beyond skill and he played for well over a decade.

But here's where the lack of mental dissonance really becomes hilarious if not sad. And it acan be looked at quantitatively or qualitatively, well start with the former.

Our favorite child Capt, Luffy to be specific, chooses Grace for such XI's. Now that selection surely can't be based on his test career at the dawn of the format can it? Of course not, that's purely based on a first class career when the game bore no resemblance to the game we play today.

O'Reilly's 19 tests vs England isn't solely what pushes him to the rank of the 3rd greatest spinner of all time, that's largely based on his first class career.

Now B.A. Richards played, 4 tests, 5 more tests which were officially recognized as tests when he played them and 5 WSC tests, which a large part of our community ranks alongside tests, Johan for instance uses it when speaking of the careers of Lillee, Chappell and Richards. The main hold out is again our child Capt, and the main reason he does is that he needs to be consistent in the fallacy that the "tests" that Sunny took full advantage if and made hay, holds any merit in comparison. And to be clear, one was clearly of a higher standard and the performances looked at as such.

So that's 14, not in any way quantitatively different from the 19 of O'Reilly vs England or the 19 Headley had before the war. And FC, and tour performances nor only adds greatly to their legacies, but was the norm up until the 80's.

Qualitatively is a bit more striking for me personally. We have some, not many but a small crazy few who would profess that Grace would have performed better against fast bowlers like Lillee and co than one B.A., totally ignoring the fact that he actually performed and excelled vs such fast bowlers. But somehow 22 tests in the 19th century bears more credence. It's sincerely idiotic.
Hobbs too garners quite a bit of his fast bowling bona fides from first class cricket.

And to address your point, it wasn't just talented, it was based on sustained performances against, over a decade's worth.
In an era of Gavaskar, Chappell, Boycott, Lloyd, Pollock, Gooch etc etc, and all of Bob Willis, John Snow, Mike Procter, Jeff Thompson and Dennis Lillee (only referencing the bowlers), ranks Barry ahead of all of them, especially his rival openers. And all of them making special mention that they rank him either as the best they've played against or alongside either Viv or Garry. This wasn't some of them, this was all of them.

So I'll just end off with this, everyone on the forum with the exception of myself, @peterhrt and @fredfertang would rank Sunny and Pollock ahead of Richards, fair. Isn't in the least bit striking, instructional or insightful that none of the bowlers who bowled to them did?

Choosing Grace but not Barry does seem odd frankly.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Choosing Grace but not Barry does seem odd frankly.

Why?? Barry played in the premium competition of his time 4 decades, 2 decade as the unquestioned best and a whole decade averaging twice as much as the next best??? Extremely dumb take, expected better from you guys too really.

 

[kyear2]

Ok I’m going to try and be completely fair and objective here. Obviously I think the whole earlier eras were **** argument is completely crap as you’d expect.

It is perfectly fair to have a cutoff off WWI imo. After WWI we emerged with a similar balance between bat and ball that has remained since.

Prior to WWI was a very different game balance wise between the two which makes it much harder to judge.

To be fair, I don't think anyone besides Xix2565 and shortpitched713 are even intimating the earlier era's were ****.

My only argument has been that they were a somewhat different time in conditions and also competition and would probably be best be served to be grouped and rated together.

That's it.

 

[kyear2]

that was literally the crux of the entire discussion

I don't think so tbh.

I think that's what you took from it.

 

[Johan]

I don't think so tbh.

I think that's what you took from it.

I mean that's the whole discussion Shortpitched and Xix started, you agree with that just in the post directly above, lol.

 

[kyear2]

So like, we'd call it even, no?

I'm not sure who we're comparing at this point tbh.