Ben, I had vowed to ignore your ridiculous posts and comments from now on, as trying to discuss something with you is pointless, but this post just oversteps the line. I didn't have a huge problem with you disregarding the talents of the England Cricket Team, that's fair enough, you're an arrogant Aussie after all, it's expected, but this last comment is just beyond ridiculous.
Before you wrote that post did you actually read anything about Victor Trumper? Or did you, as always just look at his stats, realise he averages under 40 and instantly dismiss him? I would love one of the great Aussie commentators or sports writers to read some of the crap you come out with, especially this last post. Victor Trumper is one of the legends of the game. I only read a few articles about him but could instantly tell he was pure class. He was held in the highest regard by his peers, he's well renowned as one of Australia's greatest ever cricketers, and to claim that Justin Langer and Michael Slater are better players is purely laughable.
I'll dig out one quote that should somewhat help to justify my point, not that it's really needed, as I'm sure 99.99% of people on this forum will be on my side. But have a read of this and tell me what you think:
England is a tough enough place to bat for overseas players nowadays, with the swinging conditions and general rubbish weather, imagine how badly some of the modern players would have done on uncovered, wet English pitches. Hayden for example has a pretty average record in England, and that's on covered, looked after pitches, he'd have been destroyed on the 1902 Uncovered England pitches, as would the large majority of current Test players.
Trumper is a FAR more accomplished cricketer than Michael Slater or Justin Langer could ever hope to be. I'm 100% sure that they'd be the first to admit that as well, this is just another example of your pure bias towards the modern era of Australian players. If they don't average close to 50 with the bat they're not good enough, it's a ridiculous method for selecting a team and Trumper should have walked into your team alongside Hayden at the top of the order. Some of your beliefs are purely laughable mate.
LOL, journalists. Journalist's and people from the same era as Victor Trumper believe an Englishmen called Albert Trott hit a six over the pavillion at Lords in 1899. The strongest man to ever live wouldn't be able to hit a 6 over the Lord's pavillion, even with the bats of the modern age.
I'm sure Trumper did acchieve everything you say his acchieved but I wouldn't be overally surprised if the majority of it is overeggerated. You read too much into things and the majority of the things you believe aren't realistic - You've been brainwashed.
What you fail to realise is that half of the cricket techniques that are used today weren't used in the 1890's and 1900's. Bowlers wouldn't of bowled anywhere near as fast as what you think they would've due to bad footwear, illness and injury. He wouldn't of ever faced reserve swing either. The standards of fielding would've been pretty poor aswell. Spinners wouldn't have 2 or 3 fielders standing round the bat and you wouldn't see fielders like AB de Villiers, Jonty Rhodes, etc diving around the field and stopping runs on a consistant basis. If pitches were as bad as you make out then slip catches off pace bowlers would've almost been impossible.
Cricketers would've been brought up, being taught defence or they would've self-taught themselves to be patient and basically defend 80% of delieveries. The last 30 years have changed immensely. Batsman now have evolved with everything that has been passed down from generations and they are now able to attack the bowling. As time has gone on, batsmen have evolved as the game of cricket has evolved - You don't seem to understand this concept.
I'm sure if batsman of the modern age had've been brought up being told to defend the majority of delieveries and had've had the practice on the sort've wickets which Trumper claims to have played on then the likes of Ponting and Tendulkar would've matched Trumper, if not bettered him. Whether Trumper could've acchieved what any batsman of the modern age has acchieved is another question.
Many things that are said in the modern day are overeggerated. Such as people saying that Dale Steyn always bowls 150kph outswingers or that batsman can hit bowlers bowling over 150kph over their heads for six. Neither are of these are true. The fastest ball that Brett Lee's ever bowled that's been hit over his head for 6 was 146kph by Shahid Afridi in 2004. Matthew Hayden has walked down the wicket and smashed Shoaib Akhtar out of a Sri Lankan ground in 2002 but obviously Akhtar wasn't bowling 150kph+ there, was he? Dale Steyn rarely ever bowls 150kph, let alone swings the ball at 150kph. There are many myths within' the game of cricket.
I maintain that I think Sir Donald Bradman, Ponting, Border, Waugh, Chappell and Hayden are all better then Trumper. You want to go criticise selections like Matthew Hayden in my side? Go ask Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Ricky Ponting and Steve Waugh how good Matthew Hayden they think Matthew Hayden is. 4 of the finest Australia have ever produced. It's funny because McGrath even said yesterday on FoxSports News that Hayden would be in any team he had the choice of selecting.
I have a realistic view on cricket. You just read over a bunch farsical myths from people that lived in the same era that completely overeggerate things to the point where it seems unrealistic.
