The_CricketUmpire
U19 Captain
In what way mate?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The legacy of Steve Smith
- Thread starter h_hurricane
- Start date
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Why this is the greatest age for fast bowling in 60 years
In the last 100 Tests, pace attacks worldwide have averaged 26.26 runs per wicket, which is among the best in any 100-match period in Test history
www.espncricinfo.com
Last edited:
The_CricketUmpire
U19 Captain
There's no Akram's, Walsh's, Ambrose's, Younis, Donalds or Pollock's though plus there isn't the depth in spinners collectively either.View attachment 34113Why this is the greatest age for fast bowling in 60 years
In the last 100 Tests, pace attacks worldwide have averaged 26.26 runs per wicket, which is among the best in any 100-match period in Test history
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Not true.
Now we've got Qasim Akram and Hayden Walsh jnr.
Next you'll be saying there are no Chanderpauls.
Slifer
International Captain
One thing I'll say about the great fast bowlers of the 90s vs now is that the likes of Akram, Ambrose, Pollock etc were all as effective at home as they were away. I haven't looked up the stats but I'd guesstimate that only Cummins and Bumrah are great (overall) outside their respective home countries.
This translates to batsmen imo having a much tougher time touring overall. Even the pathetic WI attack are a much different animal at home vs away. India's spin + pace is a factor moreso at home. You get my point.
This translates to batsmen imo having a much tougher time touring overall. Even the pathetic WI attack are a much different animal at home vs away. India's spin + pace is a factor moreso at home. You get my point.
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
ftfy
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Let's replace Hutton with Hammond and you may have an argument there.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
Graphs such as the one posted are interesting but fail to take into account factors such as wickets and depth of batting. In the latter issue, there are a lot of teams that rely heavily on just one or two batsmen with the rest being having flaws that can be exploited by astute bowlers. I believe white ball cricket has contributed to this situation.
I would argue that the current Australian side has the greatest depth of batting but even so there are question marks over some players in certain conditions. On the other hand, our depth in fast bowling stocks can't be faulted.
I would argue that the current Australian side has the greatest depth of batting but even so there are question marks over some players in certain conditions. On the other hand, our depth in fast bowling stocks can't be faulted.
I'll never get this idea that apparently the average player now isn't better than the average player in previous eras simply based on X number of names you remember from the past but don't bother to care about in the present. Probably one of the only sports in the world where fans have such idiotic ideas on progress.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Is he also the greatest part time bowler?
The_CricketUmpire
U19 Captain
Thats the same as a lot of people forgetting about past players. It works both ways.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Not with only 19 wickets (after starting his career as a bowler).
Not really? Past players didn't always enjoy the benefits of a professional system, strategies aided by more modern technology and other factors. Doesn't work both ways if you think about it.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
You are defeating your own argument. If past players had the benefits you mention, imagine how much even better they would have been. Think about it.
It doesn't follow though? That's on you assuming that general ability of a player hasn't increased over time naturally.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to accept the mean standard of modern players would be better than in the past given advances in professionalism, preparation etc.
by the same token, I think very good/ great players will adapt across eras so an attempt to reach a quantifiable sort of equation or value for different eras is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
There’s been enough great players who’ve played for long enough to demonstrate this is the case imo - Hobbs, Bradman, Hutton, Border, Gavaskar, Tendulkar are examples of guys who kicked off in one widely recognised “era” and went through to another without losing their lustre. they adapt - it’s what makes them so good
by the same token, I think very good/ great players will adapt across eras so an attempt to reach a quantifiable sort of equation or value for different eras is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
There’s been enough great players who’ve played for long enough to demonstrate this is the case imo - Hobbs, Bradman, Hutton, Border, Gavaskar, Tendulkar are examples of guys who kicked off in one widely recognised “era” and went through to another without losing their lustre. they adapt - it’s what makes them so good
Yeah, but I wasn't really referring to those greats who would probably still be greats regardless of eras. I just think to discredit Smith's career (or anyone else currently playing) simply by saying he's playing against Instagrammers/Tweeters/whatever dismissive classification of modern cricketers is dumb.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah agree completely. There needs to be some context to any analysis. I suspect in 10-15 years there will be a decent hat-tip to runs scored in the back half of the 2010s annd early 2020s and some slight down playing of bowling stats. Sort of the reverse of the 2000s.
This era reminds me a fair bit of the 90s now - a lot of sides have decent quicks and in a lot of places around the world there’s enough in the decks to make it tougher for batting. Makes for some compelling cricket
This era reminds me a fair bit of the 90s now - a lot of sides have decent quicks and in a lot of places around the world there’s enough in the decks to make it tougher for batting. Makes for some compelling cricket
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
A agree with what you say regarding discrediting Smith.