Jump to content

ICF All Time Test XI : Openers


ICF All Time Test XI : Openers  

  1. 1.



Recommended Posts

I can always trust you to ignore the main point and come up with a (supposedly) smart jibe.
I've already said that if you believe that the standard of test cricket today is of higher quality than it was 20-30 years back when more older players were playing the game, that's fine. As per my viewing experience test cricket has never been of worse quality and is also the most youthful I've seen it to be. As for the jibes, I am not the one who brought in lunatic arguments regarding Darwin and evolution when discussing events 20-30 years apart. But if you do believe that the standard of test cricket is of a much higher quality than 20-30 years back as evidenced by the number of 40+ players, why should you have a problem believing Tamim to be greater than Gavaskar?
Link to comment

Gavva and after a lot of thought Hutton. Other contenders were Hobbs and Barry Richards. Hobbs was possibly the best player during his era...he may have looked ugly but he played great on sticky dogs...he was second only to the great West Indian George Headley when it came to batting on wet wickets. Some would say he was better. But I just felt Hutton played better quality of bowlers - Miller and Lindwall, Sonny and Alf, etc and played on varied surfaces. I also wanted a stroke maker to complement Gavva. Barry Richards, Viru, Hayden, and Greenidge came to mind. Viru and Hayden were immediately discarded. Greenidge was thought thru and discarded. Barry Richards by all accounts was a devastating batsman. In some ways like Viv Richards. However the reason I did not choose him was because he hardly played any Test cricket. Just 4 Tests is not good enough to make it to an All Time Test XI no matter how good you were in a zillion first class games. Test cricket is played on three categories of surfaces, and generally the level of Test cricket (among top teams) is a few notches higher than the best first class competition around. So even though Richards played extensively in Aus and Eng, the fact that he didn't play Eng or WI or Ind or Pak in Tests kinda puts him behind the other luminaries in the list. Gavaskar to face and Hutton to stay alert at the other end

Link to comment
I've already said that if you believe that the standard of test cricket today is of higher quality than it was 20-30 years back when more older players were playing the game, that's fine. As per my viewing experience test cricket has never been of worse quality and is also the most youthful I've seen it to be. As for the jibes, I am not the one who brought in lunatic arguments regarding Darwin and evolution when discussing events 20-30 years apart. But if you do believe that the standard of test cricket is of a much higher quality than 20-30 years back as evidenced by the number of 40+ players, why should you have a problem believing Tamim to be greater than Gavaskar?
Was it me who started talking about species mutation? Anyways, I don't think the point I am trying to make does need a long-winded argument. For that matter it doesn't even need an argument. My simple question is, why don't we see as many oldies in international cricket nowadays as we they were in 20's and 30's? and my simple answer is, nowadays fitness standards required for international cricket are much-much higher than what they were in ameteurish era of 20's and 30's. It's almost impossible to meet those standards by the time players reach around 40. Please enlighten if you have any other explanation available.
Link to comment
Was it me who started talking about species mutation? Anyways, I don't think the point I am trying to make does need a long-winded argument. For that matter it doesn't even need an argument. My simple question is, why don't we see as many oldies in international cricket nowadays as we they were in 20's and 30's? and my simple answer is, nowadays fitness standards required for international cricket are much-much higher than what they were in ameteurish era of 20's and 30's. It's almost impossible to meet those standards by the time players reach around 40. Please enlighten if you have any other explanation available.
And pray - How did you make the conclusion that the cricketers in the 20s, 30s wouldn't be as professionally "fit" today? Even if you did make it - Did you take into account myriad factors like difference in medical facilities and high wages in the modern game?
Link to comment
My simple question is, why don't we see as many oldies in international cricket nowadays as we they were in 20's and 30's?
There was not much money in cricket decades ago, so a cricketer who was not intrinsically wealthy was not usually well financially settled at the age of 35 and had to continue to play for as long as possible. Others who did not play for money ( like lords or princes) continued to play past their 40s for the playing pleasure. It was also a thing of prestige then. Today, international players make so much money that they are amongst the richest people in their nation by the time they reach 35. There is no compulsion to play for monetary reasons. Very few push on or need to push on after 40. Again, there is bound to be more pressure these days from fans. We already hear a lot of demands asking the Indian seniors to retire. Do you think they will be allowed to play five or six years from now, even if they want to?
Link to comment
his conclusively proves that it is very difficult to succeed once you are beyond 40 in the modern era. .
I would say 38.. hence midget should be chucked out. Averaging 37 since he turned 38 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?agemin1=38;ageval1=age;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;spanmax1=31+Dec+2012;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting
Link to comment
Was it me who started talking about species mutation?
What do you want to talk about when you refer to Darwin? Atomic Physics?
Please enlighten if you have any other explanation available.
You can read that thread in more detail - I am pretty sure everything has been answered there already. The crux is whether you believe that the standard of test cricket in the 70s and 80s was much inferior to today, which is a direct implication and extension of your argument about number of 40+ people playing the sport in 20s and 30s versus today.
Link to comment
What do you want to talk about when you refer to Darwin? Atomic Physics? You can read that thread in more detail - I am pretty sure everything has been answered there already. The crux is whether you believe that the standard of test cricket in the 70s and 80s was much inferior to today, which is a direct implication and extension of your argument about number of 40+ people playing the sport in 20s and 30s versus today.
My question was as simple as possible. If you have any other explaination available, please enlighten. Period.
Link to comment
My question was as simple as possible. If you have any other explaination available' date=' please enlighten. Period.[/quote'] You proposed a model that by comparing the number of 40+ people playing cricket today with the number in the 20s we can ascertain the quality of cricket prevalent at those times. I tested your model on the data from the 70s and found your model to be a big fail.
Link to comment
So did you find the answer to my question on the specific technical details that are responsible for making Arthur Mold look like a absolute trundler when he is rated as a phasht baller by the people you swear by ... :woot: PS: Incoming a lot of silence or some peurile bakwas. :laugh:
And which "people" are those which I "swear by". Plus I have no idea what Arthur Mold has to do with the topic at hand :confused: You are bound to get a lot of silence coz I am not monitoring the forum 24/7 looking for posts which take a shot at Tendulkar :giggle: Other reason is that arguing with you is similar to "bhains ke aage been bajana". Your posts remind me of this dialogue from a hindi movie "jab gaaye poonch uthayegi to gaana nahin gayegi, gobar hi karegi". Yup we get it - Bradman's average of 99.94 and his FC average of 95 was against trundlers. He was a pretty poor batsman who would struggle to out-perform Chris Martin and likes of Jayawardenes, Younus Khans, Tendulkars and Samaraweeras are light years ahead. But I still can't figure out if Bradman could average 95 in FC cricket and nearly 100 in Tests how could the modern day starslike Tendulkar can't even average 70 in FC cricket :hmmm: Are you saying our domestic bowlers are way better than the Test bowlers of that time?
Link to comment
And which "people" are those which I "swear by". Plus I have no idea what Arthur Mold has to do with the topic at hand :confused: You are bound to get a lot of silence coz I am not monitoring the forum 24/7 looking for posts which take a shot at Tendulkar :giggle: Other reason is that arguing with you is similar to "bhains ke aage been bajana". Your posts remind me of this dialogue from a hindi movie "jab gaaye poonch uthayegi to gaana nahin gayegi, gobar hi karegi". Yup we get it - Bradman's average of 99.94 and his FC average of 95 was against trundlers. He was a pretty poor batsman who would struggle to out-perform Chris Martin and likes of Jayawardenes, Younus Khans, Tendulkars and Samaraweeras are light years ahead. But I still can't figure out if Bradman could average 95 in FC cricket and nearly 100 in Tests how could the modern day starslike Tendulkar can't even average 70 in FC cricket :hmmm: Are you saying our domestic bowlers are way better than the Test bowlers of that time?
how much FC cricket did Sachin play anyway? Didnt he debut in international cricket when he was 17?
Link to comment
You proposed a model that by comparing the number of 40+ people playing cricket today with the number in the 20s we can ascertain the quality of cricket prevalent at those times. I tested your model on the data from the 70s and found your model to be a big fail.
You are trying to mislead forum by giving wrong numbers and thinking nobody is going to double check those. I had presented data from 15 years (in 20's and 30's) and in these 15 years there were 45 players who played international cricket beyond 40. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?agemin1=40;ageval1=age;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmax2=31+Dec+1936;spanmin2=01+Jan+1921;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting To make comparison fair, you should have used any other duration of 15 years and found out number of players who played cricket in their 40's. I don't know which time gap you used to come up with this number of 20, which you kept repeating. Number of such players for the duration of 15 years, starting from 1 Jan 1970 is just 13. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?agemin1=40;ageval1=age;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmax2=31+Dec+1985;spanmin2=01+Jan+1970;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting And as Bossbhai mentioned none of them became phenomenally successful as did Hobbs. So your numbers from 70's don't prove anything. In between you keep repeating cricket in 70's, number of such players in 70's was just 9. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?agemin1=40;ageval1=age;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmax2=31+Dec+1979;spanmin2=01+Jan+1970;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...