Cricketers from 20-30 years ago

[Milo]

I've enjoyed watching a shed load of cricket from the BBC archive on ESPN classics these last two months. They have been showing the England v West Indies series from 1973, 1976 and 1984. What strikes me is just how much better Viv Richards, Sobers and Greenidge were than anything that I have seen in the last 10 years. Batting without helmets, playing shots that are not seen today with a flamboyance, lenght of time and arrogance of sheer class. Everyone who is too young to remember these players, and has access to SKy 442 should do all they can to watch some of these.

These players simply cannot be appraised through comparing their averages to those of today. What strikes me is that unless you actually see players from yesteryear you will always undervalue their true abilities. I have to say the Imran-Akram debate more or less proves this to me. With the bowlers, Garner and Marshall in 1984 could do almost anything with the ball time and time again.

Watch this. You will be enlightened. If you remember it, watch it with older eyes. It serves as a good reminder.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Milo

If you remember it, watch it with older eyes. It serves as a good reminder.

Indeed I remember these player like it was only yesterday - players also like Holding and Haynes .

If there was a fault with cricket in this era - it was that the result no matter who was playing them, a West Indies win was inevitable.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Milo

Batting without helmets

I think the importance of this is underestimated. Batsmen are tagged 'brave' for facing hostile bowling these days, but in the 1970s, when pitches weren't as flat, and when there were many ferocious fast bowlers, from the many West Indians, to Lille and Tommo, to Willis, life was much harder for batsmen without protection for their head. I think it was Richie Benaud who said he thought Lara would be a very different batsman without helmets. If you look at Viv Richards, who never wore a helmet even into the 1990s, it is a majestic sight. I can't think of any batsman more enjoyable to watch than Richards in full flow. He had an arrogance about him all the time, but on some days it just seemed that he could choose to do whatever he pleased with the ball, dispatching it to the boundary with unbelievable ease, off some of the best bowlers of his time.

[Colourful Chaddi]

Milo, I also have been enjoying the classic cricket on ESPN Classic. The old archives of England V.S West Indies has been a treat to watch. What strikes me about those days compared to these days is the way the batsmen play the ball, like you said the shots are played very differently, especially the West Indian batsmen who seems to hit the ball very elegantly yet with a lot of power going into the shot, an opposite of how Bell plays. I was also suprised to see how well the West Indian tail played, they had good technique and played shots like the top order, Baptise, Marshall and Harper were all handy batsmen down the order.

For all those poeple who believe Flintoff is a great all-rounder or believe he is the best England has ever had think agian becuase that title belongs to Ian Botham. I havn't seen anything like it, he batting like a true top order batsmen, hooking and pulling the bowlers, now this was againt the best fast bowlers- Holding, Garner and Marshall. His bowling was good aswell but I was suprised to see how many batsmen getting out to some balls which i consider to be bad balls. Im sure Flintoff would have stood no chance playing againt this team.

One think which I also like to point out is David Gower, WOW! before watching him play I didn't rate him but after watching him I must say he was one of the most elegant batsman I have ever seen. The shots I saw him play were fantastic, it was Mark Waugh at his best batting left handed! Now he was batting against one of the best attacks ever without the bouncer rule but still playing so elegantly , this must tell you the ability of this player.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Colourful Chaddi

For all those poeple who believe Flintoff is a great all-rounder or believe he is the best England has ever had think agian becuase that title belongs to Ian Botham. I havn't seen anything like it, he batting like a true top order batsmen

I think Botham v Flintoff is a very tough call over who is better. On the batting front though I can't agree. Botham was much more of a slogger than Flintoff. Flintoff does hit in the air a lot, but they are usually genuine shots e.g. the hook or the lofted drive. If you watch Botham's 149 v Australia in 1981, it was pretty scratchy at times, with top edges flying down to third man, and Botham moving legside and giving it a full swing of his arms. Flintoff is technically a much better batsman. Botham relied much more on strength and a good eye. He still got results though!

[south beds mikey]

Think you might be in for a bit of dissent on this one Mongoose!! Your'e dead right that most of the Headingley knock was a slog with nothing to lose but I have seen him play very correctly. Manchester in the next game of that series was described as the best Ashes knock ever at the time. If you get chance see if you can get the video of the 100 he got at Brisbane in 1986/7; another classic innings.

But I do want to point out that Freddie is IMO an outstanding cricketer; sure he hasn't acheived the things Botham did (2 world cup finals, 5 winning ashes series, 14 centuries, 350+ wickets etc) but he hasn't finished yet.We'll know a bit more on this debate if Fred manages to get fit for the winter. He is still a young man and has plenty of time to pile up the records if his body holds out.

On a general point I agree there were some fantastic players then but there are today also. We must keep in mind that on these highlights you are watching a side that IMO would beat any other team in the history of the game. Take it from someone who remembers (1984, not 73 or 76 I hasten to add!!) that era had loads of very good players, some great ones too but we have comparible individual talents now even if there is not a team as good as the W.Indies were then.

[Ernest]

Having watched both Botham and Flintoff it's easy to say that Flintoff is more of a genuine batsman that Botham ever was - Flintoff has defensive skills that Botham never had.
I am not pulling Bothan down at all, he was a great and that's for sure.
On the bowling I would say Flintoff is a better bowler than Botham was, also has far more pace - however Botham had a knack of getting wickets even from bad deliveries that Flintoff will IMO never have.
One of Bothams effective deliveries was a wide half volley outside the off stump, many famous player fell to that particular delivery.
A word of warning from Flintoff here, Botham at the end was injured and also burned out, all he could bowl was military medium, he should have retired 2 years earlier.
Also a warning to Australia's McGrath about going on to long, D Lillee probably the best fast bowler ever went the same way as Botham, I can remember watching both of them in the same match, Lillee a shadow of his former self, as was Botham - I remember they bowled each other out, both with medium pace half volleys.
The point I am making in the Lillee/McGrath comparison - Lillee should have retired earlier, but thought he could go on.

[Andy Mellon]

Originally Posted by Ernest

If there was a fault with cricket in this era - it was that the result no matter who was playing them, a West Indies win was inevitable.

Well, I always got that feeling when they took on England, that's for sure

However, they weren't completely invincible. As I recall, New Zealand took them down a peg or two in a very controversial series in about 1984. I think that was the series where Colin Croft shoulder barged the Kiwi umpire.

[Mr Hutt]

On Botham Vs Flintoff

Botham is a legend.. flintoff is a legend in making that is the difference


On yester year

If you notice in games from that time, batsmen never used to just punch the ball with heavy bats...and see it race away for four.. it was more free flowing with strokes rather than blocks going to the boundary... no helmets... bouncers.. it was an open sport not a commercial money making machine, and that is what produced greatness in players.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Andy Mellon

Well, I always got that feeling when they took on England, that's for sure

However, they weren't completely invincible. As I recall, New Zealand took them down a peg or two in a very controversial series in about 1984. I think that was the series where Colin Croft shoulder barged the Kiwi umpire.

It was 1980.

And the umpires (one called Goodall to be more exact) had a very interesting interpretation of the phrase "impartial umpiring" throughout.

They (WI) actually refused to resume the final Day 3 session for about 10 minutes. They were adamant they would not retake the field unless Goodall was replaced.

Many meetings took place to save that tour.

Holding actually kicked down the stumps in disgust at one decision. He has since apologised for that acton but not for being aggrieved that his team were being robbed.

It was after that the WI became "invincible". They only beat England 1-0 over 5 Tests later that year. By the early to mid 80s they became the dominant force.

And with knowledge of what happened then, it makes me laugh to read people saying this incident is the saddest week for cricket and home umpires are better and other such sensationalist overreaction.