Averaging 35 will be accepted again

[Burgey]

But it was difficult then.

 

[Line and Length]

The video I shared earlier answers your questions completely and so I'll wait until you've seen it before continuing. If you really can't be bothered then the TLDW is better pace bowling talent spread around the world, better conditions for bowling and pace bowling specifically (especially in places like India, WI and Australia), new advances like the wobble seam being more widely known and a part of most bowlers' arsenal, video analysis of batters to pinpoint weaknesses and create effective tactics, fitter bowlers in general due to a more professional scene which demands fitness from everyone and deeper bowling attacks in general as well where respite can rarely be found.

I've watched the video ... which is one man trying to support his hypothesis. It seems you have been overly-influenced by his 'facts and figures'.

Let's take each point you raise, one at a time"

"better pace bowling talent spread around the world" Purely hypothetical. Is Pakistan's current pace attack superior to the Akram/Imram/Younis eras? Is the West Indies pace attack better than when Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding et al were around? Cummins is good for Australia but we have been spoilt for pace since Lindwall and Davidon, through Lillee and McGrath. What about South Africa? Do the current pacemen outshine Donald, Steyn, Pollock etc?


"better conditions for bowling and pace bowling specifically" Better than when? I mentioned the WACA and, going back further, what about uncovered wickets?

"new advances like the wobble seam" I would argue that reverse swing was far more effective but not as expertly applied.

"video analysis of batters to pinpoint weaknesses" Is that really such a current trend that wasn't around a couple of decades ago? I think not. Having read many books by past players, there were many who were astute observers of strengths and weaknesses and bowled/captained accordingly.

"fitter bowlers in general" I won't dispute this but, judging by the number of injuries, the short spells employed and the need to "rest" bowlers seems to contradict this.

"deeper bowling attacks" Another generalisation. All of the dominant sides of past eras had deep bowling attacks. The Windies pace men offered no respite. The Invincibles had Lindwall, Davidson and Miller as a pace attack with good support bowlers. When Hutton regained the Ashes and retained them in Australia he had bowlers such as Trueman, Statham, Tyson and Bedser with Laker and Lock as the spin twins. I could go on but your "current players (bowlers) are better because I (and some fellow on a video) said so" attitude is unlikely to change.

 

[Coronis]

I've watched the video ... which is one man trying to support his hypothesis. It seems you have been overly-influenced by his 'facts and figures'.

Let's take each point you raise, one at a time"

"better pace bowling talent spread around the world" Purely hypothetical. Is Pakistan's current pace attack superior to the Akram/Imram/Younis eras? Is the West Indies pace attack better than when Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding et al were around? Cummins is good for Australia but we have been spoilt for pace since Lindwall and Davidon, through Lillee and McGrath. What about South Africa? Do the current pacemen outshine Donald, Steyn, Pollock etc?

Worldwide = India, didn’t you know?

 

[Line and Length]

Worldwide = India, didn’t you know?

That explains it all.

 

[Spark]

I don’t really see much evidence that today’s bowlers are more physically suited to Test cricket than those of the 80s and 90s tbh. It’s absolutely true that athletic standards and fitness professionalism have gone up massively since then, but the gains from that have gone overwhelmingly to servicing the needs of high intensity white ball cricket, not the bowling rhythm required to bowl 20 overs a day three days in a row.

 

[Xix2565]

I've watched the video ... which is one man trying to support his hypothesis. It seems you have been overly-influenced by his 'facts and figures'.

Let's take each point you raise, one at a time"

"better pace bowling talent spread around the world" Purely hypothetical. Is Pakistan's current pace attack superior to the Akram/Imram/Younis eras? Is the West Indies pace attack better than when Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding et al were around? Cummins is good for Australia but we have been spoilt for pace since Lindwall and Davidon, through Lillee and McGrath. What about South Africa? Do the current pacemen outshine Donald, Steyn, Pollock etc?


"better conditions for bowling and pace bowling specifically" Better than when? I mentioned the WACA and, going back further, what about uncovered wickets?

"new advances like the wobble seam" I would argue that reverse swing was far more effective but not as expertly applied.

"video analysis of batters to pinpoint weaknesses" Is that really such a current trend that wasn't around a couple of decades ago? I think not. Having read many books by past players, there were many who were astute observers of strengths and weaknesses and bowled/captained accordingly.

"fitter bowlers in general" I won't dispute this but, judging by the number of injuries, the short spells employed and the need to "rest" bowlers seems to contradict this.

"deeper bowling attacks" Another generalisation. All of the dominant sides of past eras had deep bowling attacks. The Windies pace men offered no respite. The Invincibles had Lindwall, Davidson and Miller as a pace attack with good support bowlers. When Hutton regained the Ashes and retained them in Australia he had bowlers such as Trueman, Statham, Tyson and Bedser with Laker and Lock as the spin twins. I could go on but your "current players (bowlers) are better because I (and some fellow on a video) said so" attitude is unlikely to change.

If you wanted to say you were incapable of watching videos and making reasonable arguments you could have said so, because everything you've said has been touched upon and answered already to some extent.

A lot of your examples regarding bowling talents didn't necessarily play at the same time, or in a similar era where they were all supported by the pitches. The point was that everyone has good pace bowling now at the same time when bowling pace has been very rewarding. Same applies to deeper bowling attacks existing at the same time, rather than just dominating alone in one era.

