Who Is The Best English Batsman of All-Time?

[Marcus]

cant vote for Vaughan, No?

hmm anyway

Vaughan uve gotter be joking, best england player for england ever i will argue about that till the cows come in......I voted denis crompton....but its only the way u see it...vaughan though

 

[badgerhair]

I wouldnt quote a concrete figure to correct a raw 1930s average,as that would be presumptous. All i can say is that if those players played in the post 60s era, they would all undergo a drop in their averages, due to the field being much more competitive on average.

This is going to take far too long to answer properly, but I don't think that this particular argument holds water.

To make the fielding standards argument stick, you have to explain how it is that fielding standards were so vastly higher in the Fifties than they were at any other time, or have been since. If you can't do that, then what other factor was it that caused all the averages to be so much lower in that decade?

I'd also suggest that the fielding standards line doesn't really apply at international level. It's true that the odd amateur appeared, usually as captain, who wasn't good enough to hold down a place as a specialist bowler or batsman, but that didn't make them hopeless fielders. Percy Chapman, amateur captain, was regarded as an electric fielder, and I've seen nothing to doubt that he would be so regarded today as well.

I think there are excellent arguments that averages from different eras mean different things, but fielding standards seem to me to be the least of them.

But when you start examining the various other factors which are likely to be involved, it becomes apparent that trying to translate averages from one era to another is a fool's errand.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

C_C is determined that the speeds of bowlers were far slower back in the more reticent days and he believes that there's substantiating evidence to support that.
I believe that there is substantiating evidence that no-one can know that much about bowling speeds before 1998.

 

[badgerhair]

C_C is determined that the speeds of bowlers were far slower back in the more reticent days and he believes that there's substantiating evidence to support that.
I believe that there is substantiating evidence that no-one can know that much about bowling speeds before 1998.

Don't quite know what the "more reticent" days means, but still.

But it's undoubtedly true that bowlers in the 1930s were generally slower than their equivalents today.

I was discussing this topic some years ago with a friend (the late PF Judge of Middx, Glam and Bengal) who was a quick bowler in the 1930s, and he was very firmly of the opinion that today's bowlers are quicker. He himself had been regarded as pretty nippy, and he reckoned that he was about Gus Fraser's pace. The obvious exception was Larwood, who was known at the time as by far the fastest bowler in the world, whom Peter reckoned to have been about the pace of Malcolm Marshall.

However, in the 1930s, bowling fast was largely a waste of energy. The pitches had mostly been laid 60 or 70 years earlier, had been rolled repeatedly and were now batting paradises, so spinners tended to be the best hope for getting wickets.

So you can drone on for hours about how yesterday's batsmen would have struggled in today's world, but one can equally pour scorn on the idea that today's batsmen would have run riot, since hardly any of today's batsmen are remotely as competent playing spin bowling as the players of 70 years ago routinely were. People like Giles and Vettori would have been the backup spinners at counties, not regular selections for international teams. Your basic minimum spin configuration in Test cricket would have been something like Kumble/Harbhajan.

When you factor in the different lbw Law, the different no-ball Law, the lack of leg-side fielding restrictions, the differently-weighted bats, the smaller balls and stumps in use at the beginning of the decade and the changes in ethics, you end up realising that the 1930s game and the 2000s game don't really have all that much in common.

No doubt some players in each era succeeded because they were especially well-adapted to the circs of the time - Alec Stewart showed such tiny aptitude for playing spin that he would have been regarded as a mediocre keeper who couldn't bat if he'd played back then, probably. On the other hand, some might be much better-adapted to a different era: Herbert Sutcliffe actually relished facing Bodyline when Larwood and Voce bowled at Yorkshire and generally preferred the quick stuff, and would have loved playing against modern speed merchants.

The point is that players can only play under the conditions which prevail in their era, and whether they succeed depends largely on how well they adapt to them. It's really rather insulting to the players of the past to say that they would be unable to adapt to today's conditions while making the blithe assumption that today's players wouldn't struggle if they were transported back in time to a world which to them would be alien.

Of course, if you're dim enough to think that comparing career averages and finding a two-point difference is a useful way of considering relative merit, then there's probably no hope for you anyway.

Averages in the 50s were very low because of the style of play and the pitches, high in the 30s for the same reasons, and medium in the 90s for the same reasons. We are moving towards 30s levels today, again for the same sorts of reasons, coupled with the fact that Australia have led the way to a return to the style of play of a hundred years ago rather than the grindingly tedious depths to which the game plummeted 50 years ago.

Cheers,


Mike

 

[marc71178]

I was discussing this topic some years ago with a friend (the late PF Judge of Middx, Glam and Bengal) who was a quick bowler in the 1930s, and he was very firmly of the opinion that today's bowlers are quicker. He himself had been regarded as pretty nippy, and he reckoned that he was about Gus Fraser's pace. The obvious exception was Larwood, who was known at the time as by far the fastest bowler in the world, whom Peter reckoned to have been about the pace of Malcolm Marshall.

Richard to come on and dispute this as he knows more about the matter in 5, 4, 3...

 

[BoyBrumby]

Richard to come on and dispute this as he knows more about the matter in 5, 4, 3...

I'd hope even he wouldn't have the Max Walls to do that!! Mike's post has to be "up there" as one of the best I've read in a v long time!

Having said that I don't think I'd get very rich trying to 2nd guess young Richard!

 

[Richard]

The basic point here is "it's inconclusive".
No-one can really be all that certain about the matter either way - Mike has suggested some perfectly feasible possibilities here and I'm not going to say "don't be stupid, that's totally unlikely".
I still think batting for most of the '30s was tougher - far tougher - than it is today - but obviously it wasn't anywhere near as difficult as it was before the pitch-making improvements of 1929 or something like that.

 

[Swervy]

I'd hope even he wouldn't have the Max Walls to do that!! Mike's post has to be "up there" as one of the best I've read in a v long time!

Having said that I don't think I'd get very rich trying to 2nd guess young Richard!

indeed a truely splendid posting by Mike

 

[Tom Halsey]

Halsey- the reason i said uncovered pitches were irrelevant is because uncovered pitches came into play only on certain locations( headingley,old trafford,Lahore etc.) where early morning dew was a factor and even in those cases, pitches got a 'mop' before play started. It also came into play under certain conditions ( light rain resulting in sticky wickets).

Yes, and every pitch in England - and considering this is 'English Batsmen' I think it's quite relevent.

 

[marc71178]

The basic point here is "it's inconclusive".
No-one can really be all that certain about the matter either way

How right I was!

Truly unbelievable.

 

[badgerhair]

The basic point here is "it's inconclusive".
No-one can really be all that certain about the matter either way - Mike has suggested some perfectly feasible possibilities here and I'm not going to say "don't be stupid, that's totally unlikely".
I still think batting for most of the '30s was tougher - far tougher - than it is today - but obviously it wasn't anywhere near as difficult as it was before the pitch-making improvements of 1929 or something like that.

I'd reflect that at no time in history has the bat enjoyed greater dominance over the ball than in the 1930s, and that every, and I mean every, autobiography I've read by players who played in the 30s regards that decade as having the easiest batting conditions they can remember.

If it really was tougher in the Thirties, then what on earth went on the Fifties? Were the batsmen who made runs in that decade supermen?

I would be fascinated to know to whom you've talked who was actually around in the 1930s and could speak with some authority, since all the people I know who were there at the time would consider your opinion to be one almost completely contradicted by the facts as they remember them.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

Richard doesn't need to speak to people who've actually been there, because he knows more than they do anyway.

 

[Richard]

If you realised the absurdity of the above statement, you might even laugh at yourself.
Doubt it though.

 

[marc71178]

No, the absurdity is that you actually believe you know more about people than the people themselves do.

 

[Richard]

I'd reflect that at no time in history has the bat enjoyed greater dominance over the ball than in the 1930s, and that every, and I mean every, autobiography I've read by players who played in the 30s regards that decade as having the easiest batting conditions they can remember.

If it really was tougher in the Thirties, then what on earth went on the Fifties? Were the batsmen who made runs in that decade supermen?

I would be fascinated to know to whom you've talked who was actually around in the 1930s and could speak with some authority, since all the people I know who were there at the time would consider your opinion to be one almost completely contradicted by the facts as they remember them.

Batting conditions in the most of the 1930s were good, no denying it.
Nonetheless pitches always had the potential to be turned into a minefield until the 1970s.
Of course the '50s were tougher for batting than the '30s, and yes, those who made runs then were quite special - one of the reasons I rate Weekes and Walcott so especially highly.
Nonetheless from the '70s onwards the potential for rain-affected wickets was removed.
So batting conditions, as a general rule, were eased from that point onwards.

 

[Richard]

No, the absurdity is that you actually believe you know more about people than the people themselves do.

That's not absurd at all if I've seen the player concerned (eg Flintoff) - but that you could think I could form an opinion not based on the teachings of those of the days is.

 

[badgerhair]

Batting conditions in the most of the 1930s were good, no denying it.
Nonetheless pitches always had the potential to be turned into a minefield until the 1970s.
Of course the '50s were tougher for batting than the '30s, and yes, those who made runs then were quite special - one of the reasons I rate Weekes and Walcott so especially highly.
Nonetheless from the '70s onwards the potential for rain-affected wickets was removed.
So batting conditions, as a general rule, were eased from that point onwards.

I think you overestimate the prevalence of rain-affected wickets.

There are a great deal more stories about amazing things happening on wet tracks than there are about mundane afternoons in sunshine as batsmen comfortably accumulated routine runs, it's true, but that doesn't mean they outnumbered the ordinary days on good tracks with good weather.

Unfortunately it's at my other place, but I have a book by Ray Robinson in which his essay on Bradman examines his record on poor and sticky wickets - which was indeed pretty atrocious. It totals 20 matches. (The book was published in 1946, so it doesn't include his post-war career.) 20 matches in his career were so affected, very few of them Tests.

Of course English players would have run into them rather more often, but we're still not talking about a weekly event.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[BoyBrumby]

Unfortunately it's at my other place, but I have a book by Ray Robinson in which his essay on Bradman examines his record on poor and sticky wickets - which was indeed pretty atrocious. It totals 20 matches. (The book was published in 1946, so it doesn't include his post-war career.) 20 matches in his career were so affected, very few of them Tests.

Cheers,

Mike

That is interesting. Is it genuinely atrocious, or merely by comparison to the rest of the great man's career?

 

[marc71178]

That's not absurd at all if I've seen the player concerned (eg Flintoff) - but that you could think I could form an opinion not based on the teachings of those of the days is.

I didn't realise Mike's friend was Flintoff, I could've sworn he was talking about some man from the 30s?

 

[badgerhair]

That is interesting. Is it genuinely atrocious, or merely by comparison to the rest of the great man's career?

By Bradman's own standards. By ordinary standards, he was just bad.

Cheers,

Mike