ICF All Time Test XI : Openers

[Raghav_12]

Well the thing about sports, or anything in life for that matter, is that "imagination" doesn't count for much and only the actual results count. As I said earlier if it was so easy to average 100 in FC it would have been done by now already. As regards to the other point of Rahane & Rohit averaging in 60s and what Tendulkar could have done, what would have people said 5 years back if someone had said that India would win 2 World Cups and Gambhir & Dhoni would star in them (with Gambhir top scoring in both finals) even though Tendulkar would be around. Morale of the story being that names don't count for much and it's the performance and actual results which count. If everything would be left to imagination I am sure Ramprakash and Hick would have left Bradman far behind.

I totally agree with your points. That's why I say that if Bradman could average 99 when standard of cricket was piss poor doesn't mean that he would have averaged better than others when standards of cricket are much better. It's all imagination.

[Crookbond]

I totally agree with your points. That's why I say that if Bradman could average 99 when standard of cricket was piss poor doesn't mean that he would have averaged better than others when standards of cricket are much better. It's all imagination.

Pretty much true. The converse is also true, IMO.

[Marut]

When even a Batsman like Rahane can average around 70 and Rohit can average 63 at FC level' date=' imagine what average likes of SRT could have achieved if he had only played FC.[/quote'] SRT's problem is his inability to play very big innings. That is why he would never have averaged 100. Averaging hundred requires the ability to score 200s and 300s fluently and not score 100s and get out.

[Old guy]

SRT's problem is his inability to play very big innings. That is why he would never have averaged 100. Averaging hundred requires the ability to score 200s and 300s fluently and not score 100s and get out.

i think he averaged more then rahane :hmmm:

[Marut]

When even a Batsman like Rahane can average around 70 and Rohit can average 63 at FC level' date=' imagine what average likes of SRT could have achieved if he had only played FC.[/quote'] Rahane and Rohit have a long way to go to claim that their career average is 70.

[Marut]

i think he averaged more then rahane :hmmm:

No.

[Old guy]

No.

are u even including test matches ?

[thongale]

ohh you know exactly why but here lets try this one more time Your claim is that video footage can be misleading which you use as an explanation to imply that older cricketers were just as good as modern day cricketers based on written accounts of past. You also feel that the same will happen to current day cricketers when technology improves. So why don't you tell me the technical reason as to why Mold - who was the leading fast bowler of that time - looks like a trundler here at about 2:00 :

I will ignore the usual potshots for now.

They typical hypocritical example comes out. Scenario is tha,t we can compare modern video to actual action today, and we know that they are quite close, but still doesn't give the correct picture. But from cricketing point of view, stats combined with these video clips gives a very good account of a player. The hypocritical thing is the same is extrapolated for the past as well. People who litter this place with vintage low quality videos never have witnessed the actual action and how representative is the video clips are. Until they can prove that the vintage video clips are as REPRESNTATIVE as modern video clips of actual action, littering the forum with vintage clips will only make those posters laughing stocks in knowledgeable persons eyes.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thongale]

You want proof ... well lets see : 1. The run-up 2. The guy's size and shape 3. The bowling action and follow thru. 4. Reaction times of the batsman 5. The speeds of the 2 trains moving in the back ground. They look realistic. So lets start with the run-up . Pls tell us how the video chopped off a sizeable chunk of his run-up and reduced it to look like the run-up of a spinner. AFAIK videos are incapable of such a thing but maybe you do so here is your chance to enlighten us since you claim to be the "knowledgeable" one.

Buahaha! The basic problem is that you fail to understand what my point is, and you are conviniety missing point 0, which is how representative is the footage of actual action. Unless the footage is not representative of the actual action none of your points 1-5 could be assessed with any certainity. So lets begin with point zero. Prove me that the action captured on film is representative of the actual action to the same degree as todays. Unless you prove this there's no way forward, because we are forming our opinion looking at something totally different to actual action. Without knowing this the ball speeds, bats speeds, the techniques all will look skewed from the actual, as well as field placing due to different elevations of the cameras.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thongale]

What do you mean by "representative footage of Actual Action" ? Are you suggesting that this film is doctored ?