Better bowling conditions than 2000-2017 for sure, with only the 80s/90s being close. Again, shown in graphs in the video. He also discusses the uncovered pitches point as well.

If reverse swing wasn't being properly applied unlike wobble seam is the latter not considered a more effective tactic for bowlers?

Yes, because we have videos and online recordings to analyse, unlike past generations who didn't necessarily adapt the technology nor have it. They also didn't have specialised people to do this work for them while they could just focus on their own game.

How does preserving and rotating bowlers mean they're not fitter in general? One would think the former leads to the latter. They do all that to be more effective in short bursts since it helps no one if they have to bowl long spells when tired.

This is hardly a just a random hypothesis, so I don't see why you want to pretend otherwise. It's not like the other theories haven't been shown to be unsubtantiated nonsense.

Worldwide = India, didn’t you know?

That explains it all.

Didn't realise half the Commonwealth belonged to India actually.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

If reverse swing wasn't being properly applied unlike wobble seam is the latter not considered a more effective tactic for bowlers?

My normal delivery is a wobble seam, so I don't know what's so skilful about it.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

If reverse swing wasn't being properly applied unlike wobble seam is the latter not considered a more effective tactic for bowlers?

Now, joking aside, I'd say that this betrays your ignorance very neatly. Wobble seam deliveries feature much, much more in T20 than in Tests. In fact, you ought to have noticed how bowling in Tests is generally based on consistency and that in T20s in variation. Needing to score at 8.5 an over (a pretty typical amount in the BBL), you become more vulnerable to 'wobble' and slower balls, etc. because timing matters when one needs to put the ball into the outer. In Tests where you needn't score so quickly, these deliveries factor a lot less, because one doesn't have to worry so much about timing when playing a defensive stroke, so long as one actually hits it. One can simply wait for the next delivery, and the next and the next if necessary.

I do not think that wobble seam is more effective in Tests, based on lack of its being tried so much. On the other hand, bowlers are always going after reverse swing, sometimes so much the Laws get broken.

 

[Xix2565]

My normal delivery is a wobble seam, so I don't know what's so skilful about it.

I don't think you're necessarily a Test level bowler though. Part of the point is to show how bowlers nowadays have the opportunity to adapt and learn new techniques more easily.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I don't think you're necessarily a Test level bowler though. Part of the point is to show how bowlers nowadays have the opportunity to adapt and learn new techniques more easily.

Here's someone who didn't get the joke.

 

[Starfighter]

The main flaw in Kimber's hypothesis IMO is that he's attributing it to pace when batsmen's inability to play spin in favourable conditions has been at least as prominent, if not more so.

 

[Xix2565]

Now, joking aside, I'd say that this betrays your ignorance very neatly. Wobble seam deliveries feature much, much more in T20 than in Tests. In fact, you ought to have noticed how bowling in Tests is generally based on consistency and that in T20s in variation. Needing to score at 8.5 an over (a pretty typical amount in the BBL), you become more vulnerable to 'wobble' and slower balls, etc. because timing matters when one needs to put the ball into the outer. In Tests where you needn't score so quickly, these deliveries factor a lot less, because one doesn't have to worry so much about timing when playing a defensive stroke, so long as one actually hits it. One can simply wait for the next delivery, and the next and the next if necessary.

I do not think that wobble seam is more effective in Tests, based on lack of its being tried so much. On the other hand, bowlers are always going after reverse swing, sometimes so much the Laws get broken.

Here's someone who didn't get the joke.

Joke aside, you've not really made much of a point against my general argument.

 

[Daemon]

I do not think that wobble seam is more effective in Tests, based on lack of its being tried so much.

It’s been gaining traction and is quite commonplace these days tbf.

 

[Xix2565]

The main flaw in Kimber's hypothesis IMO is that he's attributing it to pace when batsmen's inability to play spin in favourable conditions has been at least as prominent, if not more so.

Spin averages haven't been that bad overall though.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Joke aside, you've not really made much of a point against my general argument.

Give your reply is the intellectual equivalent of 'No, U!' and doesn't address the point I made or demonstrate how it stands with respect to your argument, it's you who hasn't made much of a point.

 

[Starfighter]

Spin averages haven't been that bad overall though.

Yeah, every poor soul England drags down to Australia to die will bump that average up a bit. It's a bit more subtle, but the pattern's there if you look - just got to keep the more conditions (and knowledge thereof) dependent nature of spin bowling in mind.

 

[Shady Slim]

senile sentry is on one tonight

 

[NotMcKenzie]

It’s been gaining traction and is quite commonplace these days tbf.

Guaranteed this is limited by the cricket I have available to watch, but I'd dispute that. It might've happened one or twice in the Ashes, or I might be mixing it up with the Big Bash that was on at the same time.

Furthermore, this is different to claiming that wobble seam is more effective than reverse swing, which is what the original claim was.

 

[Starfighter]

There's a simple distinction here:
If a bowler is taking wickets, it's wobble seam and it's genius.
If a bowler isn't taking wickets, it's scrambled seam and it's a severe technical flaw.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Anyway, using the very modern, innovative, technique of a back-of-the-hand slower-ball to dismissing a strong hitter on the rampage: