Halfbacks - split from Michael Lett Thread.

[hineyrulz]

Don't you believe it.....
Reminds me of the story when a journalist asked Don Bradman many years ago what he would average against the Pommy bowlers if he was batting today.
"Probably about 60" the Don said.
The journo replied "Gee, when you retired your average was 99.94",
"Yeah, I know," the Don said, "But I am 85 you know".
Great players are great in any era..and Eric Grothe senior and the rest of the champion Eels players of the ighties would be just as great today as they were then

agree 100% pete, imagine guru snr in todays playng environment.he would have been a superstar of the game, as pete said champions in one era would be champions in any other,

 

[Eelementary]

Well...No.

They were champions because of the era they played in. Under the new rules, at a much faster pace, with a much more physical undertone...Even if they devoted to training specifically for modern football, I doubt they'd have the same impact they did in the eighties. I think men like Guru Snr., Kenny and Sterling - backs in general - would adapt OK. But the forwards would strurggle. They'd be good - but not as good as we all know them to be.

And please notice I mean absolutely no disrespect. And these are my opinions.

 

[hineyrulz]

Well...No.

They were champions because of the era they played in. Under the new rules, at a much faster pace, with a much more physical undertone...Even if they devoted to training specifically for modern football, I doubt they'd have the same impact they did in the eighties. I think men like Guru Snr., Kenny and Sterling - backs in general - would adapt OK. But the forwards would strurggle. They'd be good - but not as good as we all know them to be.

And please notice I mean absolutely no disrespect. And these are my opinions.

you've heard the old saying you can never compare era's well in this case it applies. but imagine some of the forwards around these days how many of them would have survived the 70's and 80's. EG brent kite maybe 2mins then he would be stuck in a dark room for 4 weeks.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

I agree with Elementary to a certain degree. I think todays game involves different sorts of players big, strong, can run 100 metres under 11 etc. Sure if the teams of the 70's and 80's would undergo the same training ands weights program they would be just as competitive, even adapt great to the 10 metre rule. However, like the run arounds and sweeping backline movements etc their game wouldn't be suited to ours. Different cultures of players, a different pedigree of player is now required to play the game.

Just look back to the 80's, you think a player like a David Hatch or Mick Neil, Paul Taylor, Mick Delroy etc with all due respect to these players who were good in their own rights would be able to compete in todays game?, i doubt that very much. Eric Grothe snr is a different example altogether though, It's obvious that Jr has inherited his genetics, and that fend of his and his speed, they were parts of Eric Grothe snr that made him great. Snr is better then Jr...why? not only could Snr run 100 metres to score a try, he could also run 100 metres to stop one. He also posssed better attention to detail in remote parts of the field, Jr doesn't display these straits.

I will say this though, if Bradman played today his batting average wouldn't be 99.4, it would be around the 60-65v mark, sorry to offend, but his average was mainly due to the influence he had over the poms. Cricket is alot more diverse these days, whitch involve different environmental aspects of locality, cricketers are alot more skilled ( eg Warne, Murali with spin bowling) and a hell lot quicker in the way the game is played!!!!. bradmans average was thanks to the dominance he had over the poms, like Warnes and Steve Waughs dominance over them, except they do that to a variety of countries!

 

[Ron Jeremy]

you've heard the old saying you can never compare era's well in this case it applies. but imagine some of the forwards around these days how many of them would have survived the 70's and 80's. EG brent kite maybe 2mins then he would be stuck in a dark room for 4 weeks.

They would've adapted to that culture, an di believe a Tallis, Kite, Bailey would've been to strong for them due to the fact that players today under go for rigid training in all facets including weights programs, wrestling etc. Not to mention todays game involves a large part of size. Players are physically stronger today and train alot more then 3 times a week back in the 70's.

 

[yy_cheng]

They would've adapted to that culture, an di believe a Tallis, Kite, Bailey would've been to strong for them due to the fact that players today under go for rigid training in all facets including weights programs, wrestling etc. Not to mention todays game involves a large part of size. Players are physically stronger today and train alot more then 3 times a week back in the 70's.

Ahhh, today's game. What if they played their game as it was played in the 80s?

Could the Kites, Moimoi, Cinnovseva, O'Meley, etc play at that level for a FULL 80 mins?

I don't actually recall how many reserves you could have back then. I think it was 2 and onced replaced, you could not get back on.

 

[yy_cheng]

Good points.

Although I've never cared for this "best player in the world" statement. Andrew Johns is the best halfback in the world; Darren Lockyer is the best fullback-cum-five-eighth in the world...But they are not the best players in the world in my eyes. Calling them that is assuming they can play just as well as they do now in the front row, at fullback, on the wings, in the centres, etc.

I understand where you are coming from. I guess the MVP would be more indicative. i.e. if you took that player out of a team and played the next best player in that position, what would the impact be.

 

[Eelementary]

This is my example:

The Don - LEGENDARY batsman.

Now, if he devoted himself to training specifically to face today's cricketers, in today's conditions...Would his Test average of 99.94 still hold up? I, personally, doubt it. And here's why:

Insanley-talented freaks like Muttiah Muralithuran, Shane Warne, Courtney Walsh, Flintoff, etc...They weren't around during The Don's era. Mind you, around his time, you still had some great cricketers - but how many could fair dinkum bowl a ball at 150+ kph, like Lee or Akhtar? How many could bowl vicious doosras or leg-breaks that swung and spun in amazing ways? In the words of Scribe, "Not many - if any."

I'm a big believer in the adage that a legend is a product of his own era. The great Magic Johnson would struggle to maintain his amazing match figures in the NBA of today, playing against guys like Iverson, Tim Duncan and the like. Maradona would have a much harder time dominating the game in this day and age against bigger, more physical and agile players.

 

[Eelementary]

I understand where you are coming from. I guess the MVP would be more indicative. i.e. if you took that player out of a team and played the next best player in that position, what would the impact be.

That's cool. My post wasn't a personal dig at you. It's more that I am opposed to people using the term "best Rugby League player in the world" because you have such diverse players:

* You have the Karmichael Hunt fullbacks, who chime into the attacking line but also act like an extra playmaker, and then you have the Matt Bowens, who rely heavily on individual pieces of brilliance;

* You have your amazingly-fit Nathan Hindmarshs, and then you have your Fuifui Moimois, who make huge impacts but only play 60 minutes;

* You have your Andrew Johns, who can do anything, and then you have your Shane Perrys, who are passengers in a dominant side.

 

[yy_cheng]

No worries, I wasn't offended and didn't even regard it as a dig.

However, you can take a dig at me anytime !!! hahahahah!

 

[Eelementary]

:lol:

I hate it when TV commentators refer to Lockyer or Johns as "the best player in League"...

I would love to see Lockyer and Johns play in the second row for 80 minutes and make 40 tackles and 15 hit-ups per match!

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Ahhh, today's game.What if they played their game as it was played in the 80s?

Could the Kites, Moimoi, Cinnovseva, O'Meley, etc play at that level for a FULL 80 mins?

I don't actually recall how many reserves you could have back then. I think it was 2 and onced replaced, you could not get back on.

Easily, it's now the 10 metre rule, not 5 metre rule, more the question of...could the 80's forwards match it in todays game?;-)

 

[parra pete]

Did you know that Don Bradman hit just one six in his Test career. He never hit the ball in the air. He played in an era when there was no helmets...He'd average 199.94 against the pie chuckers who masquerade as Test bowlers these days....

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Didn't know that, i knew he never hit the ball in the air, but one six?, even Glenn McGrath has done better.

 

[caylo]

This is my example:

The Don - LEGENDARY batsman.

Now, if he devoted himself to training specifically to face today's cricketers, in today's conditions...Would his Test average of 99.94 still hold up? I, personally, doubt it. And here's why:

Insanley-talented freaks like Muttiah Muralithuran, Shane Warne, Courtney Walsh, Flintoff, etc...They weren't around during The Don's era. Mind you, around his time, you still had some great cricketers - but how many could fair dinkum bowl a ball at 150+ kph, like Lee or Akhtar? How many could bowl vicious doosras or leg-breaks that swung and spun in amazing ways? In the words of Scribe, "Not many - if any."

I'm a big believer in the adage that a legend is a product of his own era. The great Magic Johnson would struggle to maintain his amazing match figures in the NBA of today, playing against guys like Iverson, Tim Duncan and the like. Maradona would have a much harder time dominating the game in this day and age against bigger, more physical and agile players.

i thionk if the don where to play now, he would have averaged more than 100. There are freaks you mentioned, but remember, there where alot of darn good cricketers back then. these days the rules have changed 2 advantage batters, he would have had protective gear, like helmets and tigh pad they didnt have. the ropes have been brought in, when before you had to clear the ropes to be a six. In those days it was word of the feilder, none of this replay stuff, altough umpiring is better, and he would more likly get out lbw, because of technology. But even when you compare the averages now, from the last 2 decades, they have moved up about 8-10 runs, thats because of these changes.
And the other thing is the Don didn't play countrys that where hopless, he did this againts a dominating english side when he first debued

 

[caylo]

Did you know that Don Bradman hit just one six in his Test career. He never hit the ball in the air. He played in an era when there was no helmets...He'd average 199.94 against the pie chuckers who masquerade as Test bowlers these days....

sorry pete your wrong, he hit two. They where both in the same innings to. I totally agree though, he would average about (well at lest) 150

 

[Ron Jeremy]

i thionk if the don where to play now, he would have averaged more than 100.

Hows that?, he was only competitive against one nation, well one nation that was competitive, other cricketing nations at that stage were no different to Bangledesh.

There are freaks you mentioned, but remember, there where alot of darn good cricketers back then.

Yah i know, Neil Harvey keeps reminding us:roll: Pitty everyone else has moved on.

these days the rules have changed 2 advantage batters, he would have had protective gear, like helmets and tigh pad they didnt have. the ropes have been brought in when before you had to clear the ropes to be a six.

Yes, helmets, pads, protective gear........they all diminish ones ability on the field:roll:

Funny how you mention pads, but back in the good old days, was Bradman facing bowlers from a variety of nations with such speed?

In those days it was word of the feilder, none of this replay stuff, altough umpiring is better, and he would more likly get out lbw, because of technology. But even when you compare the averages now, from the last 2 decades, they have moved up about 8-10 runs, thats because of these changes.

Doesn't make Bradman better. The reasons for the increase in runs can be anything, your just speculating?. I'd start with however professionalism, and more games being played, at a faster rate.

And the other thing is the Don didn't play countrys that where hopless, he did this againts a dominating english side when he first debued

Yes, sorry, he played 90 percent of his games against one country:roll:, try playing against a variety of countries, different continents and against genuine bowlers liek McGrath, Warnie, Murai, Atker, Lillee etc

Did it just occur that, maybe Bradman had the wood over the British?, and that maybe if he played today under quicker conditions against faster, more skillfull bowlers he's do as good, f**k no, his average would be 60-65.Back then the average runrate was 2 an over, untill Steve waughs captain side, argurably the greatest cricketing side of all time revolutionished the way the game is played.

 

[caylo]

Yes, sorry, he played 90 percent of his games against one country:roll:, try playing against a variety of countries, different continents and against genuine bowlers liek McGrath, Warnie, Murai, Atker, Lillee etc

Did it just occur that, maybe Bradman had the wood over the British?, and that maybe if he played today under quicker conditions against faster, more skillfull bowlers he's do as good, f**k no, his average would be 60-65.Back then the average runrate was 2 an over, untill Steve waughs captain side, argurably the greatest cricketing side of all time revolutionished the way the game is played.[/quote]

of those mentioned he would play only against atker, which hell i don't rate at all. Warney McGrath and Lillee where australians, he can not play them. Back then the run rate was alot less than it was here, but not for Bradman, who had a strike rate of about 70 runs per 100 balls. Do you remember him scoring 300 odd runs in one day. Tell me who would have done that, no-one. Bradman would have had an average so high, it hard to fathom. But his eye was that good, he was brutle on any bowling attack. Im sure he would have shown up any bowler in any generation.

 

[parra pete]

sorry pete your wrong, he hit two. They were both in the same innings too. I totally agree though, he would average about (well at lest) 150

Thanks for correcting that. I missed the second one..I must have been lining up at the bar to get a drink...No beer wenches around then :lol:...(PS just kidding..I'm an old goat........ but not that old!!!!...:lol

 

[Bazal]

Although it has nothing to do with the thread, Bradman would average at least 100 in todays game. Sure you can say he faced worse bowlers or whatever, but the game today is so heavily canted towards batsmen. Imagine Bradman on the Gabba pitch this test, or the WACA pitches we know and love, or the strip of tarmac that is the current Adelaide square! The even, regular bounce and pace....he'd think all his Christmas' had come at once! Heck back then pitches used for Test match cricket were lower standard than todays high school turf, and generally had a lot of grass and gave the bowlers a big advantage...today it's the opposite...