ICF All Time XI : Number 3

[Marut]

Many sundays have elapsed since I responded to you on that thread in post#190 ... you quietly ducked out for a while and resurfaced on that same thread talking about something else. So don't try to peddle your "I waz busy" excuse . This is hardly a defense. And you will do the same here once the flaws in your theories are pointed out. And No the pitches were not known to be bowling friendly in the 30s & 40s. There was a lot of concern that the balance had shifted markedly in favour of the batsmen. here is that thread : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=281207&page=7

Think whatever you want. How can the balance shift markedly in favour of batsmen - there were still uncovered wickets, inferior protection and bats etc, as compared to the later era. What were the technical reasons you suggest for the balance to shift in favour of the batsmen?

[Marut]

Marut - Leave it man. Soon you will be attacked personally. If you've not noticed here's how to choose sides according to convenience. Scenario 1 - Batsmen can't be rated looking at statistics and you need to look at videos. Scenario 2 - Pitches however can be proved good or bad based on statistics. See the Najafgarh Logic? Now, there will be an aggressive response and run of the mill Ravi Shastri statements - "You can't keep a straight face", "Arguing for the sake of arguing", "Look at the videos". Old wine in a new bottle.

The old videos have variable frame rate unlike the ones now. The same bowlers some times look like trundlers and some times look very fast on old videos - all this is due to the variable frame rate of those videos. You can't come to any definite conclusions based on them. Our friend BossBhai may think that Bradman was a rubbish bowler bully, but Australians still consider him their greatest cricketer ever. They dont say that Ponting is better than Bradman because you don't need a mirror to see a big wound on your hand.

[Crookbond]

The old videos have variable frame rate unlike the ones now. The same bowlers some times look like trundlers and some times look very fast on old videos - all this is due to the variable frame rate of those videos. You can't come to any definite conclusions based on them. Our friend BossBhai may think that Bradman was a rubbish bowler bully' date=' but Australians still consider him their greatest cricketer ever. They dont say that Ponting is better than Bradman because you don't need a mirror to see a big wound on your hand.[/quote'] And now you will be accused of Anglo-Saxon conspiracy.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Marut]

This is a well known fact that the art of pitch making had made rapid progress after WWI. this is the first time I have heard that old videos had VFR ... can we see some link ? who's this bowler who looks like a trundler and a fast bowler in the many videos that I have posted ?

See these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_film http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/265582-Frame-rates-of-old-movies

[psrb4u]

The wall 'DRAVID' is my choice for this.

[Vilander]

Bradman>Richards>Lara>Ponting/Dravid>rest

Richards ?

[Vilander]

Bradman > Hammond > Dravid/Ponting>Barrington

[ravishingravi]

Wow! Just 7 votes for Richards. And it seems we had some Bradman converts on ICF lately.

[Ultimate_Game]

Wow! Just 7 votes for Richards. And it seems we had some Bradman converts on ICF lately.

That's coz between Bradman and Richards, one player was a lot better. And that's the reason Richards was also there in the middle order poll where he would have more of a chance rather than going head-to-head against Bradman.