No, not even a hint of it. Ok I'll xplain. In today's cricket we know that the footage is recorded using a set of predefined parameters about placement of cameras, frame rates, type of cameras to use etc. Because of this we know most of the footage today taken are filmed under similar conditions. Secondly, we have all seen Dravid's on drive BOTH with our own eyes as well as in the TV, and we know both look similar and TV footage is infact representative of Dravid's actual on drive. And we have seen enough of Dravid's same on drives both by eyes as well as on TV. Since we have this knowledge, we can actually comment on Dravid's on drive on video footage in a match we have not seen at a particular ground and comment on what ever deficiencies he showed from earlier instances. The game gets ugly when we come to vintage footage. Firstly the technology and camera angles and other technicalities are different. Secondly we have not seen how Jack Hobbs play the same cut with our own eyes as well as on footage to get an idea how correctly footage shows the actual event. Now commenting about Jack Hobbs' cut by ONLY seeing the video footage becomes an erraneous excercise. To comment we should have seen both

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

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

The exact numbers were taken from a different context and a different thread, but the broad point remains. It is a fact that there were significantly more 40+ players in the 70s than today and it is also a fact that the standard of cricket was higher in the 70s than today. These two facts are not compatible according to your model, thus your model remains a big fail.

[thongale]

This is answered by point no.5 . The 2 moving trains (at 2 diff speeds) look realistic. We also know how trains move and can accept that as a reasonable representation of a actual train. Hence we can safely rely on the film for what it is portraying elsewhere. Besides that there are the 4 other points I mentioned. No matter how technically deficient the film is ( as you are trying to make it out to be ) it is incapable of messing up the runup or the size of the man or the followup to such an extent that a Allan Donald'esque fast bowler is reduced to look like a comical bowler.

No it doesn't. Train may be moving realistically but that will happen even if you slow down it by 25% or speed up by 25%. It only shows that the clip has no missing frames. The train may have been moving at 5mph or 25mph, and it is any bodies guess. By looking at the footage there is no way you could accurately measure trains speed. To elaborate on my point, can you measure the length and height of a carriage coach of that train from the video? Answer is a resounding "no" if you have not experienced the actual train. Having measurements off various parameters using camera angles is a failed exercise. And the bolded part, missing grames and low frame rates can exactly do that. Get Allan Donald bowling off a 10fps film (you can downgrade it easily with software - which I am not proficient with) and start commenting it. Unless you film modern players with same technology and compare footage, we cannot comment on vintage video clips with much certainty.

[Marut]

No it doesn't. Train may be moving realistically but that will happen even if you slow down it by 25% or speed up by 25%. It only shows that the clip has no missing frames. The train may have been moving at 5mph or 25mph, and it is any bodies guess. By looking at the footage there is no way you could accurately measure trains speed. To elaborate on my point, can you measure the length and height of a carriage coach of that train from the video? Answer is a resounding "no" if you have not experienced the actual train. Having measurements off various parameters using camera angles is a failed exercise. And the bolded part, missing grames and low frame rates can exactly do that. Get Allan Donald bowling off a 10fps film (you can downgrade it easily with software - which I am not proficient with) and start commenting it. Unless you film modern players with same technology and compare footage, we cannot comment on vintage video clips with much certainty.

In many old videos, the way players and umpires walk out to the middle and return back to the pavilion looked quite odd to me - the "walk" does not look natural and some times too quick or too lazy. The cameras then were cranked by the hand and were not automatic, and suffered from various limitations. They show relative speeds ( like two trains moving against each other) quite ok because the framwork for comparison comes from within the video, but not the absolute speeds because they fail to match the live images seen by the eye.

[Crookbond]

[Trichromatic]

i think he averaged more then rahane :hmmm:

Both average 65.

[Old guy]

Both average 65.

thnx for info..:two_thumbs_up:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --