Best up and coming players

[Mike5181]

Yes that was a bit of unfair of me. I will soon though

Take the newly updated one to argue against. I would rather not defend something i wasn't finished with.

 

[TumTum]

Or compare Carl Lewis and Usain Bolt.

How fast did they bowl?

 

[kingpin]

Clearly Virat Kohli.....Clearly a lvl above the current young cricketers right now...

From these three i will choose kane....

 

[Mike5181]

How fast did they bowl?

9.8kmph or 6.09 mph

 

[Mike5181]

Clearly Virat Kohli.....Clearly a lvl above the current young cricketers right now...

From these three i will choose kane....

I missed him because it feels like he has already been around for a while. Already a class act in ODIs.

 

[TumTum]

From these three i will choose kane....

Interesting you would say that, because I would chose the other 2 above Kane, can't split them though atm.

 

[GotSpin]

So you are dismissing my view that today's bowlers are faster than bowlers pre modern era by discussing the determination/hardship of bowlers in the old days and then you say your not talking about speeds?

"Bowling fast is about pushing through the pain barrier and I would speculate that those conditioned to tolerate greater physical strains would be better at it"

You are proving my point without me even having to do say anything. That fact of the matter is that even with the weaker mindset that todays bowlers have they achieve things that bowlers of the past could never do due to what is available to athletes today. Look at the caliber of athletes we have these days and how much they have developed. Just ten years ago fast bowlers were the mugs down in fine leg who couldn't catch/stop a ball for peanuts, now they are the ones taking diving catches and saving boundaries.

Maybe the physical hardship was more publicized back then but what about the physical strain of cricketers these days? They play twice as much cricket as they did back then and no, today's bowlers bowl a lot more overs. Vettori bowled over 200 overs in unfamiliar steaming/hot conditions in just one series. Is performances like these not a sufficient exertion of physical strain on their bodies?

Yes, they may have been mentally tougher back then (still debatable) but we as humans are breaking down more of the wall of possibility as each generation passes. We strive to do better than our fathers etc. It is only natural that what we achieve is physically/statistically better than people before us. Something is done over and over in the past and today we have more information/experience as to what works and what doesn't. Coaching technique helps, physical conditioning helps, otherwise the millions of athletes over the world wouldn't do it. It doesn't level out perfectly because of the softer lifestyle players undergo these days because the mental strain etc we are put through is much different than our parents and we have seen some of these players regarded as soft achieve things others before could never do.

There is a huge difference to the way cricket is played today and we have things like weights/protein to exceed our potential.You have to understand that the statistical achievements that players achieve today takes nothing away from players of the past because it is the context in which those achievements were made that is important.

I don't think your first point regarding the improved agility of pace bowlers in the field over the last 10 years holds much water when a comparison can be made between the quality of bowling between the two decades. Improved fitness in the field means little when bowling averages sky rocket.

I also strongly disagree that modern cricketers play more. I'm still waiting on some potential figures which I hope to gather from another member, but while modern day cricketers travel a lot more - in a far more comfortable method of transportation than their predecessors - they actually play a lot less cricket. There was far more First Class cricket played yesterday and four overs bowled in 20/20 or 10overs in a OD match does not equal the strength required for first class games which would then be followed by multiple test matches

I always point to the Ashes series played by the Australian 1948 invincible team as an example of breaking the modern day myth of too much cricket being played. Over the 144 day tour, 122 days of play were scheduled, and as Sunday was the nominated rest day, they usually played every other day of the week. Don't even dare suggest that an international 20/20 or OD match was of more importance or harder than back to back first class matches.

The rest of the argument is merely based on fluff, a flawed idea that modern day practices are inherently superior to those preceding it. Furthermore, I'd argue that players of the yesterday were just as talented than the ones playing today. Just because they weren't all full time professionals doesn't mean they played at an 'amateur' level.

probably missed some other obvious points though

 

[Mike5181]

I don't think your first point regarding the improved agility of pace bowlers in the field over the last 10 years holds much water when a comparison can be made between the quality of bowling between the two decades. Improved fitness in the field means little when bowling averages sky rocket.

I also strongly disagree that modern cricketers play more. I'm still waiting on some potential figures which I hope to gather from another member, but while modern day cricketers travel a lot more - in a far more comfortable method of transportation than their predecessors - they actually play a lot less cricket. There was far more First Class cricket played yesterday and four overs bowled in 20/20 or 10overs in a OD match does not equal the strength required for first class games which would then be followed by multiple test matches

I always point to the Ashes series played by the Australian 1948 invincible team as an example of breaking the modern day myth of too much cricket being played. Over the 144 day tour, 122 days of play were scheduled, and as Sunday was the nominated rest day, they usually played every other day of the week. Don't even dare suggest that an international 20/20 or OD match was of more importance or harder than back to back first class matches.

The rest of the argument is merely based on fluff, a flawed idea that modern day practices are inherently superior to those preceding it.

It is just an example of the improved physical capabilities of todays cricketers. If you don't think their superior physical condition doesn't help their performance then that's your view (delusional but yours). To argue this by using the increased bowling averages of the modern day cricketers as an example is flawed. You do realize that the run rate and the average runs scored/high scores etc have increased in the modern era with the introduction of ODIs and 20/20. Only natural that bowling averages would adjust to the context of today.

As you said so your self it is a profession these days and there is money to be earned so players play more of it. An all year round job if you like. 20/20 may not be a huge physical strain but when you add ten of those in overseas countries onto your international calender without removing anything else it would take its toll.

The fact that there wasn't money in cricket back in those days does mean they played at a more amateur level. What happens when money is involved? New people want to learn how to play. The game expands, players take the game more seriously and improve their own games to beat out the increased competition to put themselves in a position to earn more money.

Modern day practices aren't superior to those preceding it? are you serious? If they weren't we wouldn't continue to develop as a human race let alone a sport. Once again players of today can be modeled into mirrors of past greats through the practices of today with batting/bowling coaches etc

 

[GotSpin]

You do realize that the run rate and the average runs scored/high scores etc have increased in the modern era with the introduction of ODIs and 20/20. Only natural that bowling averages would adjust to the context of today.

We play a lot more cricket these days end of. People like James Franklin play in both CC and PS in one year.

Modern day practices aren't superior to those preceding it? are you serious? If they weren't we wouldn't continue to develop as a human race let alone a sport.

Increased aggressiveness of batsmen should actually create more chances for better bowling, not the other way around.

No modern day cricketers simply do not play the same amount of actual cricket. A 20/20 or OD match does not equal a FC match end of story. It'd be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

And modern day practices can't have faults? A lot of young pace bowlers have broken down in NSW lately. I've always held the belief that players spend too much time in the gym based on modern day strength building procedures, when they should really be spending their time actually bowling over after over.

 

[Goughy]

So you are dismissing my view that today's bowlers are faster than bowlers pre modern era by discussing the determination/hardship of bowlers in the old days and then you say your not talking about speeds?

"Bowling fast is about pushing through the pain barrier and I would speculate that those conditioned to tolerate greater physical strains would be better at it"

You are proving my point without me even having to do say anything. That fact of the matter is that even with the weaker mindset that todays bowlers have they achieve things that bowlers of the past could never do due to what is available to athletes today. Look at the caliber of athletes we have these days and how much they have developed. Just ten years ago fast bowlers were the mugs down in fine leg who couldn't catch/stop a ball for peanuts, now they are the ones taking diving catches and saving boundaries.

Maybe the physical hardship was more publicized back then but what about the physical strain of cricketers these days? They play twice as much cricket as they did back then and no, today's bowlers bowl a lot more overs. Vettori bowled over 200 overs in unfamiliar steaming/hot conditions in just one series. Is performances like these not a sufficient exertion of physical strain on their bodies?

Yes, they may have been mentally tougher back then (still debatable) but we as humans are breaking down more of the wall of possibility as each generation passes. We strive to do better than our fathers etc. It is only natural that what we achieve is physically/statistically better than people before us. Something is done over and over in the past and today we have more information/experience as to what works and what doesn't. Coaching technique helps, physical conditioning helps, otherwise the millions of athletes over the world wouldn't do it. It doesn't level out perfectly because of the softer lifestyle players undergo these days because the mental strain etc we are put through is much different than our parents and we have seen some of these players regarded as soft achieve things others before could never do.

There is a huge difference to the way cricket is played today and we have things like weights/protein to exceed our potential.You have to understand that the statistical achievements that players achieve today takes nothing away from players of the past because it is the context in which those achievements were made that is important.

There wasnt a lot in my post about determination or mental strength. It was to do with the physical rigors of youth which a lot of the evidence points to how robust an athlete becomes. Its about the body standing up to the strain rather than the mind. In my previous post, unlike others I may have made , I am not accusing anyone of being soft. Just products of their environment with all the benefits and disadvantages that may bring.

As for your 10 yrs ago bit. Amusing. One can only guess you are still quite young? You are mentioning fielding but given that isnt relevant to the topic of conversation one must assume you think that relates to quick bowling standards also. Re: the topic of fast bowling fielding. That is as much a change in mentality and belief as anything else. Longer ago than your 10 yr number but anyway, quicks were meant to save their energy for bowling quick and only idiots risked injury by diving around. It wasnt that they couldnt. It was that the established wisdom at the time was that it was a bad thing. We see this type of differing outlook across all sports. At the time in English football, players had to press the ball acrosss the field. When Lineker moved to Barca they though him an idiot for trying to close down defenders and told him to just relax and concentrate on his main aim of scoring goals. Now we see a reversal where teams are pressuring from the top again.

As for bowling more balls...
Workloads have declined. Certainly traveling has increased and I accept that that adds strain on the body but that is offset by the convenience and comfort of travel.

English seasons chosen randomnly. Seam bowlers with most balls (rounded) in top flight cricket- FC, OD and T20 (figures in brackets are FC balls)

2010- Masters. 4000 balls (3300)
1997- Ilott. 4400 balls (3400)
1984- Lever. 6200 balls (5200)
1970- Shepherd. 6200 (5400)
1955- Bedser. 6900 balls (6900) notable Trueman- 6000
1947- Dick Pollard 7800 balls (7800)
1932- Geary. 7200 balls (7200)

We have even heard people speculate (opinions that I don't know enough about to say one way or another) that T20 and 4 over spells allow bowlers like Tait to bowl expess with the knowledge of a super short spell. Something that other generations did have had the luxury of doing.

As for your point about Vettori, I thought we were talking quicks? Anyway Bowling 1100+ overs a season was previously common place in England for spinners.

Im not doubting there are beneficial effects of modern training etc but they also have to be viewed in the context of modern society. Blanket accusations that "old cricket was rubbish" are as ill informed as "it was better in my day." Both have certain merit but both are only a piece of the jigsaw.

 

[Mike5181]

Increased aggressiveness of batsmen should actually create more chances for better bowling, not the other way around.

No modern day cricketers simply do not play the same amount of actual cricket. A 20/20 or OD match does not equal a FC match end of story. It'd be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

And modern day practices can't have faults? A lot of young pace bowlers have broken down in NSW lately. I've always held the belief that players spend too much time in the gym based on modern day strength building procedures, when they should really be spending their time actually bowling over after over.

No, because modern day batsmen have improved/expanded their game and the way they score. The word aggression suggests slogging but as seen with a lot of batsmen they are just better exploiters of the cricket field.

As i said before cricket is a profession now so the level/standard of cricket is higher and the output a player is required to put out is greater within each game, therefore the toll it takes on a player is greater than it was to play 20 overs in 1900. Add to that the millions of people watching every move they make, the stress of the decisions they make on the field especially with their careers/jobs at stake.

I didn't say that modern day practices can't have faults. It does but it is still a significant improvement.

 

[Mike5181]

There wasnt a lot in my post about determination or mental strength. It was to do with the physical rigors of youth which a lot of the evidence points to how robust an athlete becomes. Its about the body standing up to the strain rather than the mind. In my previous post, unlike others I may have made , I am not accusing anyone of being soft. Just products of their environment with all the benefits and disadvantages that may bring.

As for your 10 yrs ago bit. Amusing. One can only quess you are still quite young? You are mentioning fielding but given that isnt relevant to the topic of conversation one must assume you think that relates to quick bowling standards also. Re: the topic of fast bowling fielding. That is as much a change in mentality and belief as anything else. Longer ago than your 10 yr number but anyway, quicks were meant to save their energy for bowling quick and only idiots risked injury by diving around. It wasnt that they couldnt. It was that the established wisdom at the time was that it was a bad thing. We see this type of differing outlook across all sports. At the time in English football, players had to press the ball acrosss the field. When Lineker moved to Barca they though him an idiot for trying to close down defenders and told him to just relax and concentrate on his main aim of scoring goals. Now we see a reversal where teams are pressuring from the top again.

As for bowling more balls...
Workloads have declined. Certainly traveling has increased and I accept that that adds strain on the body but that is offset by the convenience and comfort of travel.

English seasons chosen randomnly. Seam bowlers with most balls (rounded) in top flight cricket- FC, OD and T20 (figures in brackets are FC balls)

2010- Master. 4000 balls (3300)
1997- Ilott. 4400 balls (3400)
1984- Lever. 6200 balls (5200)
1970- Shepherd. 6200 (5400)
1955- Bedser. 6900 balls (6900) notable Trueman- 6000
1947- Dick Pollard 7800 balls (7800)
1932- Geary. 7200 balls (7200)

We have even heard people speculate (opinions that I don't know enough about to say one way or another) that T20 and 4 over spells allow bowlers like Tait to bowl expess with the knowledge of a super short spell. Something that other generations did have had the luxury of doing.

As for your point about Vettori, I thought we were talking quicks? Anyway Bowling 1100+ overs a season was previously common place in England for spinners.

Im not doubting there are beneficial effects of modern training etc but they also have to be viewed in the context of modern society. Blanket accusations that "old cricket was rubbish" are as ill informed as "it was better in my day." Both have certain merit but both are only a piece of the jigsaw.

It is highly relevant to the conversation. The physical capabilities of cricketers have increased over the years and obviously this is directly correlated to performance. If you have ever actually been to the gym/exercised of any kind the mental/self esteem gains can be just as great as the physical. Seriously when you have big muscles you believe you can bowl fast/hit the ball harder. So the increased physical conditions of fast bowlers of today is Highly RELEVANT. There doesn't need to be assumptions on the person arguing that fact to understand this. What is funny is that you are trying to pull off an argument of "every bad fielder who happened to be a bowler was just being wise and protecting their body"- this doesn't change the fact that the physical capabilities of todays players are greater?

Once again cricket has become a profession so the level of cricket is higher therefore the physical strain is greater. If i went out and played backyard cricket for a few hours a day for a week it wouldn't even compare with the strain i would collect from one International ODI that the players are accustomed with today. I don't care if i bowl a thousand deliveries over that time.Yes, travel has increased therefore more cricket is played in unfamiliar climates which my friend can't simply be offset by a comfy chair especially when your bowling 30+ overs in an International innings. I can "assume" you don't play in a team that tours very often huh.

Of course they are going to bowl harder/faster in a 4 over spell. Are you serious? Tait himself said he was nearly ripping his arm off to put his fullest into that Pakistan International spell. Don't you now see why 4 overs is not just 4 jogging in and cruise through your action overs. It is hard work especially when you have 10 of these things in overseas conditions like India without removing any tests/ODIs. Not to mention not having the "luxury" of just playing one form and not having to adjust to a completely different style of game.

I you actually read my earlier post where i recognize the different environments/circumstances in which particular cricketers from different eras are faced with."There is a huge difference to the way cricket is played today and we have things like weights/protein to exceed our potential.You have to understand that the statistical achievements that players achieve today takes nothing away from players of the past because it is the context in which those achievements were made that is important." - so i don't know what you are on about in that last paragraph.

Anyway this arguement has gone completely off the original point that someone was trying to argue against. Which he didn't and went onto a rant about determination/mental strength.

"There wasnt a lot in my post about determination or mental strength"- btw why did you say that Goughy? Are you Got_Spin?

 

[Uppercut]

As a wild theory, fast bowling specific gym work may add a few kph but allround physical exertion from childhood breeds greater tolerance to hardship and less susceptable to injury. Maybe the ideal fast bowler is someone from the past with a more rough, basic and physical upbringing with a modern scientific diet and a tailored weight regime?

Makhaya Ntini?

You make a lot of excellent points but I find it hard to reconcile your ideas with the fact that in any form of athletics that has had fixed, non-arbitrary measurements of success for a long time, modern athletes convincingly come out on top. All of your arguments should also apply to track and field, but the hard data says they aren't significant enough to overcome the advantages of the modern era, and I see no reason why fast bowling would be any different.

It would be folly to extrapolate that to saying that Jeff Thomson can't have been as fast as Shaun Tait- it's a broad trend, not a rule- but it seems pretty likely to me that, by and large, the further back in time you go, the slower quicks were bowling.

 

[Migara]

How fast did they bowl?

Yeah, Tyson was an Android.

 

[Jarquis]

So you are dismissing my view that today's bowlers are faster than bowlers pre modern era by discussing the determination/hardship of bowlers in the old days and then you say your not talking about speeds?

"Bowling fast is about pushing through the pain barrier and I would speculate that those conditioned to tolerate greater physical strains would be better at it"

You are proving my point without me even having to do say anything. That fact of the matter is that even with the weaker mindset that todays bowlers have they achieve things that bowlers of the past could never do due to what is available to athletes today. Look at the caliber of athletes we have these days and how much they have developed. Just ten years ago fast bowlers were the mugs down in fine leg who couldn't catch/stop a ball for peanuts, now they are the ones taking diving catches and saving boundaries.

Maybe the physical hardship was more publicized back then but what about the physical strain of cricketers these days? They play twice as much cricket as they did back then and no, today's bowlers bowl a lot more overs. Vettori bowled over 200 overs in unfamiliar steaming/hot conditions in just one series. Is performances like these not a sufficient exertion of physical strain on their bodies?

Yes, they may have been mentally tougher back then (still debatable) but we as humans are breaking down more of the wall of possibility as each generation passes. We strive to do better than our fathers etc. It is only natural that what we achieve is physically/statistically better than people before us. Something is done over and over in the past and today we have more information/experience as to what works and what doesn't. Coaching technique helps, physical conditioning helps, otherwise the millions of athletes over the world wouldn't do it. It doesn't level out perfectly because of the softer lifestyle players undergo these days because the mental strain etc we are put through is much different than our parents and we have seen some of these players regarded as soft achieve things others before could never do.

There is a huge difference to the way cricket is played today and we have things like weights/protein to exceed our potential.You have to understand that the statistical achievements that players achieve today takes nothing away from players of the past because it is the context in which those achievements were made that is important.

Maurice. Tate.

 

[Mike5181]

Maurice. Tate.

Anil. Kumble - if he played for 7/8 more years. Not much difference and the intensity of matches these days are a lot greater.

 

[Jarquis]

Anil. Kumble - if he played for 7/8 more years. Not much difference and the intensity of matches these days are a lot greater.

Yeah, as you obviously have first hand experience of that

 

[Mike5181]

Yeah, as you obviously have first hand experience of that

Ditto. smartass

 

[Jarquis]

Ditto. smartass

I'm not the one making any claims.

 

[Mike5181]

I'm not the one making any claims.

Your not doing anything it seems