The "Players Who Wish They Were Born In Another Era/Country" Thread

[King Pietersen]

Yes, that is my point. Bowlers wouldn't be able to get enough pace in their run-up with the shoes that they were wearing and hence why aren't weren't as quick as modern bowlers. I'm talking about pre-1960, etc. I'm pretty sure they would've had atleast some decent footwear by the 1970's.

How about Harold Larwood? Claimed by the people who watched him bowl that he bowled at around 90mph, comparing his pace to that of Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar. Then you've got guys in the 40's and 50's like Ray Lindwall, Frank Tyson (rated as the fastest bowler Richie Benaud's ever seen), Brian Statham, Fred Trueman, Trevor Bailey, Wes Hall, Charlie Griffith etc etc. There were loads of genuinely quick bowlers before the 1970's, and although they were never strictly tested for pace, they are rated as genuinely quick by everyone that's seen them bowl, especially Frank Tyson.

Uncovered pitches are only a problem, when it rains and usually if it rains then it keeps raining and the Test gets called off. It wasn't a matter of batsman batting on wet-pitches all of the time but only in the case of some instances.

You've just guessed at that haven't you. That's just something you've made up off the top of your head to try and swing the argument in your favour, as there's no way of clearly contesting that without having an encylopedic knowledge of cricket and the full collection of Wisden cricket annuals.

One thing I will say though, alot of Tests in that period were played in England, which gets alot of rain, even in the summer, and without covers the pitches would always have a great deal of moisture in them, and being an opening batsman yourself you should know what moisture in the pitch with the new ball can do. Then imagine facing someone like Frank Tyson or Harold Larwood on an oncovered, poorly prepared pitch which has abit of moisture in it, and almost certainly abit of grass.

And if you're not sure, here's a little description of a sticky wicket for you:

The phrase comes from the game of cricket, where it describes a cricket pitch that is in the process of drying after being affected by overnight rain during a multiple day game. A hard crust forms over soft, wet soil. This helps the ball to bite, turn and lift variably." On a sticky wicket, batting is awkward and sometimes hazardous, as the ball will spin, seam and bounce sharply and unpredictably.

These pitches were common place throughout the world until the very late 1950's. They weren't just in England either, here's a little description of a an innings from Len Hutton at the Gabba:

Scores of 8 not out and 62 not out would not usually rate too highly on a batsman's CV, but then few games are played on as treacherous a wicket as the first Test at the Gabba in December 1950. In the days of uncovered wickets, a violent thunderstorm had decimated the track shortly after Australia's first innings had come to an end for 228. Manipulating their batting order in the hope that conditions would improve, England declared on 60 for 7, before Australia reciprocated with 32 for 7. Needing 193 to win, England closed a crazy day on 30 for 6, but with Hutton at No. 8, hope was not lost. Freddie Brown joined him in double figures, but in the end the damage had been done.

Here's a link to an article about batting triumphs in games between England and Australia on sticky wickets, although I think the last few are just captain rearguards

 

[manee]

How about Harold Larwood? Claimed by the people who watched him bowl that he bowled at around 90mph, comparing his pace to that of Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar. Then you've got guys in the 40's and 50's like Ray Lindwall, Frank Tyson (rated as the fastest bowler Richie Benaud's ever seen), Brian Statham, Fred Trueman, Trevor Bailey, Wes Hall, Charlie Griffith etc etc. There were loads of genuinely quick bowlers before the 1970's, and although they were never strictly tested for pace, they are rated as genuinely quick by everyone that's seen them bowl, especially Frank Tyson.

Oh woopee, a discussion about pace bowlers pre-1960.

Eddie Gilbert was regarded as genuinely quick and has on one occasion knocked the bat out of Bradman's hands, a superb achievement. Cricinfo goes on to note that the over by Gilbert that he faced before being dismissed was the fastest he'd ever faced. However, there were allegations that he threw the odd delivery but yet, he bowled a lot of deliveries against those sam officials which were deemed legal.

Frank Tyson was regarded as the quickest bowler that Richie Benaud has ever seen, which is quite an accomplishment. Moreover, he was said to bruise batsmen through their pads! My brother often remarks about how pads were made of hay back in the 1950s, but we all know that such remarks are mere tongue and cheek. Here is a thrilling article about Tyson's pace.

Charles Kortright is also regarded by many as the fastest of all time.

The key here is that although the number of bowlers bowling 140kph has certainly increased, it takes a special bowler to reach the extreme pace of around 150kph and few would argue that the number of extreme pace bowlers has increased dramatically over time.

 

[Cricketman]

Badrinath would be playing for any international side, probably would've already reached 40 tests or so for a team like England, if it wasn't for the crap political and regional based selections that is taking place in India.

 

[aussie_ben91]

How about Harold Larwood? Claimed by the people who watched him bowl that he bowled at around 90mph, comparing his pace to that of Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar. Then you've got guys in the 40's and 50's like Ray Lindwall, Frank Tyson (rated as the fastest bowler Richie Benaud's ever seen), Brian Statham, Fred Trueman, Trevor Bailey, Wes Hall, Charlie Griffith etc etc. There were loads of genuinely quick bowlers before the 1970's, and although they were never strictly tested for pace, they are rated as genuinely quick by everyone that's seen them bowl, especially Frank Tyson.

Mate, have you seen how much pressure goes in the modern bowlers feet as they come crashing down onto the turf at the point where the bowler releases the ball? Over 7 times their own bodyweight of pressure gets put on their ankles and this is when they are wearing bowling shoes that have been scientifically made to prevent injuries to a lesser extent, but guess what? They still injured sometimes!

I don't know when the rule changed but their used to be 8 ball overs and they used to play unlimited Test matches.

There is no way that with the shoes that they wore, that they would've been able to generate as much pace off their runup as the modern bowler. They would've sustained serious foot injuries that would've more then less likely ended their careers. They would've jogged in and the pace would've solely been generated from their arm action and I'm telling ya, no bowler can bowl 90mph off a short runup.

I don't care what many others from the past have said. You have to draw a line to what is believable and what is not believable. Richie Benuad also said that Adam Gilchrist was one of the finest cricketers that his ever seen. I wouldn't even rank Gilchrist in the top 15 cricketers that I've seen and I've only been watching cricket for 12 years.

You've just guessed at that haven't you. That's just something you've made up off the top of your head to try and swing the argument in your favour, as there's no way of clearly contesting that without having an encylopedic knowledge of cricket and the full collection of Wisden cricket annuals.

One thing I will say though, alot of Tests in that period were played in England, which gets alot of rain, even in the summer, and without covers the pitches would always have a great deal of moisture in them, and being an opening batsman yourself you should know what moisture in the pitch with the new ball can do. Then imagine facing someone like Frank Tyson or Harold Larwood on an oncovered, poorly prepared pitch which has abit of moisture in it, and almost certainly abit of grass.

And if you're not sure, here's a little description of a sticky wicket for you:

These pitches were common place throughout the world until the very late 1950's. They weren't just in England either, here's a little description of a an innings from Len Hutton at the Gabba:

Here's a link to an article about batting triumphs in games between England and Australia on sticky wickets, although I think the last few are just captain rearguards

Considering Hutton averaged 56 in Test Cricket then the description of this Test sounds like a one off. Honestly, some of the things are a bit far-fetched. You couldn't possibly face a 90mph on a dodgy pitch, without a helmet on. Test matches that have been like that have been called off. Sabina Park 1998 is an example and even if they did play Tests like that, it would've been rare. An Australian vs India Test match in 2004 was on a dodgy pitch and something like 18 wickets fell in the space of 2 days and Michael Clarke ended up taking 6-9. The game was over in 2 days.

Buuuuut, back on topic.

Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Martin Love
Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Adam Dale
Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Scott Muller

The Queensland team of the 1990's was actually pretty strong.

Jimmy Maher
Matthew Hayden
Stuart Law
Martin Love
Allan Border (c)
Andrew Symonds
Ian Healy (wk)
Andy Bichel
Adam Dale
Michael Kasprowicz
Scott Muller

All played International cricket for Australia. Maher was the only one not to play a Test. Check out that for a team Dan, I reckon England would struggle to beat that side.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Larwood was once measured with a primitive speedgun and the upper limit he was measured taking into account margin of error was 130mph.

 

[King Pietersen]

Mate, have you seen how much pressure goes in the modern bowlers feet as they come crashing down onto the turf at the point where the bowler releases the ball? Over 7 times their own bodyweight of pressure gets put on their ankles and this is when they are wearing bowling shoes that have been scientifically made to prevent injuries to a lesser extent, but guess what? They still injured sometimes!

I don't know when the rule changed but their used to be 8 ball overs and they used to play unlimited Test matches.

There is no way that with the shoes that they wore, that they would've been able to generate as much pace off their runup as the modern bowler. They would've sustained serious foot injuries that would've more then less likely ended their careers. They would've jogged in and the pace would've solely been generated from their arm action and I'm telling ya, no bowler can bowl 90mph off a short runup.

LOL. So you're disputing the fact that anyone before the 1970's bowled at anything close to 90mph? Despite what all the professional cricketing journalists state, and despite the people that saw them bowl have said. Richie Benaud's one of the most respected cricketing journalists/commentators in the game, and if he believes that Frank Tyson is the fastest bowler he's seen, then I for one believe him, or believe that Tyson was incredibly quick anyway. Everyone that's seen Frank Tyson bowl believes he was ridiculously fast, and the fact that you're just dismissing it without knowing any of the facts just sums you up.

I don't care what many others from the past have said. You have to draw a line to what is believable and what is not believable.

Jesus christ Ben, what are you on? I'd say basing your opinions on arbitary whims is far more ridiculous and less believeable than the thoughts and opinions of many cricketing journalists and everyone that saw these guys bowl. You're basing this argument on nothing, in the same way that you contested the fact that Michael Holding and Jeff Thomson bowled at over 90mph, despite us providing you with the speed test facts.

Considering Hutton averaged 56 in Test Cricket then the description of this Test sounds like a one off. Honestly, some of the things are a bit far-fetched. You couldn't possibly face a 90mph on a dodgy pitch, without a helmet on.

Obviously that pitch wouldn't have been seen all the time, but in the time of uncovered pitches it was far, far harder for the batsmen. The likes of Tyson, Larwood, Gilbert, Kortwright, Lindwall, Hall, Griffith etc etc all did bowl at 90mph and on these uncovered pitches. Everyone that faced them and saw them bowl give testament to that, and the fact you're just dismissing it based on nothing amazes me.

Again, Sir Viv Richards batted without a helmet, and he was facing the likes of Lillee, Thomson and all the great quicks of that era, plus the likes of Garner, Holding, Roberts, Croft, Marshall etc in the nets and in domestic cricket. You telling me that they didn't used to bowl at 90mph on bouncy West Indian tracks?

Badrinath would be playing for any international side, probably would've already reached 40 tests or so for a team like England, if it wasn't for the crap political and regional based selections that is taking place in India.

You sure he's not just another example of an Indian batsman performing in Indian domestic cricket but not good enough to play Test cricket? The list of Indian batsmen with FC averages over 50 is astonishing, especially when you consider the amount that actually had successful international careers. Maybe the selectors have a reason for not selecting him? I've not seen him bat so I'm purely speculating, but maybe they don't think he's got a technique good enough to adapt to the international game? Here's the list of Indian batsmen averaging over 50 in FC cricket, how many went on to have successful international careers?

Ajay Sharma (4th highest FC average of all-time, awful ODi record and only 1 Test)
Shantanu Sugwekar
KC Ibrahim
Vinod Kambli
Sachin Tendulkar
Vijay Hazare
Surendra Bhave
Subramaniam Badrinath
Sridharan Sriram
Uday Merchant
Rahul Dravid
Sanjay Manjrekar
Ajay Jadeja
Gautam Gambhir
Raman Lamba
Rusi Modi
Cheteshwar Pujara
Dilip Vengsarkar
Polly Umrigar
Amarjit Kaypee
VVS Laxman
Sunil Gavaskar
Yashpal Singh
Dheeraj Jadhav
Sridharan Sharath
Ashok Malhotra
Shyam Mitra
Pankaj Dharmani
Santosh Jedhe

 

[King Cricket]

You sure he's not just another example of an Indian batsman performing in Indian domestic cricket but not good enough to play Test cricket?

We can't be hundred percent sure. But most of us think that he'll make a better player than Rohit Sharma or Suresh Raina in the ODI's. I'm talking about ODI's, not Tests. Because in Tests there isn't really any spots left for Badri to fill in, and I don't really see Badri wearing India's test jersey in the next one/two years- where will he bat? There's no spots left. But if someone gets injured or if someone retires that's something different.

 

[metallics2006]

You sure he's not just another example of an Indian batsman performing in Indian domestic cricket but not good enough to play Test cricket? The list of Indian batsmen with FC averages over 50 is astonishing, especially when you consider the amount that actually had successful international careers. Maybe the selectors have a reason for not selecting him? I've not seen him bat so I'm purely speculating, but maybe they don't think he's got a technique good enough to adapt to the international game? Here's the list of Indian batsmen averaging over 50 in FC cricket, how many went on to have successful international careers?

I have seen him bat since he plays FC cricket for my state. I can tell you that he has better technique, foot movement, ability to play spinners etc than Yuvraj, Rohit Sharma, Sehwag who are playing test cricket for India. Yuvraj is still not test match material and Badrinath who has a great domestic record should have replaced Ganguly when he retired. The selectors should not have picked Badrinath for ODIs first imo. It should have been for the test matches.

 

[Gilly Fan]

I have seen him bat since he plays FC cricket for my state. I can tell you that he has better technique, foot movement, ability to play spinners etc than Yuvraj, Rohit Sharma, Sehwag who are playing test cricket for India. Yuvraj is still not test match material and Badrinath who has a great domestic record should have replaced Ganguly when he retired. The selectors should not have picked Badrinath for ODIs first imo. It should have been for the test matches.

Some say that Phil Hughes doesn't have the perfect technique, but he is still going alright. Same with Katich. You don't need a good technique to be a good batsman.

 

[aussie_ben91]

LOL. So you're disputing the fact that anyone before the 1970's bowled at anything close to 90mph? Despite what all the professional cricketing journalists state, and despite the people that saw them bowl have said. Richie Benaud's one of the most respected cricketing journalists/commentators in the game, and if he believes that Frank Tyson is the fastest bowler he's seen, then I for one believe him, or believe that Tyson was incredibly quick anyway. Everyone that's seen Frank Tyson bowl believes he was ridiculously fast, and the fact that you're just dismissing it without knowing any of the facts just sums you up.

No, it doesn't sum me up, it just proves how gullible you are being. C'mon mate, open your eyes. Your not argueing against any of the points I'm making and you're just dismissing my opinion because you don't like it or agree with it.

I've found that many people from the past, generally overrate and exaggerate things to the point of it being unbelieveable. They are obviously envious of the modern players because they know that the modern players are better then what they were. For example, there is a myth that a little guy hit a six over the Lords Pavillion in the 1890's. Which is a joke of the highest order. The worlds strongest man could have the chunkyest bat in the world and he wouldn't be able to hit a six over the Lords pavillion.

Frank Tyson probably was extremely fast for someone of his era but to me, it seems a bit far-fetched as to how someone of his era was the fastest bowler of alltime. I've stated my reasons in other posts.

Jesus christ Ben, what are you on? I'd say basing your opinions on arbitary whims is far more ridiculous and less believeable than the thoughts and opinions of many cricketing journalists and everyone that saw these guys bowl. You're basing this argument on nothing, in the same way that you contested the fact that Michael Holding and Jeff Thomson bowled at over 90mph, despite us providing you with the speed test facts.

It doesn't take much to be a cricketing journalist because there are a few duds on cricinfo. You could be a cricinfo journalist if you want. Get onto facebook and apply. But anyways, I base my arguements on what is possible and what is not. Bowling fulltosses on a dodgy speed gun doesn't prove anything because bowlers don't intentionally bowl headhigh fulltosses in a game of cricket.

Obviously that pitch wouldn't have been seen all the time, but in the time of uncovered pitches it was far, far harder for the batsmen. The likes of Tyson, Larwood, Gilbert, Kortwright, Lindwall, Hall, Griffith etc etc all did bowl at 90mph and on these uncovered pitches. Everyone that faced them and saw them bowl give testament to that, and the fact you're just dismissing it based on nothing amazes me.

Based on nothing? I've given you reasons and you've completely ignored them! The thing is, you make everything sound so unbelievable that the only thing a modern day player could do to top what you are saying is to bat with the opposite hand and have a blindfold covering their eyes!

Again, Sir Viv Richards batted without a helmet, and he was facing the likes of Lillee, Thomson and all the great quicks of that era, plus the likes of Garner, Holding, Roberts, Croft, Marshall etc in the nets and in domestic cricket. You telling me that they didn't used to bowl at 90mph on bouncy West Indian tracks?

Lol, bouncy West Indian tracks? I always thought that West Indies pitches were more on the lowish side if anything. It was also Viv's choice to bat without a helmet.

 

[metallics2006]

Some say that Phil Hughes doesn't have the perfect technique, but he is still going alright. Same with Katich. You don't need a good technique to be a good batsman.

Since when has Yuvraj scored big on a bowler friendly wicket?

The conditions required for a Yuvraj-ish knock are: a (very) flat track, no swing in the ball, no spin assistance in the track and perfect bounce to play shots. The only gift he has is timing. Which has also failed him loads of times. He has not got the technique to bat his side slowly out of danger in a test match. Badrinath can build an innings for his side like Damien Martyn. But I dont think Yuvraj has the right temperament to play test cricket, which Badrinath has.

 

[karnog]

Probably the biggest loss to cricket was Archie Jackson- died of tubercolosis at 23 in 1933. He was rated to be on par with Bradman when they were the same age. Had he been born in an era where this was treatable...

 

[King Pietersen]

No, it doesn't sum me up, it just proves how gullible you are being. C'mon mate, open your eyes. Your not argueing against any of the points I'm making and you're just dismissing my opinion because you don't like it or agree with it.

I've found that many people from the past, generally overrate and exaggerate things to the point of it being unbelieveable. They are obviously envious of the modern players because they know that the modern players are better then what they were. For example, there is a myth that a little guy hit a six over the Lords Pavillion in the 1890's. Which is a joke of the highest order. The worlds strongest man could have the chunkyest bat in the world and he wouldn't be able to hit a six over the Lords pavillion.

Frank Tyson probably was extremely fast for someone of his era but to me, it seems a bit far-fetched as to how someone of his era was the fastest bowler of alltime. I've stated my reasons in other posts.

I'm gullible for listening to experts on the subject? People that watched them bowl, people that faced them. I'd much rather believe their opinion than your half-witted attempt to make the modern era seem so much better than any other era. As for your reasoning, your only reason seems to be footwear. Which I don't really see as a reason for stopping bowlers bowling fast, they just used to get injured more often than the modern players. Harold Larwood's Test career was curtailed because of an injury to his ankle caused by his boots. Frank Tyson badly twisted his ankle in one of his shoes, and it was so severe that the doctor said "he'd end his career with his left leg effectively 15 years older than the right".

Footwear's been causing bowlers injuries for years, but that doesn't mean they didn't bowl as fast as modern players, they just got on with it. Even Dennis Lillee suffered an injury caused by his boots causing him to limp out of a Melbourne Test against England. You're not going to try and claim Lillee wasn't fast are you?

It doesn't take much to be a cricketing journalist because there are a few duds on cricinfo. You could be a cricinfo journalist if you want. Get onto facebook and apply. But anyways, I base my arguements on what is possible and what is not. Bowling fulltosses on a dodgy speed gun doesn't prove anything because bowlers don't intentionally bowl headhigh fulltosses in a game of cricket.

Bowling full-tosses? You've not seen the worlds fastest bowler competition video have you? Jeff Thomson was bowling incredibly quickly, and remaining fairly decent levels of control, and Michael Holding was bowling well over 90mph in 2 studies, and then 88mph in the 1979 study and was bowling with pinpoint accuracy.

Lol, bouncy West Indian tracks? I always thought that West Indies pitches were more on the lowish side if anything. It was also Viv's choice to bat without a helmet.

In the modern era the West Indian pitches are generally pretty slow and flat, but quite a few of the West Indian tracks used to have a white sheen on them, used to be incredibly hard and very susceptible to pace bowling, with fantastic bounce and carry.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I'm gullible for listening to experts on the subject? People that watched them bowl, people that faced them. I'd much rather believe their opinion than your half-witted attempt to make the modern era seem so much better than any other era. As for your reasoning, your only reason seems to be footwear. Which I don't really see as a reason for stopping bowlers bowling fast, they just used to get injured more often than the modern players. Harold Larwood's Test career was curtailed because of an injury to his ankle caused by his boots. Frank Tyson badly twisted his ankle in one of his shoes, and it was so severe that the doctor said "he'd end his career with his left leg effectively 15 years older than the right".

Footwear's been causing bowlers injuries for years, but that doesn't mean they didn't bowl as fast as modern players, they just got on with it. Even Dennis Lillee suffered an injury caused by his boots causing him to limp out of a Melbourne Test against England. You're not going to try and claim Lillee wasn't fast are you?

It's about time you finally understood what I'm trying say and how do you know that bowlers weren't restricted from injuries? People that have watched live can't judge speeds and just because batsman thought bowlers were quick in the 1950s doesn't mean they are as fast as the modern bowlers. Cricket is taken allot seriously nowadays and players are trained to be better. Back then, cricketers had a few jobs whilst nowadays cricket is a cricketers only job, so you can't expect the quality of the cricketers to be as great as the modern players.

Bowling full-tosses? You've not seen the worlds fastest bowler competition video have you? Jeff Thomson was bowling incredibly quickly, and remaining fairly decent levels of control, and Michael Holding was bowling well over 90mph in 2 studies, and then 88mph in the 1979 study and was bowling with pinpoint accuracy.

How do you know if they were bowling pinpoint accuracy? They weren't even bowling to a batsman? They were bowling as fast as they possibly could. I've even see Darren Powell touch 90mph.

In the modern era the West Indian pitches are generally pretty slow and flat, but quite a few of the West Indian tracks used to have a white sheen on them, used to be incredibly hard and very susceptible to pace bowling, with fantastic bounce and carry.

Source?

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Old WI pitches used to have tennis ball like bounce.

Ajay Sharma (4th highest FC average of all-time, awful ODi record and only 1 Test)
Shantanu Sugwekar
KC Ibrahim
Vinod Kambli
Sachin Tendulkar
Vijay Hazare
Surendra Bhave
Subramaniam Badrinath
Sridharan Sriram
Uday Merchant
Rahul Dravid
Sanjay Manjrekar
Ajay Jadeja
Gautam Gambhir
Raman Lamba
Rusi Modi
Cheteshwar Pujara
Dilip Vengsarkar
Polly Umrigar
Amarjit Kaypee
VVS Laxman
Sunil Gavaskar
Yashpal Singh
Dheeraj Jadhav
Sridharan Sharath
Ashok Malhotra
Shyam Mitra
Pankaj Dharmani
Santosh Jedhe

I've bolded those who had success at international level, and put those who were unlucky to play more for India/have a future for India in Italics.