Didn't they use motor cycle helmets in WSC? Some complained they restricted vision! Compared to modern designs the old equipment was akin to putting a saucepan on your head. (I'll refrain from tinfoil jokes). Uptake of equipment was slow too. Not everyone wore them - or if they did not all the time. Batsman have learned to exploit the improved designs of helmets and increased their shot range as a result. You never saw ramp shots or charging the pace bowler in the day. Protective equipment has assisted that development. So bowlers like Marshall would be facing a very different situation due to protective equipment than he did while playing.
I've been persuaded by the saying a champion in one era would've been a champion in any other. All they need is the opportunity. In truth you see this lived out every day. Generally overall standards incrementally improve. While individual form declines. Yet that didn't stop champions like Lloyd, Warne or McGrath competing or even dominating towards the end of their long careers. They could only have done so if they adapted to the improvement in standards evident throughout their careers.
But no team relied on intimidation, and the specific rules of the day that encouraged it, as much as the WI of the 70s/80s. So much so that it makes references to Hutton and Lillee irrelevant. Hutton had slow over rates that one time. Lillee proved his adaptability coming back from a stress fracture. It was the WI who exploited the lack of protective equipment, sedate overrates and the short pitched delivery to a degree no others did.
But they couldn't do that now. There are quotas on overs and bouncers. There is protective equipment everyone uses and batsmen emboldened by that assurance to take on the bowlers such as the WI then never knew. They were lucky too. They found an Australia embroiled in Packer and SA upheavals. Plus the retirement of ageing stars. The Indian team then struggled to play the rising ball. Contrast that with the hard wicket winners they have today. England then was passive and resigned against the WI. Not the confrontational hard heads like Stokes (and guided by McCallum) now.
Hard not see some of those bowling averages heading decidedly north. Perhaps a parallel can be found with the decline of WI cricket overall. They've provided some talented players but the team has disintegrated. I wonder if part of the explanation is an inability to adapt away from the archaic standard set by their 70/80s sides? Some great players of that era have overseen the decline. perhaps reflecting their inability to change as well.
I must say, for something as devoid of logic as this was, it was very well written.
If there wasn't footage of matches played in 83 / 84 one could understand the statements regarding helmets, but there is. So really don't know what else to say in regards to that. Marshall exhibited skills that only Bumrah of those of recent lineage, has even shown a propensity to. He played in an era of helmets and protection, when you're skilled and fast it doesn't matter. But if Joffra was able to hit Steve Smith, one can only wonder what the quartet would have done.
To say no team relied on intimidation besides the west indies isn't only disingenuous, but a flat out lie. Lindwall and Miller used it effectively, and they learned it from Lillee and Thompson. Lillee was using it from 71 up until WSC, and likely beyond. That's one of the things that was disappointing about the establishment, embodied somewhat by hypocrites like Benaud, who extolled the virtues of Lillee and co, but condemned the WI for doing exactly the same.
Your entire next line is bullshit. Australia after the war didn't capitalize on an England team weakened by WW losses and fatigue? Australia don't dominate until we ran out of steam, not to mention the retirements of every great bowler from every other team. Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Wasim, need I go further? And a submissive England, that was the template for Aussie success.
And why were those rules changed? As much as it's pretended now that the establishment enjoyed the domination of the men from the west indies, nothing was further from the truth. They did everything they could to stop the dominance, not only with rules on the field, but continues till today with rules off it as well.
And with regards to adaptability? No one did it better, Marshall adapted to cutters and movement, Ambrose was the master of accuracy and bounce even before McGrath and never over used the short ball.
And I wonder what was the archaic standard set by the teams of the 80's. Aggressive batsmen, skilled, fast bowlers and great catching and fielding? The same template that Australia and SA followed to success?
The disintegration is indeed real, poor leadership and disorganized boards and an overall lack of resources that has been safely kept within the domain of the big three to this day, has ensured it stays that way. We rose to dominance on the back of grass roots talent and on the field leadership... bureaucracy, greed and the likes compromised that, having shared interests when dealing with governments from different countries didn't help either.
But imagine, the greatest all rounder and bowler of all time originating from a country of 166 SQ miles. Vivian and Curtly coming from one around the same size, Lara's only slightly larger.
So now with smaller populations, competing interests, many of which are more lucrative, and a lack of resources, what's to be expected. Even when they are choosing cricket, the board can't compete with large T20 franchises and those players too are lost, it at least focusing on a different aspect of the sport.
But your post, while elegant had the subtlety and possibly purpose, of a Trump speech. And while I can't make you, It would be greatly appreciated if you kept your opinions of things you don't understand, to yourself.
