Not so great cricket from late 50s

[bunny]

Err no. Only a certain section of Indian fans have gone this retarded route. Not sure what has triggered it but such "fans" are almost always in the SRT camp. For example, I am yet to see an Indian fan dig up a video like up above and claim - Huh why is Bill Lawry considered to be a great opener? Sunny Gavaskar was miles ahead". Or a Kapil fan digging up a Ray Lindwall clip and going "Jeez is this the great Aussie fast bowler? Kapil was on a different level altogether". Why are such retards who make these comparisons also happen to be a SRT bhakt? Any co-relation there? Perhaps driven by a causality (Don Bradman)? Of course my initial point very much remains, that is non-Indians seldom do what certain sections of Indian fans do routinely. Diss old greats to perch up the midget. That doesnt qualify. Me no get 20/20. :headshake:

My intention was simply to raise doubts over the quality of cricket in the 50s (and before). I am not an SRT fan, let alone a bhakt. The reason I posted this was due to the glorification of Sydney Barnes (by Geoff Boycott of all people). Go over Barnes' cricinfo bio, you will get the drift. There's a difference between terming someone an all time great because of stats, and believing that they possessed some supernatural skills.

[Lurker]

My intention was simply to raise doubts over the quality of cricket in the 50s (and before). I am not an SRT fan' date=' let alone a bhakt. The reason I posted this was due to the glorification of Sydney Barnes (by Geoff Boycott of all people). Go over Barnes' cricinfo bio, you will get the drift. There's a difference between terming someone an all time great because of stats, and believing that they possessed some supernatural skills.[/quote'] First up, even though you arent a SRT bhakt as you say, your intentions of putting the clip was same...deriding past greats. Sydney Barnes is widely claimed as one of the greatest bowlers, if not THE greatest bowler. Boycott picked him up, quite rightly so, and it is completely upto him. Richie Benaud picked Sydney Barnes in his greatest XI. It is not boycott or benaud's fault that you, or folks from your generation dont know enough Barnes and go right to CricInfo. Most folks of my generation know and respect Syd Barnes as an all time great bowler. No reason to question folks you dont know much about. xxx

[Ultimate_Game]

First up, even though you arent a SRT bhakt as you say, your intentions of putting the clip was same...deriding past greats. Sydney Barnes is widely claimed as one of the greatest bowlers, if not THE greatest bowler. Boycott picked him up, quite rightly so, and it is completely upto him. Richie Benaud picked Sydney Barnes in his greatest XI. It is not boycott or benaud's fault that you, or folks from your generation dont know enough Barnes and go right to CricInfo. Most folks of my generation know and respect Syd Barnes as an all time great bowler. No reason to question folks you dont know much about. xxx

How in hell did you know Sydney Barnes :omg: Exactly how old are you? :hmmm:

[Old guy]

How in hell did you know Sydney Barnes :omg: Exactly how old are you? :hmmm:

+1

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[bunny]

First up, even though you arent a SRT bhakt as you say, your intentions of putting the clip was same...deriding past greats. Sydney Barnes is widely claimed as one of the greatest bowlers, if not THE greatest bowler. Boycott picked him up, quite rightly so, and it is completely upto him. Richie Benaud picked Sydney Barnes in his greatest XI. It is not boycott or benaud's fault that you, or folks from your generation dont know enough Barnes and go right to CricInfo. Most folks of my generation know and respect Syd Barnes as an all time great bowler. No reason to question folks you dont know much about. xxx

What's this got to do with generation stuff? I have been watching cricket for a really long time. Possibly you have watched much more. Would really appreciate if you can share your opinions on Barnes. In any case, this is what I got: Barnes is a fast bowler. Bradman says Bill O'Reilly is better because he did whatever Barnes could but also bowls the googly. So, Barnes seems to be bowling fastish leg cutters. He is not really a fast bowler. Another description says he used to bowl magic balls. Balls that swing into the batsman, and then cut away. And that he achieved the cut using his fingers rather than the seam. This seems like a hard skill to master. Why has that skill not been transferred to anybody else? I say he might have bowled trick balls (let's give him the benefit of the doubt). But, he would have been sorted out within a year in modern international cricket.

[Old guy]

What's this got to do with generation stuff? I have been watching cricket for a really long time. Possibly you have watched much more. Would really appreciate if you can share your opinions on Barnes. In any case, this is what I got: Barnes is a fast bowler. Bradman says Bill O'Reilly is better because he did whatever Barnes could but also bowls the googly. So, Barnes seems to be bowling fastish leg cutters. He is not really a fast bowler. Another description says he used to bowl magic balls. Balls that swing into the batsman, and then cut away. And that he achieved the cut using his fingers rather than the seam. This seems like a hard skill to master. Why has that skill not been transferred to anybody else? I say he might have bowled trick balls (let's give him the benefit of the doubt). But, he would have been sorted out within a year in modern international cricket.

