Nov 6, 2016 -- 8:32AM, jucel69 wrote:

I think it's impossible to compare batsmen from different generations, especially when you are comparing 2/3 generations.

It's clearly difficult but I think impossible is a bit strong. You can look at how batsmen did against their contemporaries and then cross compare, which has some validity, as long as it's they're reasonably big data sets. It's reasonably consistent in the remotely modern era that 50 is an exceptionally good batting average and there are reasons why very few players indeed have averaged 60 over a reasonable time. The ICC rankings have historical functions too, which have some additional correction features, although the sceptic might argue that they give a veneer of scientific method to uncertainty.

Nov 6, 2016 -- 11:18AM, Fatslogger wrote:

Nov  6, 2016 --  8:32AM, jucel69 wrote:I think it's impossible to compare batsmen from different generations, especially when you are comparing 2/3 generations.It's clearly difficult but I think impossible is a bit strong. You can look at how batsmen did against their contemporaries and then cross compare, which has some validity, as long as it's they're reasonably big data sets. It's reasonably consistent in the remotely modern era that 50 is an exceptionally good batting average and there are reasons why very few players indeed have averaged 60 over a reasonable time. The ICC rankings have historical functions too, which have some additional correction features, although the sceptic might argue that they give a veneer of scientific method to uncertainty.

Comparing them to their contemporaries is probably the most valid way to assess a players "greatness"
There was a guy averaging 100 odd during Hobbs/Sutcliffes time and with only 3 teams playing Tests there weren't too many others to compare them to!

Nov 6, 2016 -- 8:37PM, Cardinal Scott wrote:

To be considered the best you have to have delivered against the best...Botham, Gower both failed on that count v Windies Gooch did not.

Nov 7, 2016 -- 8:02PM, Whisperingdeath wrote:

No!Which one of Warne and McGrath was not great?The Windies of the 70's and 80'sTBH I didn't know much about Eddie Paynter except for the Bodyline match when he was ill. He didn't play as much as Hammond and Hutton who I do consider greats of the game.I don't know what you have against the older players. They could play and score on uncovered pitches and our current England team can't play against spin. The bats they used were almost half the weight of current bats.

It does detract from Warne/Mcgrath's greatness for me. They're obviously 2 amazing bowlers but if they're in the same side then they're obviously going to get a huge benefit from playing with each other.
Look at Brett Lee / Jason Gillespie / Craig Mcdermott, do you think that playing with Warne+McGrath was good for their stats or bad?

Look at the batsmen who played with Warne + McGrath - Hayden, Hussey, Ponting, Steve Waugh all averaging 50+, lots of other batters averaging 45+
Playing in a strong side boosts everyones stats.

None of those older players played in the subcontinent so nobody has any idea about their true ability vs spin!