If players or teams from different eras could play each other...
What contests would you like to see?
Don Bradman versus the West Indies fast bowlers of the seventies and eighties.
The Australian cricket team of the nineties versus the great West Indies team of the seventies and eighties (Shane Warne versus Viv Richards, reckon Viv would win that
)
1968 Manchester United versus 1994 or 1999 Manchester United.
The great Welsh rugby team of the seventies versus the England team of the early nineties or the World Cup winning team from 2003. Or the 70s Welsh team versus the grand slam Aussies of 1984.
1966 England football team versus England 2010 (wonder who'd win that
)
Don Bradman versus the West Indies fast bowlers of the seventies and eighties.
The Australian cricket team of the nineties versus the great West Indies team of the seventies and eighties (Shane Warne versus Viv Richards, reckon Viv would win that
)1968 Manchester United versus 1994 or 1999 Manchester United.
The great Welsh rugby team of the seventies versus the England team of the early nineties or the World Cup winning team from 2003. Or the 70s Welsh team versus the grand slam Aussies of 1984.
1966 England football team versus England 2010 (wonder who'd win that
) 0
Comments
In some sports, like athletics, obviously modern athletes would outdo the older ones, at least on paper, but you have to take into consideration modern tracks and the fact that these days athletes train full time.
In sports like rugby , players are much larger than they were 40 years ago , and would have an advantage.
In sports of purely skill, like cricket or golf, very little would change apart from the use of modern equipment.
With football, which is a skill game, the game for me has hardly changed. Football games 40 years ago were played with the same intensity as today, and level of skill as today. As for a 1966 v 2010 game Bobby Moore's lot would take our current team to pieces, 6-1 or something.
Laver v Federer (with wooden racquets of course!)
Nicklaus v Woods (using todays technology)
Tyson v Ali, or Ali v Louis
The two Sugar Ray's, Robinson and Leonard, at Middleweight
Coe v Ovett v the great kenyans
Zatopek v Viren v Gabriesallasie
I could go on all day
Ali would destroy Tyson.
Even assuming Tyson could get to him Ali would take anything Tyson had - he took harder hitters - but Ali could pick Tyson off at will.
The Foreman of 1974 was way better than Tyson.
The middleweight clash would be good though.
I probably agree but I'd like to see the pre Douglas Tyson v the pre Foreman Ali. Mind you, I'd also liked to have seen a Foreman - Ali rematch. in a more normal heat/humidity environment. I think Foreman would have won
I'd take Ali for the rematch as well - I think it took Foreman a long time to get over that fight mentally.
Pre Douglas Tyson wouldn't have matched Ali (or Foreman, or Frasier, Norton and one or two others from that time). Holmes (late 70s very early 80s) & Lewis are the only one since in that class.
Remember, Tyson got tagged by Bruno who hardly had fast hands.
My teams would be:
USA.
Hogan, Sneed, Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson, Miller, Weiskopf, Crenshaw, Floyd, Stewart and Woods
Europe,
Cotton, Faulkner, Jacklin, Lyle, Langer, Woosnam, Faldo, Ballesteros, Olazabal, Harrington, McDowell and Montgomery
:cool: :cool:
Jardine adopted a hardline application of leg theory because he had at least 4 bowlers who could execute it (Larwood, Voce, Bowes and Allan - who refused to do it), and as a tactical ploy, he felt that it would counter the fad at the time for the Aussie batsmen to move across their stumps as the delivery was released in order to play balls through the midwicket area (very much like Ponting has been doing for some years).
That Larwood was particularly fast and aggressive made the Leg Theory choice particularly appropriate.
Although all the reports tell of extremely gutsy performances by the Aussies, Ponsford, Woodfull etc, there is the suggestion that Bradman was not so up for the fight as some of his colleagues.
However, this view may have arisen out of his volatile scores in the early Tests; I have not read of any quotes, either direct from Don nor indirect from his teammates.
So yes, that battle with Roberts, Marshall, Holding, Daniel, Croft, and Holder with Boyce, Julian, Alleyne, Stephenson, Moseley and Sylvester Clarke in reserve would be interesting. And if all these guys got worn out by the Don and his mates, maybe we cold wheel in Walsh and Ambrose too for the death bowling?:D
Not forgetting my original inspiration on the '63 WI tour, Wes Hall. We'd have to let him loose on the Don, Ponsford and Woodfull.
But, we'd have to agree whose rules we were playing by as many of the WI deliveries from the late 70's and 80's would be called as no balls - either too many short ones in an over and or no balls if they strayed down leg side either deliberately or not.
My money would be that assuming a non leg side approach, the Don ad his mates would have the guts to come out on top.
You've forgotten the best one;
George Foreman before inventing his fat-free grill vs George Foreman after he'd invented it.
Santos (early 1960's with Pele and Coutinho), against Flamengo 1981 (so Pele v Zico).
Ajax (early 1970's) v Ajax (1994) two very good passing and attacking sides that would be a joy to watch.
A.C. Milan (1989/1990) v Brazil (1970), to my mind the ultimate match up of a great attacking force (Brazil) against a great defence (Milan). I guess to be fair Milan's attackers from that side were not to shabby either.
That is all for now, but I am sure I will think of some more later on.:D
I sort of agree - but Tyson could only beat who there was to beat (true for Holmes too), so we'll never know whether he could have got better against great fighters. I'm not a huge Tyson fan at all. but given the dearth of talent around today he is the only fighter of the last 25 years who could live with the guys around from the 70s.
The '87 to '89 vintage of Barnes, Beardsley, Aldridge et al would have been a good match for any club side I have ever seen.
Lewis was much better than Tyson. He would have contested for top 5 in the 70s - Tyson would have been a bit lower.
Was it David Frith's Bodyline Autopsy by any chance?
You missed out Joel Garner! I'd include Bishop and Patterson as well :eek:
Imagine a West Indies attack featuring the bowlers from the seventies to the early nineties...bowling Bodyline :eek:
Thanks for correcting me.
I am ashamed to have missed those three. I thought my list was a bit light.
Especially as an old University cricketer mate of mine faced Garner in a Central Lancashire League game (Royton v Littleborough) back in 76ish in pre-helmut days.
Apparently, Garner's arm/hand went above the sightscreen on delivery. My mate said that he never saw the deliveries he faced.
But becuase Garner bowled a bit short of a length, the ball went through to the keeper and my mate survived and returned to the slightly more gentile cricket at Uni.; gentile that is unless you played Loughborough Colledges who had at least 4 players who had played 1st Class Cricket. Those games were a bit like men v boys.
(We did play a game v Bradford on Park Avenue while all the stands were there, including that wonderful old raised pavilion - a day I shall never forget).
And yes, I did read Frith's book which I thought set the social/cultural and political scene as well as the cricket scene.
Although reading the detail so well laid out by Frith, I can't help thinking that everyone else (media/administrators etc) made much more of the issue than the players.
Participants in all sports are easily fitter than in earlier eras.
However, the great players of yesteryear would still be great today because they too would be fitter.
When I look at the recording of football games in the 50's I always think how slow it all was. They were, however, playing in different boots, with a different ball, on very different pitches.
When I started playing cricket, if you scored 200 batting first it was a big score, you always thought that you were safe from defeat. These days, in league cricket the benchmark score is at least 250 and you are not safe with a scoere over 300. The same appear to apply to first class cricket.
We often discuss the reason for this in club/league cricket. We usually put it down to better pitches, better and quicker outfields, fielding circles and far better bats. The bowling is not better and the only thing that seems to be checking the scoring is far better fielding.
Bradman still averaged 50 in the bodyline series. I often think that teams got themselves out against the West Indies bowlers by trying to score too quickly. When you only get to face 11/12 overs an hour and half the balls in the over are over your head, you tend to play rash shots at anything hittable.
I've observed, and been involved in, Surrey Championship cricket for nearly 30 years. For most of that period 300 was a very rare score throughout the divisions and XIs. It's only in the last 5 years or so that has become more common (there was a 400 last week:eek:). I think T20 (combined with better bats) has lifted the expectations of batsmen.
With regard to athletic records there is the element of "if a mark is there you will strive to beat it." Training and dietary improvements are also a factor.
A slightly different slant on the original question:
I would like to see some of the great spinners of cricket history like Laker, O'Reilly, Blythe, Rhodes etc bowling on modern pitches protected from the rain during playing hours/days and, conversely the likes of Giles, Panesar and Tufnell on the old rain affected pitches. Also some of the great fast bowlers of 100+ years ago, Tom Richardson, Hirst, Spofforth, with the modern balls - and a new one every 80 overs instead of one ball for a whole innings as in their day.
agree there.
Would also like the see
The Austrian team of the 30s against the Hungarian team of the 50s. They were based on the same philosophy and had the same coaches.
I'll add my own of Merckx v Armstrong at the Tour
Maybe Fred Perry v Federer although think the athletics side may mean a win for Roger there
But Perry was the fittest player of his time.
Through one winter, he trained at Highbury with the Arsenal players on the basis that he never again wanted to be beaten for fitness in the 5th set of a match.
Now that would be a very interesting tussle.
Didn't know that but what I meant was that the fitness standards of then and now are different.
Another good match up would be
Jessie Owens v Bolt
not a team but Nuvolari v Fangio v Senna v Schumacher would be a great race too
And although these cross-era compariosns are fun, to get a bit closer to making some sense out of them you have to equalise the things that have changed.
For example, how would Perry and Federer do with......
- the training methods of back then, not now?
or
- the modern racquets of today and not the wooden plank (sorry Dunlop) which Perry would have played with?
or
- playing on the indoor wood floors covered in canvas that Perry would often have played on in Pro Tour matches or the rubberised indoor surfaces that Federer will play on for the indoor season these days?
etc etc.