agree and steyn does wht this guy does with swing :P

[bunny]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d3T6fYSv2o]Arthur Mold Bowling to A.N. Hornby (1901) - YouTube[/ame] Look at this video. And now go to cricinfo's description of Mold. http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/17059.html This guy was supposedly one of the fastest bowlers of his time. In that era, people were just mastering how to bowl overarm with pace, and learn various kinds of cut(spin), and possibly swing. I cant believe that a greatest bowler of all time like Barnes could have played during that time. (By greatest, I mean the one with the greatest skills/execution, who in their prime would destroy any batting lineup of any era without the need to relearn everything). And I say this with the understanding that 50 years down the line there could turn up bowlers and batsmen who are decidedly better than greats like Marshall and Richards. Probably the definition of greatest is loaded. I am sure Barnes was a great of his time. He is also one of the greatest in the sense that he achieved a lot more than his peers. He could also have been great because he invented/mastered new stuff. But to believe that he can just turn up in the modern era, and cause havoc is bs.

[Old guy]

Look at this video. And now go to cricinfo's description of Mold. http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/17059.html This guy was supposedly one of the fastest bowlers of his time. In that era, people were just mastering how to bowl overarm with pace, and learn various kinds of cut(spin), and possibly swing. I cant believe that a greatest bowler of all time like Barnes could have played during that time. (By greatest, I mean the one with the greatest skills/execution, who in their prime would destroy any batting lineup of any era without the need to relearn everything). And I say this with the understanding that 50 years down the line there could turn up bowlers and batsmen who are decidedly better than greats like Marshall and Richards. Probably the definition of greatest is loaded. I am sure Barnes was a great of his time. He is also one of the greatest in the sense that he achieved a lot more than his peers. He could also have been great because he invented/mastered new stuff. But to believe that he can just turn up in the modern era, and cause havoc is bs.

again no point in comparing :wall: a totally hypothetical situation about guys who we have never seen playing properly dont see how this is anything other then waste of time

[vvvslaxman]

But to believe that he can just turn up in the modern era, and cause havoc is bs.

You cannot possibly prove if you transport Dale steyn to 1920 era he would have succeeded. So just leave everyone to their era and move on. Everything evolves.

[Old guy]

You cannot possibly prove if you transport Dale steyn to 1920 era he would have succeeded. So just leave everyone to their era and move on. Everything evolves.

this.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

lol ... what happened to your "Bradman would average well over 100 if he played today " claim that you used to throw around along with that stupid cantstop smiliey ?

You fell for that. I always like to leave everyone to their own era. It is very hard to say so and so is the greatest of all time.

[bunny]

again no point in comparing :wall: a totally hypothetical situation about guys who we have never seen playing properly dont see how this is anything other then waste of time

Peace :) No more posts on this topic. Btw, this guy robelinda has posted some amazing videos. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSu9CwEvNDY]Malcolm Marshall PART ONE 1988/89 vs Australia 1st test GABBA - YouTube[/ame]

[Old guy]

Peace :) No more posts on this topic. Btw, this guy robelinda has posted some amazing videos.

yes this guy has posted 1500 videos! or i think even more lol :hatsoff: already seen most of them ..even this one :two_thumbs_up:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Old guy]

People will compare as long as there are specimens who think X' date='Y and Z from WWII era were the best cricketers and ridicule current day cricketers.[/quote'] lol..why do people even care about these things is beyond me cricket was different back then.. do u think sachn could ve been a cricketer he is today ,the technique he has today..the shots he plays today if he played in that era? its just impossible to think abt something and then debate on something which hasnt happened no one is gonna win this argument u guys can go on and on lol

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ultimate_Game]

It is if you are brainwashed by propaganda written by Cardus fingleton Wisden etc ... But now that all the video footage has surfaced its becomming very hard to doggedly argue for the sake of arguing isnt it ?

What's hard to argue about Bradman's average of 99.94? What sort of footage has surfaced that allow people to determine Bradman wasn't the best? Also don't think most people have even heard of Cardus and Fingleton let alone reading them. The simple fact is Bradman averaged nearly 100 and nobody has come even close to doing so. Just to put that average in perspective, Ponting averaged 100 in current series against India. Bradman did the same thing his whole career :omg: If this doesn't prove how good he was nothing will. There are lot of things stats paper over and there are no. of ways stats can be manipulated to prove whatever POV one has, but in Bradman's case an average of 99.94 is a stat which simply can't be argued against. If things were so easy for batsmen back then why did Bradman outdistance himself so much from other batsmen of his career? Others didn't even get close to Bradman. In fact if it were so easy to outplay your peers how come Tendulkar hasn't done so in this era where Kallis, Ponting and Lara are still in the same category he is. Another instance of putting things in perspective. Even in the bodyline series where bowlers could bowl as many short balls with as many fielders on the leg and behind square, and without any protective equipment like helmets, chest guards, arm guard etc., Bradman was still able to average near 60 :hatsoff: