When does “modern day cricket” start for you?

[DrWolverine]

Just want to know what everyone thinks

 

[Coronis]

I voted 1877 but thats wrong. I think it started when overarm bowling was legalised, in 1864.

An interesting historical development of the legalisation of overarm was that for many years, 1864 was deemed to mark the start of "first-class cricket" which suggested that earlier cricket was "second-class". The 1864 origin has been strongly challenged

 

[ataraxia]

If you're dividing test cricket into "old" and "modern" portions, World War I is a sensible divide.

If you're simply saying "modern test cricket" without context, then it refers to the past 5–10 years.

 

[DrWolverine]

If you're dividing test cricket into "old" and "modern" portions, World War I is a sensible divide.

If you're simply saying "modern test cricket" without context, then it refers to the past 5–10 years.

Edited

Modern day cricket.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

1970.
When new format began to emerge in the International arena ,the standards of fast bowling went up with Lillee and Thomson... World Cups...first usage of helmet.. color broadcasting
before 70s Cricket looked somewhat contrast to what it is today.. the making of today began then.

 

[shortpitched713]

I've defined 1970, not because it's a hard and fast date, but because that decade there was so much change. ODI, Packer, a generation of fast bowlers who obliterated the scene. It's a very obvious starting point.

Did cricket evolution stop after that point? Hell no. But it was the start of what we take for granted in today's game.

 

[shortpitched713]

1970.
When new format began to emerge in the International arena ,the standards of fast bowling went up with Lillee and Thomson... World Cups...first usage of helmet.. color broadcasting
before 70s Cricket looked somewhat contrast to what it is today.. the making of today began then.

Great shout on color broadcast. I think we often underestimate how big of an impact on our collective psyche something that simple had.

Although the quality and angles could sometimes left something to be desired, but still it was a turning point.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

One thing I am confused is about how quick were the yesteryear fast bowlers before Lillee and Thomson began their partnership? The myth surrounding them makes me wonder that they improved the standard of express pace..as it is like today...a yard faster than what was before
and there too some of their recordings in 76 like Thomson at 160.4, Roberts somewhat 158...and all greats of that era in Australia and West Indies around 150.
But I was shocked when I saw the 1979 Fast bowling competition...Holding's first ball was somehwhat 128 and he was just 25...People argue about Thomson bowling at 147.9 as his fastest because of his peak got over, no practice and 40 degree heat at Perth, but what happened to others? all where in their mid to late 20s and all were caught in 130s? would anyone bowl slow in a fast bowling competition or are most of them mythologised? if so then how where they a yard faster 3 years before?

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Is there anyone here who has listened to the TMS Radio Commentary of Arlott, Swanton and others of that era?

 

[Coronis]

One thing I am confused is about how quick were the yesteryear fast bowlers before Lillee and Thomson began their partnership? The myth surrounding them makes me wonder that they improved the standard of express pace..as it is like today...a yard faster than what was before
and there too some of their recordings in 76 like Thomson at 160.4, Roberts somewhat 158...and all greats of that era in Australia and West Indies around 150.
But I was shocked when I saw the 1979 Fast bowling competition...Holding's first ball was somehwhat 128 and he was just 25...People argue about Thomson bowling at 147.9 as his fastest because of his peak got over, no practice and 40 degree heat at Perth, but what happened to others? all where in their mid to late 20s and all were caught in 130s? would anyone bowl slow in a fast bowling competition or are most of them mythologised? if so then how where they a yard faster 3 years before?

Yeah… I don’t think you can take speedgun results from back then as completely accurate. iirc even with some of them they were judged out of hand and some judged when the reached the stumps. I don’t think anyone else apart from Thomson would’ve regularly reached that Lee/Akhtar/Tait level. It wouldn’t surprise me if others bowled deliveries 150, but it would be far from a regular occurrence.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Where's 2020??

 

[sayon basak]

Where's 2020??

In your arse.

 

[the big bambino]

One thing I am confused is about how quick were the yesteryear fast bowlers before Lillee and Thomson began their partnership? The myth surrounding them makes me wonder that they improved the standard of express pace..as it is like today...a yard faster than what was before
and there too some of their recordings in 76 like Thomson at 160.4, Roberts somewhat 158...and all greats of that era in Australia and West Indies around 150.
But I was shocked when I saw the 1979 Fast bowling competition...Holding's first ball was somehwhat 128 and he was just 25...People argue about Thomson bowling at 147.9 as his fastest because of his peak got over, no practice and 40 degree heat at Perth, but what happened to others? all where in their mid to late 20s and all were caught in 130s? would anyone bowl slow in a fast bowling competition or are most of them mythologised? if so then how where they a yard faster 3 years before?

Speed guns are entirely believable. Like we see in the Big Bash when a late 30s Peter Siddle hits speeds of close to 150 clicks ...

 

[Johan]

2000, change of the millenium.

 

[shortpitched713]

I mean modern is all relative.

Obviously.

It differs by discipline of study and endeavor, and can have widely disparate definitions. Even the concept of "postmodern" exists, which I've always found a bit interesting, as in some historical contexts modern usually refers to post WWII and then they throw postmodern in for being anything after Soviet collapse. But even those aren't anything like universal.

So in cricket too, we have to take whatever context makes the most sense from our perspective, but I'm sure it can change. Post 1970 might be seen as too early of a cutoff for the redditors or discord, etc. cricket mass debaters of the future. Off the top of my head some "natural" cutoffs for "modern" Test cricket in the future could be post mid 90s for neutral umpires, post 2009ish for DRS, or even post 2019 at some point for the first WTC cycle. It doesn't make that much sense to me now, but they could be used as a starting point in the future.

 

[shortpitched713]

2000, change of the millenium.

Some folks here (Richard mostly I think), have unironically posited Sept 11 2001 as some sort of important dividing line, so you're not really off the mark here. One thing I don't find as compelling about this one though is that flat pitches haven't really been a universal hallmark of cricket since, as the last 7ish years have shown us lower scores in Test cricket becoming the norm.

 

[DrWolverine]

Some folks here (Richard mostly I think), have unironically posited Sept 11 2001 as some sort of important dividing line,

That date means nothing to cricket tbh

 

[andruid]

On that tragic day in 1882, when a rag-tag group of convicts deigned to humiliate their betters and carried the remnants back to with them to Australia


But seriously I reckon modern cricket saw its first proper expression in the 1996 World Cup winning Sri Lanka team.

 

[Johan]

Some folks here (Richard mostly I think), have unironically posited Sept 11 2001 as some sort of important dividing line, so you're not really off the mark here. One thing I don't find as compelling about this one though is that flat pitches haven't really been a universal hallmark of cricket since, as the last 7ish years have shown us lower scores in Test cricket becoming the norm.

arguing 2015 as Modern Era would be fun

 

[Coronis]

That date means nothing to cricket tbh

It was the date when Andy Flower got stranded on 199* preventing him from being the first person to score a double century in the second innings after scoring a century in the first innings.