Which aspects of test cricket have regressed in the current era?

[trundler]

Suerly Australia have had more than that?

Hayden-Langer and Slater-Taylor are the long-standing ones I thought of. Boon-Taylor also happened for a while. Warner-Rogers was good for a short while too.

 

[Spark]

Katich-Watson was okay for a few years. Not spectacular but it did the job.

 

[honestbharani]

Katich-Watson was okay for a few years. Not spectacular but it did the job.

Underrated tbh.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Hayden-Langer and Slater-Taylor are the long-standing ones I thought of. Boon-Taylor also happened for a while. Warner-Rogers was good for a short while too.

Simpson-Lawry.

 

[trundler]

Simpson-Lawry.

I was thinking 70s onward.

 

[Spark]

Pitching on off/middle and turning towards leg stump filth carried on for way tooo long.

Mostly I remember was that he bowled a **** ton of flat rubbish on admittedly docile pitches and just would never take any poles. He'd never get outright belted, he'd always keep it tight, but he just wouldn't be remotely threatening for long stretches.

And of course that was in India in the back half of his career. He was never good away.

 

[Starfighter]

These two are particularly strange because you think that, if anything, fast bowlers have more non-seam-up tools in their arsenal than ever with all the cutters, six types of slower ball etc that they've had to develop for white ball cricket. But we never see them in Tests.

That's what I said in the second part of my second point.... I'm not sure there's a single decent fast bowler playing for any of the top teams at the moment (I leave the likes of Zimbabwe out of it) who doesn't at least know the ordinary orthodox break and the back of the hand ball slower balls, and generally they can bowl them well over a variety of lengths. Yet whenever the tail are slogging away the only plan seems to be to bowl more bouncers. You also never see anyone try to fox batsmen with the really full ones (like Cairns to Read) anymore.

With respect to cutter we're certainly a long way past the time when England picked a specific bowler to tour India because he had a good reputation for bowling cutters (Bob Cottam, it didn't really work out). Not many bowlers seem to be able to bowl the ones at close to full pace rather than genuine slower balls, though I think Stuart Broad is one of the best exponents of the (fast) leg cutter there's been. It just staggers me that on tours in Asia, on pitches where the ball really bites, they aren't more employed.

 

[Coronis]

Boycott-Edrich
Vaughn-Trescothick
Strauss-Cook

Reckon that might actually be the most of anyone in that period. SA, WI and India have had 1 notable pair that I can think of in that period. 2 for Oz and none for Pak.

Off the top of my head…. Lawry-Simpson, Slater-Taylor, Hayden-Langer, Rogers-Warner for Aus. One I think you mighta missed for England is Atherton-Gooch.

 

[Spark]

That's what I said in the second part of my second point.... I'm not sure there's a single decent fast bowler playing for any of the top teams at the moment (I leave the likes of Zimbabwe out of it) who doesn't at least know the ordinary orthodox break and the back of the hand ball slower balls, and generally they can bowl them well over a variety of lengths. Yet whenever the tail are slogging away the only plan seems to be to bowl more bouncers. You also never see anyone try to fox batsmen with the really full ones (like Cairns to Read) anymore.

With respect to cutter we're certainly a long way past the time when England picked a specific bowler to tour India because he had a good reputation for bowling cutters (Bob Cottam, it didn't really work out). Not many bowlers seem to be able to bowl the ones at close to full pace rather than genuine slower balls, though I think Stuart Broad is one of the best exponents of the (fast) leg cutter there's been. It just staggers me that on tours in Asia, on pitches where the ball really bites, they aren't more employed.

I thought I saw Cummins bowl one or two at some point last year but I might have been hallucinating that. A few of them should go to Mitch Johnson and ask him about it while he's there in India; he had a leg-cutter which was surprisingly effective at times in India.

 

[Brook's side]

England's batting is worse than it was 15 years ago because we had a stronger opening pair, but that's it, and it's because we've had like 3 good opening partnerships since the ameteur era.

England could realistically pick a top 7 in the next test match with a combined average over the last 12 months of 387.

I'm not saying that you couldn't find an England batting line up from 15 years ago or some other point this century that beats that, but I would suggest that it would be more apt for you to demonstrate how much more you know than the poster who held England's current batting line up as an example of the decline in test cricket, than for you to demonstrate how much more you know than I do on this particular occassion.

 

[Spark]

England could realistically pick a top 7 in the next test march with a combined average over the last 12 months of 387.

I'm not saying that you couldn't find an England batting line up from 15 years ago or some other point this century that beats that, but I would suggest that it would be more apt for you to demonstrate how much more you know than the poster who held England's current batting line up as an example of the decline in test cricket, than for you to demonstrate how much more you know than I do on this particular occassion.

West Indies picked a team against Sri Lanka in 2021 which had a top 7 combined average of well over 400, so there

 

[Howe_zat]

England could realistically pick a top 7 in the next test match with a combined average over the last 12 months of 387.

I'm not saying that you couldn't find an England batting line up from 15 years ago or some other point this century that beats that, but I would suggest that it would be more apt for you to demonstrate how much more you know than the poster who held England's current batting line up as an example of the decline in test cricket, than for you to demonstrate how much more you know than I do on this particular occassion.

...nope, you've lost me

 

[andruid]

The scheduling of test series. This splurge of 2 match series is making most contests really anti-climactic. The worst part is how the more even the competitors are the more likely you are to get an anti-climactic end to the series.

 

[Molehill]

I mean, is he wrong? I can't think of another batting lineup that actually played together that would have scored fast enough to turn that first test from pak from a draw into a win.

But Bazball is really a mindset. There's plenty of line ups that have had more talent than the current England one (2010-11 Ashes for example), they've just never been encouraged to play this way before. I think early 2000 Aussies were similar. They used to think that 300 in the day was right, but I bet if they were told the norm should be 400 they'd have achieved it.

 

[Spark]

Scoring fast isn't that much of a virtue in itself. Alastair Cook could never do run-a-ball hundreds by just after lunch on Day 1 but like **** are you going to tell me that the likes of Crawley, Duckett and Pope are in the same league as he was as a Test batsman.

It's fun and great and all but there are other ways to win games of cricket.

 

[Molehill]

- No-one bowls slower balls in tests now, which could be handy for breaking those tailend partnerships. Especially inexplicable considering almost every decent fast bowler can bowl two and employs them in T20s.

One of the most famous deliveries from the 2005 Ashes was that slower ball from Harmison to Clarke. It should so be in the armoury more for tailend sloggers.

 

[Brook's side]

Hayden-Langer and Slater-Taylor are the long-standing ones I thought of. Boon-Taylor also happened for a while. Warner-Rogers was good for a short while too.

Katich must have some good numbers with someone.

Taylor Boon was a good pairing once Australia moved on from Geoff Marsh.

Warner Rogers sounds more like a cartoon than a batting partnership.

 

[Brook's side]

England by 2011

Cook 5868 runs @ 49.72
Strauss 6340 runs @ 41.98
Trott 1965 runs @ 57.79
Pietersen 6361 runs @ 50.48
Bell 5027 runs @ 49.28
Collingwood 4259 runs @ 40.56
Prior 2549 runs @ 44.71

2 of England's current top 3 average under 32 after 33+ Tests played. Bairstow, Stokes average well under 40. Foakes isn't as good as Prior. Root would probably average high 50s if he was playing during that time. Brook might end up being a great player but time will tell.

Over the last 12 months the current England side beat that.

Obvs Trott fell off a cliff after that btw.

 

[Brook's side]

- No-one bowls slower balls in tests now

Someone (I think a commentator) said recently that nobody bowls yorkers any more.

 

[subshakerz]

Conversion rates from 50 to 100 has gotten worse in the last 20 years , definitely...
Joe Root struggled with it for a long time , De Villiers struggled with it , We've got players like Bavuma who have 1 test hundred in the entire career, I think Dickwella of Sri Lanka is closing in on Warne's record of most test runs without a test hundred ..I don't know if stats will back this up but it feels like more and more of the current batsmen get complacent in the 50-99 mark than ever before .

Interesting, wasn't aware.