Victor Trumper - why?

[adharcric]

Trumper's record with the bat looks ordinary at first glance: a test average of 39 and a FC average of 45. Apparently, the pitches back then were very tough to bat on? Sure. Even then, Trumper was by no means heads and shoulders ahead of his contemporaries or even close to topping the run charts in his time. He is selected (by default, almost) as an opener for many Aussie all-time sides, yet he only averaged 33 as an opener. Take a closer look and he averages only 33 in England and 28 versus England, the premier opposition of his time. As an opener, these figures drop further. All in all, that doesn't come off as especially impressive.

Clearly, his legend isn't really based upon his record (or is it?). So what is it?

 

[Pratters]

It was his FC record.

I will reproduce a conversation with Archie I had some months back. (I hope Sean (Archie) doesn't mind)

Me:

I was going through Trumper's career a few days back indepth.. We do know he had a great tour of England in 1902 including a great first class season there as well as that century before lunch. However, if we look at his over all test record in England, it reads as follows:

In England - 20 34 3 863 135* 104 73 27.83 2 3 2

It was an era which was dominated by the ball but would that still not be a low average for some one whom every one from that era or there about consider the best before Bradman? I am sure you can explain how this is average is not bad from Trumper considering the above as well which I would like to understand.

Also, I was surprised that I found no research on Trumper in England on the net despite the 27.84 average when I searched a lot. Being Trumper, surely it would have have been analysed and found on the net I thought.

Sean (Archie):

I just had a quick look in a book I have, and it has his ave for 1902 as 30.88, 2nd only to Clem Hill with 36.86.

This was also the days when County cricket was the N0. 1 comp in the world, and in a very wet summer Trumper scored 11 hundreds during the tour a record. His highest score was only 126 (I think) this was because Trumper believed in throwing his wicket away after making 100, unless it was important that he batted on.

During that 100 before lunch, the England captain Archie MacLaren tried to keep Trumper quiet until lunch (he knew the pitch would be much worse with the sun on it) he failed and later said " I tried but Victor kept hitting them out of the ground. I couldn't very well have had a fielder there, now could I?'
I think in those days it was only 5 for hits over the fence, to get a 6 you had to hit it right out of the ground.

The thing about Trumper seems to be the way he batted rather then how many he scored. All of those who played with and against Trumper would not entertain that anyone could bat more naturally or with more skill then Victor. Even when Bradman came along they still believed Trumper to be the best.

Cardus put it best when he compared Trumper to an Eagle and Bradman to a modern jet. 'there is no doubt which is them more efficient, but which would you rather watch?' (not an exact quote).

I hope that helps mate.

 

[Swervy]

Trumper's record with the bat looks ordinary at first glance: a test average of 39 and a FC average of 45. Apparently, the pitches back then were very tough to bat on? Sure. Even then, Trumper was by no means heads and shoulders ahead of his contemporaries or even close to topping the run charts in his time. He is selected (by default, almost) as an opener for many Aussie all-time sides, yet he only averaged 33 as an opener. Take a closer look and he averages only 33 in England and 28 versus England, the premier opposition of his time. As an opener, these figures drop further. All in all, that doesn't come off as especially impressive.

Clearly, his legend isn't really based upon his record (or is it?). So what is it?

there is more to cricket than figures???? might be a reason

 

[silentstriker]

there is more to cricket than figures???? might be a reason

In the end, its about scoring runs and taking wickets TBH.

 

[adharcric]

there is more to cricket than figures???? might be a reason

Not a convincing argument. Try again.

In the end, its about scoring runs and taking wickets TBH.

Yep. At some point, you start overglorifying cricketers and forget what the game is all about - scoring runs and taking wickets.

 

[Swervy]

Not a convincing argument. Try again.


Yep. At some point, you start overglorifying cricketers and forget what the game is all about - scoring runs and taking wickets.

I think, therefore, you are following the wrong sport, because there is something more to the game of cricket than mere scoring runs and taking wickets. There is room for the non-measurables as well. Its about how you feel watching a player, its how they scored runs and took wickets, its how they deal with different pressures within the game etc etc.

If you don't appreciate those types of things, then I think you are missing out on the essence of the game itself, and I fear that it is maybe you who has forgotten what the game is about.

Trumper was a great player because he made an impression on those who saw him. He also had a great repuation as a bad wicket batsman. Several of his contempories called him the greatest batsman of his day. I guess those opinions are not valid, because his average is not as high as some would like!!!!??????

 

[silentstriker]

I think, therefore, you are following the wrong sport, because there is something more to the game of cricket than mere scoring runs and taking wickets. There is room for the non-measurables as well. Its about how you feel watching a player, its how they scored runs and took wickets, its how they deal with different pressures within the game etc etc.
If you don't appreciate those types of things, then I think you are missing out on the essence of the game itself, and I fear that it is maybe you who has forgotten what the game is about.

Now wait a minute. I like watching Bond, Flintoff and Stuart Clark...I appreciate their play but that doesn't mean I think they are better than Malcolm Marshall or Glenn McGrath. There is a difference between your favorite cricketer, and the best cricketer.

 

[Swervy]

Now wait a minute. I like watching Bond, Flintoff and Stuart Clark...I appreciate their play but that doesn't mean I think they are better than Malcolm Marshall or Glenn McGrath. There is a difference between your favorite cricketer, and the best cricketer.

In both deciding who is your fave and who is best, you are basing it on your own opinion. It is not an absolute fact that Glenn McGrath was a better bowler than say Freddie Flintoff. The way we view a player is all based on what values in the game we take as being important, and so it is a purely subjective thing. We use statistics to aid us to make a desicion on a player.

In someways, Richards arguement regarding Hussain and Hayden could have some validity, although based on the values that are commonly held by pretty much everyone, Richard didnt have a leg to stand on. However, based on Richards values, and what he sees as important in a player, Hussain wasa better batsman than Hayden.

Now, no-one here saw Trumper play. I am willing to trust the testimonies of several top class players of the time however. Despite what the stats might suggest, I will go with what the people in the know said about him. There may be some bias in there opinions on him, but it doesnt really matter. If he had an effect on great players such as for example Archie MacClaren or who ever, then the fella must have been some player.

This is what Wisden said of him:

Victor Trumper died at Sydney on June 28, 1915. Of all the great Australian batsmen Victor Trumper was by general consent the best and most brilliant. No one else among the famous group, from Charles Bannerman - thirty-nine years ago - to Bardsley and Macartney at the present time, had quite such remarkable powers. To say this involves no depreciation of Clem Hill, Noble, or the late WL Murdoch. Trumper at the zenith of his fame challenged comparison with Ranjitsinhji. He was great under all conditions of weather and ground. He could play quite an orthodox game when he wished to, but it was his ability to make big scores when orthodox methods were unavailing that lifted him above his fellows.

Now you can take on board what that says, or you can ignore it and just look at his average!!! You choose the latter, and you are missing out on a lot of insight

 

[silentstriker]

No one says to 'just' look at average, but it is an important criteria. I am perfectly willing to listen to experts when comparing players of a similar stature, but if player x averaged 15 more runs in the same era as player y against similar competition, people are going to have a hard time convincing me that the one who averages lower is better.

 

[Swervy]

No one says to 'just' look at average, but it is an important criteria. I am perfectly willing to listen to experts when comparing players of a similar stature, but if player x averaged 15 more runs in the same era as player y against similar competition, people are going to have a hard time convincing me that the one who averages lower is better.

But in this case Trumper averaged 7th highest of all players in the first decade of the 20th century. Is that not an indication of his play?

 

[Richard]

No one says to 'just' look at average, but it is an important criteria. I am perfectly willing to listen to experts when comparing players of a similar stature, but if player x averaged 15 more runs in the same era as player y against similar competition, people are going to have a hard time convincing me that the one who averages lower is better.

It's most important to bear in mind - and something Sean (archie) touched on - that people, and more than ever in that time, sometimes placed style above substance, and were impulsive in their judgement on a short time. Trumper, clearly, was brilliant beyond the bounds most could ever dream of in 1902. Perhaps, for some, that year clouded their judgement.

It's fascinating, too, to go back to the Sobers thing for a minute - I saw a clip which made the eyes boggle earlier today (sure anyone else who watched the Sky coverage saw it too), of Sobers bowling at Boycott and achieving an inswinger the like of which I've never seen anything remotely like. Even Waqar Younis could not possibly have bowled this. Now, that made Sobers special. But if he bowled those sorts of balls that often, his bowling record would have been better than it was, no two ways about that. However, the fact that he could bowl such balls and most could not might well move some to consider him a bowler beyond the level of most, which, had he been, his bowling-average would have been lower.

It's exactly the same as the Lillee argument too. Some people allow style and substance to mix too much when judging a player.

 

[Richard]

But in this case Trumper averaged 7th highest of all players in the first decade of the 20th century. Is that not an indication of his play?

It shows he was a superb player - absolutely no-one doubts that.

The point is, most hold him to be the best of that group, with no backward glance, something that could quite possibly be false.

 

[JBH001]

I think, therefore, you are following the wrong sport, because there is something more to the game of cricket than mere scoring runs and taking wickets. There is room for the non-measurables as well. Its about how you feel watching a player, its how they scored runs and took wickets, its how they deal with different pressures within the game etc etc.

If you don't appreciate those types of things, then I think you are missing out on the essence of the game itself, and I fear that it is maybe you who has forgotten what the game is about.

Completely agree, Swervy. Its not all about statistics.

 

[JBMAC]

Completely agree, Swervy. Its not all about statistics.

AND it NEVER will be!

 

[adharcric]

I think, therefore, you are following the wrong sport, because there is something more to the game of cricket than mere scoring runs and taking wickets. There is room for the non-measurables as well. Its about how you feel watching a player, its how they scored runs and took wickets, its how they deal with different pressures within the game etc etc.

If you don't appreciate those types of things, then I think you are missing out on the essence of the game itself, and I fear that it is maybe you who has forgotten what the game is about.

Trumper was a great player because he made an impression on those who saw him. He also had a great repuation as a bad wicket batsman. Several of his contempories called him the greatest batsman of his day. I guess those opinions are not valid, because his average is not as high as some would like!!!!??????

I appreciate all of these things. Cricket, more than being a sport, is a form of entertainment. Wasim was more entertaining than McGrath for many cricket fans - that does not make him better. SS covered it, actually.

 

[adharcric]

In both deciding who is your fave and who is best, you are basing it on your own opinion. It is not an absolute fact that Glenn McGrath was a better bowler than say Freddie Flintoff. The way we view a player is all based on what values in the game we take as being important, and so it is a purely subjective thing. We use statistics to aid us to make a desicion on a player.

Actually, you can make an objective analysis. McGrath > Flintoff is pretty close to being a fact. Flintoff may be heroic or inspirational but McGrath has been the more accomplished, superior bowler overall.

Now, no-one here saw Trumper play. I am willing to trust the testimonies of several top class players of the time however. Despite what the stats might suggest, I will go with what the people in the know said about him. There may be some bias in there opinions on him, but it doesnt really matter. If he had an effect on great players such as for example Archie MacClaren or who ever, then the fella must have been some player.

Uhh what? Bias doesn't matter? You can ask fans in Pakistan and they might just tell you Yousuf is the greatest batsman in the world - that doesn't mean that he is the greatest in his own way, that only means that those fans are delusional and perhaps Yousuf is an heroic figure for them.

 

[adharcric]

But in this case Trumper averaged 7th highest of all players in the first decade of the 20th century. Is that not an indication of his play?

IIRC, England and Australia were the main teams back then. Assuming the same bunch played throughout the decade, that's roughly twelve specialist batsmen. You can account for shorter careers and Trumper's average still does not look very impressive. 7th best among two batting lineups is not that great tbh.

 

[adharcric]

It's exactly the same as the Lillee argument too. Some people allow style and substance to mix too much when judging a player.

Except Lillee clearly had more than enough substance to qualify as an all-time great. Still not convinced about Trumper's claim.

 

[adharcric]

I will reproduce a conversation with Archie I had some months back. (I hope Sean (Archie) doesn't mind) ...

Sean (Archie):

I just had a quick look in a book I have, and it has his ave for 1902 as 30.88, 2nd only to Clem Hill with 36.86.

One year? Many great players have had a great year. What happened in the rest of the decade?

This was also the days when County cricket was the N0. 1 comp in the world, and in a very wet summer Trumper scored 11 hundreds during the tour a record. His highest score was only 126 (I think) this was because Trumper believed in throwing his wicket away after making 100, unless it was important that he batted on.

Fair enough. That is very convincing but I doubt the "throwing his wicket after making 100" claim. Did he do that in test cricket as well?

The thing about Trumper seems to be the way he batted rather then how many he scored. All of those who played with and against Trumper would not entertain that anyone could bat more naturally or with more skill then Victor. Even when Bradman came along they still believed Trumper to be the best.

Cardus put it best when he compared Trumper to an Eagle and Bradman to a modern jet. 'there is no doubt which is them more efficient, but which would you rather watch?' (not an exact quote).

Some of those things could be said about someone like Afridi today, right?

Mind you, I still believe that Trumper is an all-time great. He falls into my Aussie all-time XI but I am questioning why he is considered an all-time great. Just playing devil's advocate and nobody has explained why his average is not higher yet.

 

[archie mac]

Except Lillee clearly had more than enough substance to qualify as an all-time great. Still not convinced about Trumper's claim.

I will say I don't put too much stock in stats, I would rather watch Mark Waugh or David Gower, than Steve Waugh and Jaques Kallis, and could not care if the side with the latter two won every game. That is what makes cricket the best of all games.

And if all people care about is the result and not the beauty they are missing out on Cricket