Is the current indian batting line up the best in the history of cricket?

[Sooda]

The only difference between batsmen now and then IMHO would be strength which comes from improved fitness regimes and know-how. Plus the technology that makes it possible to analyse your own technique and work on chinks- videos etc. When Englands all time team was selected for cricinfo the following article came wiit it... http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/421937.html?comments=all The judges have considered some key factors, such as the challenging unprotected pitches upon which the earlier players played, particularly when the surfaces were almost unusable after rain. More than once Jack Hobbs and his celebrated England opening partner Herbert Sutcliffe batted for hours on bowlers' pitches, using their sensitive wrists and high skills to survive with "touch" batting, playing the dead bat or punishing the poor delivery or withdrawing their lightweight bats from danger. For about 40 years pitches have been protected. Worse still, they are prepared today with the blatant intention of promoting the batsman's welfare in order to maximise gate takings. How we smiled when two Test matches in England this summer finished in three days. Batsmen like Walter Hammond and Len Hutton made some mighty scores, but they were also famous for some of their shorter innings, played in extremely difficult circumstances after rain. It may be frustrating for the moderns to be denied the chance to display that vital extra skill when the ball is leaping and shooting off imperfect surfaces. Perhaps some of them might have developed that special technique to survive. We shall never know. It's their bad luck - and ours. ..... So in terms of skill and ability theres nothing to choose, if anything the batsmen of yesteryear may well have been superior

[Captain of Bhangra]

One of the best, yes. I'd be tempted to say Steve Waugh's Aussies had the best, but then there's always the fact they didn't have to face McGrath, Warne etc...

[nballa]

morris and hassett salil? and kippax? rest of them are all very fine batsman indeed.....my fav was ofcourse harvey.absolute genius.....

:adore:

lol @ these guys acting like they saw them in action.

[graphic23]

lol @ these guys acting like they saw them in action.

Wow, you're an idiot bar none. The thread title says "history of cricket", and according to you history of cricket starts in 1980? What the ****?

[nballa]

Wow' date=' you're an idiot bar none. The thread title says "history of cricket", and according to you history of cricket starts in 1980? What the ****?[/quote'] go back and read my comment again. read for god's sake.

[graphic23]

Not a "few stats and reports". There are detailed statistics, and a large number of books that talk about all the cricketers starting from the first ones to play in 1877 to the latest ones. Prior to the 1970s, there were plenty of cricket writers who had seen most (or all) of the Ashes series played during their times, the games between Aus. and SA, etc. If you are not familiar with it, thats your own problem. But when someone suggests Bradman's Invincibles, if you're going to say "no one watched them", thats just being ignorant and stupid. The teams may have been fewer but the quality of attacks and competition need not be inferior to today(and there are many who argue otherwise!). Having read a book titled, "The masters of cricket" by Fingleton, I can tell you first hand that the reports are detailed, and anyone who has seen enough cricket can appreciate the skills of Dudley Nourse or Victor Trumper. Folks like Mr. Wicket and Lurker have read a lot of literature, and I'd expect them to know what they're talking about. You're denying history because you haven't seen it. Thats the strangest argument I've ever seen.

[rkt.india]

Making comparisons between 2 different eras is completely foolish, i don't get the point to make comparisons between 2 players like Bradman and SRT, Because if u say that SRT is better than Sir Don than you devualuate the person who has scored 29 hundreds, 12 double hundreds, 2 triple 100s in 52 matches, other argument is many people say the field settings, spin bowling quality, quantity of cricket was lesser at that time as compared to now then its a wrong argument, because the conditions were same for everyone and only Don scored that amount of runs, he is miles ahead from the other batsmen in his average, century scoring rate, double hundreds, the speed with which he scored those runs, still maintained his average and 52 tests is not a small amount of tests. Surely SRT has played more cricket, tests, ODIs, T-20s and it is not easy to maintain the fitness level if someone play that amount of cricket. He is as great as Sir Don, but on which terms we can compare him to Sir Don, we can compare players from the same era if we need to. We can read literature to know how cricket was played at that time, what were the conditions, but we cannot really watch it. Making comments that the batting or bowling in this era is better than that time without watching that era is not fair at all and saying that cricket was tough in that era after reading some literature is not any good too. Making assessments only on claims and after reading literature about that time and comparing to the present time, i think is not the right idea. Cricket in that era was more than a sport because of playing bowlers like Harold Larwood, Frank Tyson, Fred Truemen,Ray lindwall, Brian Statham, I don't think was easy at that time because of no security equipments and i don't think it would have been been easy now even with security equipments

[Mr. Wicket]

Oh jesus christ.

[rkt.india]

Oh jesus christ.

:two_thumbs_up: