Gary Sobers, come on down

[bullish23]

When Australia was struggling it was because we were up against teams with all time greats in their side. Now that we're on top its because the opposition is ordinary and not because we have great players. What crap. Australia has dominated for over a decade now because we have had great players in S Waugh, Warne, McGrath, Hayden and Gilchrist.

 

[crownie]

Collingwood's side and Bradman & Co. are a world of class apart.

did you see either play?

get my point?

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

Sobers is right about how our recent batting lineups would have struggled against the Windies fast bowling attack in its heyday. I've always believed that.

However he sure is smoking something when it comes to saying Subhash Gupte was better than Warne. His record is very bloody ordinary against Australia in Tests where Richie Benaud slaughtered the Indian batsman. If he dislikes Warne then surely he should have chosen Richie ahead of the Hashman

 

[sting]

Considering he was in Bradman's '48 side, he's probably right.

Probably true , but my point was that several ex players ( especially Neil Harvey ) tend to give none of the more recent teams or players any credit . In this case Sobers is showing his obvious West Indies bias , in the end discussions like this is just personal opinion anyway .

 

[Exe Gesis]

Crownie, you don't have to always see something before you can judge. I think the statistics and other known facts (like uncovered pitches) are testament to the class of the '48 side and Bradman himself.

Example...not everyone has even seen let alone heard of Gupte, so who is anyone then to judge Sobers wrong about that? Jumpin' Jimmy used statistics to form a judgment..

My point was that Collingwood of the 1920's with their 4 is very similar to Brisbane of the 00's with 3. But Bradman being 99 with the closest being about 55 is a huge difference. That's even before you throw in McCabe and the others.

A similar class difference would be like comparing the St George team of the 50's with their 11 premierships versus Parramatta's 80's 3 in a row...the difference between Bradman/Co and Australia of the 00's.


Going by your logic of seeing is believing, then Sobers is right about everything and no one can disprove him wrong as he saw Gupte, Warne, the Windies team of the 80s and the Australian team of the 00's. No one else here has, so he must be 100% right.

 

[ECHUCABOY]

Funny isn't it , that there is no way a successful team in the 1940-50s in football could compete with the Brsiabne Lions team, yet in cricket Bradmans side would be more than competitive for the Aussie Team.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Basing that judgment on the fact Bradman was 2 times better than anyone in his era or since, and the whole team under him was by synergy better than most of that era and since. The overall team basically twice as good.

 

[ECHUCABOY]

The biggest variable You've got to take into consideration is the fact, that bradman and his Mob played on uncovered Pitches that would have been 10 times as bad as todays. Everything else would have been pretty much the same. The Bats just look cooler these days, they would have been pretty similar back then.

 

[Exe Gesis]

The biggest variable You've got to take into consideration is the fact, that bradman and his Mob played on uncovered Pitches that would have been 10 times as bad as todays. Everything else would have been pretty much the same. The Bats just look cooler these days, they would have been pretty similar back then.

Exactly, meaning that's an even bigger feat for him and players of that era than todays crop. I mentioned that a handful of posts up. You mentioning that again only serves to back up the fact Bradman/Co were a better team than the 00 side.

 

[ECHUCABOY]

Exactly, meaning that's an even bigger feat for him and players of that era than todays crop. I mentioned that a handful of posts up. You mentioning that again only serves to back up the fact Bradman/Co were a better team than the 00 side.

Still too many variables to say they would beat the 00 side. The fact that bradmans mob only really played against England and that other sides weren't that crash hot at that stage is just one.

 

[Sedat!]

One thing Gary may have overlooked is the West Indian ineptitude against quality leg spin bowling. They never faced a bowler of Warne's ability in their "reign of terror", and I really don't think the West Indies would have topped 200 very often against Warne.

They did not lose a single test series from 1980-1995, including frequent trips to the sub-continent. That is a record no team from any era will ever come close to topping. I'd say they would have held their own against Warne more often than not. This batting line-up in its prime has the collective tools to deal with any threat from opposition bowling line-ups:

Greenidge
Haynes
Richardson
Richards
Gomes
Lloyd
Dujon

Even the crap recent West Indies sides that have played againsat Warne have had more success against him than most other countries around the world.

 

[Exe Gesis]

ECHUCABOY - Well Richie Benaud has seen them, and he rates them best team ever by a long stretch. In fact, he even puts the Windies 80's side just below it like Sobers did. If Richie has seen everything and everyone, then his is the word on it.

As for only playing England....they were an awesome England team back then, and often gave it to Australia even with Bradman and co playing. Against that constant opposition, who would have seen plenty of Bradman and Co, and for Bradman and Co to consistently beat that regular opponent only adds more weight to it. Todays players/teams have the luxury of playing different opponents all the time allowing for players to go under the radar a bit more. Most of todays teams are bereft of all-time greats like the 80's Windies period enjoyed.

Btw, I agree 100% with Sedat!

 

[crownie]

Crownie, you don't have to always see something before you can judge. I think the statistics and other known facts (like uncovered pitches) are testament to the class of the '48 side and Bradman himself.

so why dont the stats that most players in the Aussie 00 team average 50 mean anything?

 

[Exe Gesis]

It's not just stats alone though crownie. It's a combination of things. Stats, quality of opposition, covered pitches, their struggles against seamers/swingers/unfriendly wickets, etc.