ICF All Time Test XI : Openers

[Crookbond]

Exactly, I was going write up on this! Yes, say in the next century the cricket playing horizon has expanded and Test cricket is played in over 50 countries then yes comparing today's greats with those in that hypothetical scenario will be impossible and those "future" greats will take centre stage in any "future" all time XIs by the simple fact they have played in those conditions whilst Tendulkar never played on the "Mongolian" pitch conditions. I can't recall any mainstream sport (except Tennis maybe) where playing conditions have such distinctive influence on the challenges a player is expected to face.

A cricket match is heavily dependent on the surface/pitch being played and hence, the imbalance. Anyways, "conditions" includes everything - medical facilities, wages, equipment etc. So, contrary to your statement - Formula 1, Football and every other mainstream sport has had ever changing "conditions". A cricketer name Archie Jackson died of TB at the age of 23, Brazil's performance in football was affected due to dental problems. So, just because there are a set of X problems now don't discard the fact that there were a set of Y problems back then which probably were of the same magnitude and effect in that era.

[phaedrus]

went with Gavaskar and Barry Richards here.

[phaedrus]

Wtf Barry Richards got just 3 votes.

+1

[yoda]

More than half of the Hobbs centuries came when he was past age of 40. More than 40% of his runs came after that age. His average past 40 was significantly better than his average before 40. It's really difficult to take his numbers seriously.

So should Tendulkar's 200* made after the age of the 37 having made debut at 16 then. :winky:

[rkt.india]

Huh? Who is talking about going just by average? You asked about how to distinguish between Hobbs, Sutcliffe, and Hutton based on average and I explained how Hobbs' average was much better given the context of the kind of pitches he played his cricket on. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=01+Jan+1916;spanmin1=01+Jan+1908;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=01+Jan+1931;spanmin1=01+Jan+1919;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate are the batting averages before and after the war during Hobbs' career. Sutcliffe played in the second half and Hutton even later.

Bu shouldn't we also count the kind of bowling.

[Raghav_12]

So should Tendulkar's 200* made after the age of the 37 having made debut at 16 then. :winky:

You make debut at 16 or 26 is irrelevant. Point is that men's physical capabilities wane rapidly after age of 40. You can continue playing after that age, only if players around you are of similar physical abilities. You can not talk of numbers from such era with the numbers of current era. Hobbs having average of 57 or 67 holds little meaning in today's context.

[GautiMaan]

Seeing the videos Rob posted,these guys look very amateurish.Take the Hutton video for example,almost every ball is being bowled on the leg side and he seems to be playing some primitive version of the flick,cant see how these guys can be considered as good as today's players

[yoda]

You make debut at 16 or 26 is irrelevant. Point is that men's physical capabilities wane rapidly after age of 40. You can continue playing after that age' date=' only if players around you are of similar physical abilities. You can not talk of numbers from such era with the numbers of current era. Hobbs having average of 57 or 67 holds little meaning in today's context.[/quote'] I gave you the 37 number to show that age at which you scored means nothing regarding quality of cricket. Ofc you can convince yourself that runs scored at 40 in that era was worthless, whereas that scored at 37 today is all fine. Only thing is, it's an absurd argument with no logic.

[Raghav_12]

What is magical about 40 as opposed to say 37? :winky: I am not talking about eras here, just how some of you guys twist numbers just to suit you. The guy scored majority of his runs after he turned 40, so whatever cricket he played was a joke. Yea right!

If it satiates your nit-picking, you can take 37 as cut-off and you find any player doing much better after age of 37 then what he did before that, then you have to question atheletism apspect of the sport. If you think that a player playing international competitive test cricket until age of 48-49 doesn't put standard of international cricket in poor light, then you ofcourse avoiding the truth. Nowadays even in first class cricket people at such ages are not tolerated. Ask Sunil Joshi etc.

[yoda]

If it satiates your nit-picking, you can take 37 as cut-off and you find any player doing much better after age of 37 then what he did before that, then you have to question atheletism apspect of the sport. If you think that a player playing international competitive test cricket until age of 48-49 doesn't put standard of international cricket in poor light, then you ofcourse avoiding the truth. Nowadays even in first class cricket people at such ages are not tolerated. Ask Sunil Joshi etc.

So, with the advent of IPL and player burn outs, let's say people stop playing by 30, does it make the runs scored at late 30s of today invalid 30 years from now cause by then it would be unheard of for players to keep playing till their late 30s? You see the drift? Don't take events of the past and make them fit your params of the present, you will arrive at illogical conclusions.

[Crookbond]

So, with the advent of IPL and player burn outs, let's say people stop playing by 30, does it make the runs scored at late 30s of today invalid 30 years from now cause by then it would be unheard of for players to keep playing till their late 30s? You see the drift? Don't take events of the past and make them fit your params of the present, you will arrive at illogical conclusions.

Exactly. To be honest, we even don't know these parameters.

[Robelinda]

How many batsmen in the last 30 years have test tons after the age of 40? I can only think of one, Graham Gooch, and what tons they were, masterful batting.

[Raghav_12]

So, with the advent of IPL and player burn outs, let's say people stop playing by 30, does it make the runs scored at late 30s of today invalid 30 years from now cause by then it would be unheard of for players to keep playing till their late 30s? You see the drift? Don't take events of the past and make them fit your params of the present, you will arrive at illogical conclusions.

No matter what IPL does, players will not stop playing most prominent form of cricket at age of 30. Men are at peak of their physical powers around age of 30 and to stop playing cricket in which they are professionaly involved would be stupidity. The only possibility of that happening is when player would start giving very low importance to test cricket and then, I agree with you, it would make no sense to compare those numbers with current numbers where players put their heart and soul behind test cricket.

[Raghav_12]

So, with the advent of IPL and player burn outs, let's say people stop playing by 30, does it make the runs scored at late 30s of today invalid 30 years from now cause by then it would be unheard of for players to keep playing till their late 30s? You see the drift? Don't take events of the past and make them fit your params of the present, you will arrive at illogical conclusions.

These are not parameters of present. This is Sanatan truth that physical capabilities go down as men approach age of 39-40. The only condition in which player could continue much beyond 40 is, when you don't need athletism as an important aspect of sport.

[Marut]

Seeing the videos Rob posted' date='these guys look very amateurish.Take the Hutton video for example,almost every ball is being bowled on the leg side and he seems to be playing some primitive version of the flick,cant see how these guys can be considered as good as today's players[/quote'] Yes, the test cricketers of those days were less skilled than the trundler_bashing IPL heroes of today.

[Robelinda]

Some old footage to watch, not all players back then looked weird and amateur. Make of these what you will, they are all different, and serve to educate. I will concede that the Hutton videos do seem to make him look a little less than stellar. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4saUbc_yPE]Neil Harvey 167 vs England - 2nd test MCG 1958/59 ASHES - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdbCk4hMCg8]Peter May 113 vs Australia- 2nd Test 1958/59 ASHES Melbourne - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_BnIbrK2B4]Bill Lawry 166 vs England - 1st Ashes test - Gabba 1965/66 - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR3MG8oGHsk]Greg Chappell 197* vs World XI - 4th test SCG 1971/72 - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pOI92PFYLw]Ian Chappell 145 vs WORLD XI - 1st test 1971/72 - YouTube[/ame]

[GautiMaan]

Yes' date=' the test cricketers of those days were less skilled than the [b']trundler_bashing IPL heroes of today.

Yep all those bowlers in the past were spewing venom at 160ks. These days we only produce trundlers like Steyn,Malinga,Morkel etc. I just posted my thoughts from what i saw in the footage.Stop quoting someone unless u have a point to make. @Rob:Great work man:two_thumbs_up:

[Ultimate_Game]

I guess people in the future will poke fun at likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Kallis, Ponting etc. the same way since the video footage of this age in 2D will look amateurish to them, and the "modern day" batsmen of the future would look so good while batting when viewed in the hologram technology

[The Outsider]

BTW, any preferences on having separate polls for the number 3 batsman and the middle order(4 & 5) versus having one poll for all three?

[Old guy]

BTW' date=' any preferences on having separate polls for the number 3 batsman and the middle order(4 & 5) versus having one poll for all three?[/quote'] yes no 3 should be separate :agree: