What's new

How would have the likes of AB de Villiers, Virat Kohli, Steve Smith, etc. done in the 1900s?

CadPakFan

CadPakFan

Local Club Regular
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Runs
1,320
How would've the likes of ABD, Kohli, and Smith done in the 1900s playing with smaller bats, longer boundaries and different rules. Discuss!
 
ABD, Amla, Smith, Sanga, Younis and all of the other all-conditions batsmen would have been fine. They wouldn't have had much trouble and apart from averaging a couple of points lower, there would not be much of a difference in their output.

Kohli would have struggled however, given his weakness against seam and swing. Rohit, Warner, Guptil and the army of hacks that have opened for Pakistan recently, would not get a game for their respective national teams.
 
Bilal7 said:
ABD, Amla, Smith, Sanga, Younis and all of the other all-conditions batsmen would have been fine. They wouldn't have had much trouble and apart from averaging a couple of points lower, there would not be much of a difference in their output.

Kohli would have struggled however, given his weakness against seam and swing. Rohit, Warner, Guptil and the army of hacks that have opened for Pakistan recently, would not get a game for their respective national teams.
Click to expand...

Yes, Rohit would stand no chance against the mighty Manoj Prabhakar.
 
1900s?

Meaning 1900-1910? Or 1900-1999?

Assuming they retained their current skill set and physical attributes, all of them would have destroyed the trundlers of 1900-1950. Rules/bat size/pitch type wouldn't matter.

It gets dicey as you move into the latter part of the century.

80s/90s had great bowlers and some of these guys would have been found out. Sanga, Amla, Smith would have been fine but not so sure about ABD or YK.
 
Kholi would have been a clerk somewhere in Delhi. Cause every bowler in 90s was better and pitches were sporting etc.
 
Kohli is a much bigger player than Tendulkar.

There I said it!
 
Kohli would have been a keyboard warrior on Pakpassion fighting with other warriors on who is better batsmen?
 
On a serious note, they all would have done great except one- Alastair Cook.
 
Every international batsman today would have dominated then and averaged above 60s. The game has come so far in the 100 years, not sure what the obsession with the past is about for people. Even the first class batsmen today would be of higher calibre than international batsmen then.
 
in 1900 i don.t know but batting was much difficult in 90s i mean 1990s and kohli would have struggled against the moving ball but who knows may be kohli would have made adjustments.
 
AB would have been still the best because he's overall very good against all types of bowlers. Root is another batsman who is a very solid all-round batsman.

The rest would be still world class but with significantly lower average.
 
I am firmly of the belief that a champion in one era would be a champion in any era.

The modern batters would have to tighten up their techniques though, as they leave big gates open which would mean they would be bowled and lbw a lot on the less true pitches of the past.
 
Kohli would have been fine, just like dravid ,sachin and ganguly. AB would have done well too. However they would all bow down to mcgrath, warne , walsh,ambrose,wasim,waqar, donald, fanny devilliers, and others. The Aussies of the 90's and the otehrs would have really done a number on them.

I'm sorry but todays bowlers are nothing compared to the 90's greats. they just arent that good. So kohlis problem with the ball moving slightly away on offstump would have been how mcgrath would get him every time. And wasim doing what amir did to him in the CT would also be common. But because he is a hard worker he would work and still make runs. Just not as prolific as now.

If these guys would have faced a peak waqar lol I would laugh at them as their stumps would get splattered! or helmets on the floor.
 
All of them would've done well but their averages would be about 10 runs less with a few less centuries.
 
Princejain191 said:
Every international batsman today would have dominated then and averaged above 60s. The game has come so far in the 100 years, not sure what the obsession with the past is about for people. Even the first class batsmen today would be of higher calibre than international batsmen then.
Click to expand...

you have no idea what your on about. The bowlers were much better and the pitches in ODI's werent standard phatta pitches. The rules were different and there were more pace bowlers around than today. Todays batsman would have been in for a shock. The cricket was very raw at times and sometimes a bit amateurish but the conditions were different. Todays players inmho have it easy. Slower pitches, rules to protect the batsman, generally favourable conditions all round.
 
shariqnoor said:
All of them would've done well but their averages would be about 10 runs less with a few less centuries.
Click to expand...

Martin crowe is a better batsman then williamson, tendu better than kohli, ponting/waugh/langer/taylor et al all better than smith. WHat you should be asking is how would the 90's average today? Well we saw what sachin did. A younger sachin would have broken records. Ponting too would have broken records, grennidge and haynes would have been unbeatable , let alone richards.
 
the Great Khan said:
you have no idea what your on about. The bowlers were much better and the pitches in ODI's werent standard phatta pitches. The rules were different and there were more pace bowlers around than today. Todays batsman would have been in for a shock. The cricket was very raw at times and sometimes a bit amateurish but the conditions were different. Todays players inmho have it easy. Slower pitches, rules to protect the batsman, generally favourable conditions all round.
Click to expand...

I guess you're talking about 1990s and he is talking about 1900s
 
Robert said:
That was rocket speed. It even looks sharp in slo-mo. Marshall and Waqar are the ones I think of as possessing terrifying pace. Nice to see England bowlers fighting WI fire with fire in 1991 as well.
Click to expand...

indeed. Look at bishop and devon..the bouncers were crazy..and then just put smith in the firing line lol..it would be comedic stuff..forget williamson and kohli..they wouldnt last a session..
 
the Great Khan said:
you have no idea what your on about. The bowlers were much better and the pitches in ODI's werent standard phatta pitches. The rules were different and there were more pace bowlers around than today. Todays batsman would have been in for a shock. The cricket was very raw at times and sometimes a bit amateurish but the conditions were different. Todays players inmho have it easy. Slower pitches, rules to protect the batsman, generally favourable conditions all round.
Click to expand...

Equipment has improved, just like it has in every other sport. Tennis players have better rackets. Football players get better grounds and shoes to run in. And golf players have higher quality clubs to hit with. Same goes for the cricket equipment. But that doesn't change the fact that with time, every single sport evolves. It's sportsmen become better and better at what they do.

A Jesse Owens, as good as he was, would struggle to qualify in the finals against the Tyson Gays or the Usain Bolts of the world (with or without the shoes).

Hundred years ago, cricket wasn't too much of a profession. Every cricketer was either a tradesman, a scholar, a war-hero or had something to do on the side. They were not the athletes that we have now. A single ball that was hit wasn't chased like a bull that we see now. Bolwers were slower. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. We didn't have the bowling quality that we have now, not even close to it. Same goes for batting. As for the rules, I distinctly remember that a bowler bowling bouncers was nationally disgraced. So yeah, it wasn't all that scary for the batsmen.

Every single sport evolves and Cricket has too. No reason why people should argue against it.
 
Princejain191 said:
Equipment has improved, just like it has in every other sport. Tennis players have better rackets. Football players get better grounds and shoes to run in. And golf players have higher quality clubs to hit with. Same goes for the cricket equipment. But that doesn't change the fact that with time, every single sport evolves. It's sportsmen become better and better at what they do.

A Jesse Owens, as good as he was, would struggle to qualify in the finals against the Tyson Gays or the Usain Bolts of the world (with or without the shoes).

Hundred years ago, cricket wasn't too much of a profession. Every cricketer was either a tradesman, a scholar, a war-hero or had something to do on the side. They were not the athletes that we have now. A single ball that was hit wasn't chased like a bull that we see now. Bolwers were slower. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. We didn't have the bowling quality that we have now, not even close to it. Same goes for batting. As for the rules, I distinctly remember that a bowler bowling bouncers was nationally disgraced. So yeah, it wasn't all that scary for the batsmen.

Every single sport evolves and Cricket has too. No reason why people should argue against it.
Click to expand...

actually cricket hasnt "improved" in that sense. What they have done is changed the conditions of the game. Yes the fielding is better, yes the bats are better, yes protection is better. But the bowlers have regressed. Just write down all the bowlers who can bowl at 90mph regularly right now. I can write my 80's and 90's list and you give me your list.
 
the Great Khan said:
actually cricket hasnt "improved" in that sense. What they have done is changed the conditions of the game. Yes the fielding is better, yes the bats are better, yes protection is better. But the bowlers have regressed. Just write down all the bowlers who can bowl at 90mph regularly right now. I can write my 80's and 90's list and you give me your list.
Click to expand...

