Cook can go past Tendulkar says Peitersen

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Raghav_12]

Top 3 from current era :fishing:

Sachin below Vinod Kambli :omg:. Vinod Kambli would say, I knew I would have last laugh.

[Muloghonto]

Prove it with Tangible evidence. Uncovered pitches are hard to bat on only when there is substantial rain and the pitch is drying while they play. This is why Bradman reversed the batting order in that famous test in 1937 --> http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62643.html If you think ordinary players like Fingleton can score hundreds on such trecherous pitches batting through the day then either my understanding of what constitutes a trecherous pitch is wrong or you are spewing bullsh!t as usual.

Fingleton scoring a ton means nothing- every dog has his day. Even Mongia scored 100s and he was no batsman ( Nayan that is). Uncovered pitches are harder to bat on. Period. Geoff Boycott, who's batted on them, as well as Sobers, who's batted in both the covered and uncovered pitch era, have clearly stated so. When the pitch has been rained on and is drying, its practically impossible to bat on, which is why he reveresed the order in the example you cite. But in general, uncovered and unrolled pitches are harder to bat on, by a significant margin. I have played on both, so the difference is pretty big. PS: Prove what ? Mankad would walk into any Indian XI, considering he is usually in the alltime XI debates. Certainly, even a guy today who could score 30-odd average and fulfill secondary spinner (left armer no less) with worldclass authority could be in practically any team of any era. Ghulam Ahmed was one of the finest spinner we've produced and though he doesnt make a case as strongly as Mankad, he'd have walked into out XI in the 80s to late 90s. Both have stats to back up that claim.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Muloghonto]

So ? Did Mongia bat on a uncovered wkt ? Nope. Some no-name batsman could score 100 batting all day sounds more like a flat wkt.

Flat wickets as well as minefields existed in every era, its a question of the average. The flat wickets back then were not as flat as the flattest wickets today, the toughest pitches were not as tough as the pitches back then. That does not mean there were no flat wickets ever on which a two-bit guy could score a ton. it simply means that the pitches are harder on average. The minefields were harder than todays, the flat ones were a little less flat than todays.

Prove it with credibile tangible evidence that I can verify on my own. This he-said she-said bakwas is not worth the diskspace its written on nor is it neutral un-biased evidence.

I have already proved it. When the wicket is wet, its plasticity goes up, meaning the ball grips more and produces more lateral movement after pitching. Those are the cold hard scientific facts. The he-said she-said, when it comes to Sobers or Gavaskar are worth heck of a lot more than agenda-driven two-bit peddlers of BS like you and your data-mining enterprise. ATG players who are professionals and first hand experience in the matter have the decisive say. Not a two-bit fan like you.

Prove that they bowlers bowled from 2-3 feet closer to the batsman using some credible and tangible evidence.

Check out the no-ball rule. Its a fact that before 1963, only your backfoot had to be behind the line. This means they could bowl from 2-3 feet closer to the batsmen, especially the tall ones. Again, that is a fact.

[JaFanatic]

The flat wickets back then were not as flat as the flattest wickets today

what about that 14 days test match :hmmm:

[Muloghonto]

what about that 14 days test match :hmmm:

that doesnt make the wicket flat. test match as we know it, is not truely limitless. we know that if the 2nd innings is not complete by the 3rd day, the match will not produce a result in most instances, for example. but when you talk about timeless tests- where you can play for the whole freaking month if thats how long it takes to get 40 wickets to fall- then its a matter of blocking every single ball but the rank bad ones. because bowlers will tire eventually and even going all boycottish and scoring 10 off of 100 balls does not steer the match towards a draw. even today, the most conservative batsmen- like cook or amla- do not wait an entire session for a long hop to score a 4- they still take percentage shots that could ( and sometimes do) go wrong. all you get with timeless tests is that nobody throws the bat at anything but rank long hops and full tosses. because you dont need to to get a result.

[JaFanatic]

that doesnt make the wicket flat. test match as we know it, is not truely limitless. we know that if the 2nd innings is not complete by the 3rd day, the match will not produce a result in most instances, for example. but when you talk about timeless tests- where you can play for the whole freaking month if thats how long it takes to get 40 wickets to fall- then its a matter of blocking every single ball but the rank bad ones. because bowlers will tire eventually and even going all boycottish and scoring 10 off of 100 balls does not steer the match towards a draw. even today, the most conservative batsmen- like cook or amla- do not wait an entire session for a long hop to score a 4- they still take percentage shots that could ( and sometimes do) go wrong. all you get with timeless tests is that nobody throws the bat at anything but rank long hops and full tosses. because you dont need to to get a result.

is that when they came up with the rule of 6 days per match ?

[vvvslaxman]

Sachin below Vinod Kambli :omg:. Vinod Kambli would say, I knew I would have last laugh.

If he maintains his form he could go below lot of payers like Kambli.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

Boss, its a waste of time, trying to reason with folks who cannot trust their own eyes. What has sticky wickets, flat wickets, uncovered pitches, no helmet (even if you concede that they are all disadvantages for the old farks) et al have to do with the "cartoon cricket" standards the videos clearly exhibit ? What has the quality of the video footage & video angles (that supposedly makes bowlers look less menacing) have to do with Sir Hobbs (a supposedly great batsman), almost falling off the crease executing a cut shot ? If these clips don't settle this debate beyond any reasonable doubt that cricket back then, was a joke of a sport relative to modern times, then nothing will!