Okay - players who have played in the last 8-10 years and could consistently bowl 140+:

Shami, Umesh, Rabada, Morris, Steyn, Harris, Johnson, Starc, Boult, Wagner, Amir, Wahab, Bumrah, Taskin, Woakes, P. Cummins, Morkel, Gabriel, Roach, Junaid, Malinga, M. Irfan.

I have definitely missed some. And I would also point out that average speeds of the bowlers I haven't mentioned is probably 135+ (Hazlewood, Anderson, Broad, Bhuvi, Southee, McClenaghan, Stokes, Siddle) which is fast too. Hardly any 127-130 bowlers now.
 
Just want to say, none of Hayden, Ricky Ponting, Mohd, Yousuf, Kallis, Jaywardene, Inzimam, Andy Flower and Chanderpaul averaged close to 50 in the 90s yet all of them beefed up during the 2000s and ended near or above 50. It shows how tough a decade is was for batters.

In fact, only Tendulkar, Lara, Steve Waugh and Gooch (who hit a purple patch) were the only ones who played significant cricket in the 90s and averaged over 50. It really was only the best of the best who persevered.

Compare that to the 2000s and you get the picture:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...tting_average.html?class=1;id=200;type=decade
 
They would all average 100+ from 1900-1950 and the next tier of batsmen 80-90+.
From 1965-75 things change quickly the best batsmen won't average over 60 with the best averaging in the 50s give or take a few points and in the 80s and 90s standards became very difficult so they might average over 50 but most likely in the 45-50 range.
 
kingusama92 said:
1900s?

Meaning 1900-1910? Or 1900-1999?

Assuming they retained their current skill set and physical attributes, all of them would have destroyed the trundlers of 1900-1950. Rules/bat size/pitch type wouldn't matter.

It gets dicey as you move into the latter part of the century.

80s/90s had great bowlers and some of these guys would have been found out. Sanga, Amla, Smith would have been fine but not so sure about ABD or YK.
Click to expand...

One bouncer in, and they would have never touched a cricket bat again :P
 
subshakerz said:
Just want to say, none of Hayden, Ricky Ponting, Mohd, Yousuf, Kallis, Jaywardene, Inzimam, Andy Flower and Chanderpaul averaged close to 50 in the 90s yet all of them beefed up during the 2000s and ended near or above 50. It shows how tough a decade is was for batters.

In fact, only Tendulkar, Lara, Steve Waugh and Gooch (who hit a purple patch) were the only ones who played significant cricket in the 90s and averaged over 50. It really was only the best of the best who persevered.

Compare that to the 2000s and you get the picture:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...tting_average.html?class=1;id=200;type=decade
Click to expand...

None of them were the best in the next decade they were easily outperformed by others during the 2000s what could be the reason sudden loss of ability not being FTBs?
 
Cric1234 said:
None of them were the best in the next decade they were easily outperformed by others during the 2000s what could be the reason sudden loss of ability not being FTBs?
Click to expand...

Batsmen dominating a decade are going to be done with their best in one decade. Do you really expect same batsmen to dominate an additional decade?
 
Last edited:
Buffet said:
Batsmen dominating a decade are going to be done with their best in one decade. Do you really expect same batsmen to dominate an additional decade?
Click to expand...

Well the 90s were tough for batting so it should've been easier for batsmen in the next decade who did well previously but it wasn't the case Tendulkar was only 27 entering the 2000s playing tests and ODIs continuously would take some toll but the performance became worse regardless.
 
Cric1234 said:
Well the 90s were tough for batting so it should've been easier for batsmen in the next decade who did well previously but it wasn't the case Tendulkar was only 27 entering the 2000s playing tests and ODIs continuously would take some toll but the performance became worse regardless.
Click to expand...

SRT's peak was 90s and any one who has seen him play can attest to that. Age of players and volume of cricketer played by that cricketer is a factor. He got injured and he was not the same attacking batsman in 00s. You just had to watch him adapt and all credit to him for doing it, but he was not the same player.


Anyway, look at it this way. Can you have a player with peak of 20 years with current volume of cricket? Just ask yourself that question. It's not going to happen. Argument that a batsman, who was ahead of others in entire 90s, should be ahead in 00s as well is a flawed one.
 
Buffet said:
SRT's peak was 90s and any one who has seen him play can attest to that. Age of players and volume of cricketer played by that cricketer is a factor. He got injured and he was not the same attacking batsman in 00s. You just had to watch him adapt and all credit to him for doing it, but he was not the same player.


Anyway, look at it this way. Can you have a player with peak of 20 years with current volume of cricket? Just ask yourself that question. It's not going to happen. Argument that a batsman, who was ahead of others in entire 90s, should be ahead in 00s as well is a flawed one.
Click to expand...

That's not the point fact is the best batsmen from the 90s didn't do as well during the 00s when it became easier to bat even if the peak was before performance should still be up there due to it being easier to bat facing inferior bowling.
 
Kohli would have struggled big time against swing and seam. AB also wouldnt have been that successful aswell.

Kane Williamson would have been a top 5 odi batsman of that era. Has perfect game for the 90s.
 
Princejain191 said:
Okay - players who have played in the last 8-10 years and could consistently bowl 140+:

Shami, Umesh, Rabada, Morris, Steyn, Harris, Johnson, Starc, Boult, Wagner, Amir, Wahab, Bumrah, Taskin, Woakes, P. Cummins, Morkel, Gabriel, Roach, Junaid, Malinga, M. Irfan.

I have definitely missed some. And I would also point out that average speeds of the bowlers I haven't mentioned is probably 135+ (Hazlewood, Anderson, Broad, Bhuvi, Southee, McClenaghan, Stokes, Siddle) which is fast too. Hardly any 127-130 bowlers now.
Click to expand...

thanks but none of these guys bowl 90 mph consistently. The whole windian quartet right up until walsh ambrose bishop walsh and patterson were 90 mph pretty much regularly. Then you had imran,waqar,wasim, then the aussie greats like lillee brett lee gillespie not to mention thompson who was lightening quick. England had devon malcolm who regularly hit 90 mph. Donald and devilliers although donald was the quicker one. Devilliers also had his moments.

Nowadays we have flat dead pitches and rule constraints coupled with the desire to make money. Hence the end of any real danger for batsmen!
 
the Great Khan said:
thanks but none of these guys bowl 90 mph consistently. The whole windian quartet right up until walsh ambrose bishop walsh and patterson were 90 mph pretty much regularly. Then you had imran,waqar,wasim, then the aussie greats like lillee brett lee gillespie not to mention thompson who was lightening quick. England had devon malcolm who regularly hit 90 mph. Donald and devilliers although donald was the quicker one. Devilliers also had his moments.

Nowadays we have flat dead pitches and rule constraints coupled with the desire to make money. Hence the end of any real danger for batsmen!
Click to expand...

yeah, right there you have mentioned cricketers from early 1970 to late 2000s (40 years!!) to compare with my 2010s cricketers. Players like Gillespie, Mcgrath and Lee are more current generation players than of the 1980 generation. The discussion was on speed and I think bowlers, on average, bowl faster now.

About the quality, let us see:

India - Jadeja, Ashwin, Kuldeep, Umesh, Shami, Bhuvi and Ishant. Not many would deny that current Indian bowling lineup (with the new gen of fast bowlers) is as good as any before.

SA - Philander, Morkel, Steyn, Kallis and now, Rabada and Maharaj. SA has had some amazing bowling lineups. It would be hard to choose between Donald/Pollock and Steyn/Philander but how the current gen one looks more complete with a better spinner and 3rd bowler.

NZ - Unarguably, their best opening bowling partnership in test cricket, add to that Santner and probably the best first-change fast bowler today in Wagner and the attack is top-class.

England - Jimmy, Broad, Stokes, Woakes, Swann and Moeen. (Swann played most of his cricket in the last 10 years). Again, their greatest fast bowling pair. None of the english attacks apart from the 2010 Ashes one would compare to this.

Australia - Harris, Johnson, Siddle, Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins, Lyon. The late 90s and early 00s might beat this but not many before. Definitely not the Merv Hughes or the Lillee one, this has far greater variety and quality.

Bangladesh has also improved, SL and Pak are probably the ones to have regressed. But overall, most attacks have become better.
 
Princejain191 said:
yeah, right there you have mentioned cricketers from early 1970 to late 2000s (40 years!!) to compare with my 2010s cricketers. Players like Gillespie, Mcgrath and Lee are more current generation players than of the 1980 generation. The discussion was on speed and I think bowlers, on average, bowl faster now.

About the quality, let us see:

India - Jadeja, Ashwin, Kuldeep, Umesh, Shami, Bhuvi and Ishant. Not many would deny that current Indian bowling lineup (with the new gen of fast bowlers) is as good as any before.

The india attack with bedi and co was better inmho but obviously the 80's,90's and 00's was pretty barren for India so not really hard to improve on.

SA - Philander, Morkel, Steyn, Kallis and now, Rabada and Maharaj. SA has had some amazing bowling lineups. It would be hard to choose between Donald/Pollock and Steyn/Philander but how the current gen one looks more complete with a better spinner and 3rd bowler.

Mcmillan,donald,devilliers, pollock was a top class pace attack with donald hitting 90 mph regularly. Steyn is a great but the rest dont hit 90 mph. Even rabada.

NZ - Unarguably, their best opening bowling partnership in test cricket, add to that Santner and probably the best first-change fast bowler today in Wagner and the attack is top-class.

Yes your probably right about this one. However they had hadley who was a legend.

England - Jimmy, Broad, Stokes, Woakes, Swann and Moeen. (Swann played most of his cricket in the last 10 years). Again, their greatest fast bowling pair. None of the english attacks apart from the 2010 Ashes one would compare to this.

I would argue that if this bowling attack was around in the 80's and 90's facing some all time legendary batsmen they would have struggled. Anderson is a great bowler but Botham was better inmho. Again they dont bowl 90 mph regularly.

Australia - Harris, Johnson, Siddle, Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins, Lyon. The late 90s and early 00s might beat this but not many before. Definitely not the Merv Hughes or the Lillee one, this has far greater variety and quality.

Craig Mcdermott would walk into this Aussies side, and so would dare I say it Bruce Reid. but they were going through a slightly weak period in the mid 80's. but then got back to winning ways in the 90's

Bangladesh has also improved, SL and Pak are probably the ones to have regressed. But overall, most attacks have become better.

Pakistans test bowling attack just prior to the recent series wasn't that bad. But I see your point. Going from Waqar to wahab is a regression.
Click to expand...

regards
 
All others apart from De Villiers would have done fine..

De Villiers would be eaten by Mcgrath,Akram,Ambrose etc
 
Except for Younis Khan and Babar Azam no one would have had much chance or maybe Azhar Ali.
 
Princejain191 said:
Equipment has improved, just like it has in every other sport. Tennis players have better rackets. Football players get better grounds and shoes to run in. And golf players have higher quality clubs to hit with. Same goes for the cricket equipment. But that doesn't change the fact that with time, every single sport evolves. It's sportsmen become better and better at what they do.

A Jesse Owens, as good as he was, would struggle to qualify in the finals against the Tyson Gays or the Usain Bolts of the world (with or without the shoes).

Hundred years ago, cricket wasn't too much of a profession. Every cricketer was either a tradesman, a scholar, a war-hero or had something to do on the side. They were not the athletes that we have now. A single ball that was hit wasn't chased like a bull that we see now. Bolwers were slower. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. We didn't have the bowling quality that we have now, not even close to it. Same goes for batting. As for the rules, I distinctly remember that a bowler bowling bouncers was nationally disgraced. So yeah, it wasn't all that scary for the batsmen.

Every single sport evolves and Cricket has too. No reason why people should argue against it.
Click to expand...

You expect athletes to be quicker sport to advance in some ways but Bolts body and fitness levels only make him 5-6% quicker than a runner from the 1920s and remember people in the past didn't have access to modern day training and fitness methods.
Great bowlers have come in the past only an ignorant mind says otherwise batsmen were at a disadvantage imagine facing bouncers with only a small bat and no protection it's dangerous and serious business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Buffet
Kumar Sangakkara versus Virat Kohli in the Test format
2 3
Replies
177
Views
7K
Hawkeye
H
S
The most underappreciated cricketer of this century
2
Replies
118
Views
3K
Hyder
H
Bhaijaan
IPL : Career earnings
Replies
65
Views
2K
Bewal Express
B
mominsaigol
Are Yashasvi Jaiswal and Rishabh Pant the next hype machines for India?
2 3
Replies
212
Views
6K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
mominsaigol
Tier Ranks of Batsmen
Replies
53
Views
2K
Justcrazy
Justcrazy
Back
Top