The Modern Day Batsman Issue

[Ikki]

I think those things are different/and valid compared to the usual "flat tracks" argument, which is what I was talking about.

 

[aussie]

Here we go again..

TBF, I am not sure I'd even agree with it being more easier to score runs in this era than say the 60s for example. I think batsmen these days have maximised their run-scoring through their stroke-play. They take more calculated risks and they're paying off. Because, really, they're actually getting out faster these days (SRs of bowlers are going down).

Firstly when you said something similar about a year ago: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2142620-post206.html

Love reading my own opinions being ranted by Burgey.

This comparison between the eras has, thankfully, gotten to the point where most people see it as exaggerated and quite ridiculous. As has been said, if you really want to talk about "attacks", as in a group of bowlers, there's little difference between the 00s and the 70s or 80s, really.

In terms of ratios of bowlers (averages and SRs) averages have gone up about a couple runs between the decades, but also the SRs are getting faster and faster; something often overlooked. So in fact, it's not that it's harder to get batsmen out; bowlers are actually doing that faster. It's just that batsmen are making more runs while at the crease. Goughy and I have argued plenty of times one of the most important differences is that the batsmen have different approaches nowadays and have cut down risk whilst increasing run opportunities.

You said for example SR for bowlers are going up. Now you say its going down??. You defenders of the modern day FTBs really need to make up your mind.

Plus i dont see how the difficulty in run scoring between 2000-2009 is comparable to the 60s.

The 60s:

- ENG had Trueman/Statham for the 1st half of the decade. Then Snow/Underwood for the second half.

- Windies where great basically throughout the 60s with Hall/Griffith/Gibbs/Sobers.

- SA where solid. Adock/Pollock early on in the 60s (Pollock basically carried thier attack for much of the 60s - another top lone ranger. Then Pollock/Procter before they where banned @ the end of the 60s.

- AUS had Davidson/Benaud early on. The McKenzie/Hawke at the end of the 60s.

- IND at the back end of the 60s had their spin quartet emerge.

So basically on PAK & NZ had joke attacks during the 60s.


You compare that to the 2000-2009 where:

- Only AUS for the entire decade only AUS had a consistently good attack.

- Touring IND/SRI facing Kumble/Harbhajan & Vaas/Murali

These two where the only dead sure times when good attacks where present. Everyone other team was way too inconsistent.


- ENG where generally average. They had two peak periods with Caddick/Gouch circa 2000-2001 & Hoggard/Harmo/FLintoff/Jones circa 2004-2006.

- SA also where averaged compared to the 90s. Donald/Pollock era ended around 2000. Its only around crica 2005/06-2009 with the emergence of Steyn/Morkel, Ntini/Nel hitting career peak form did they regain themselves. So they where excellent for half the decade & crap for the first half.

- PAK, WI & NZ where 90% of the time crap. Although the very few times Akhtar, Bond where fit helped them. While IND pacers never good except a series here or there

Plus Bangladesh & ZIM being around now made things even worse.

Clearly the 60s, batsmen where challenged more often.

I think there's a lot of truth in that but the opportunity to play in such a manner is itself an advantage borne of, amongst other things, better coaching attitudes, better bats and a vast amount of shorter-format cricket in which to harness such skills.

But again it keeps coming back to poor attacks & flat pitches. Although i would say that in some ways the increase in amount of 300+ scores in a day & overall pace of scoring in tests has a bit to do with the aggressive instincts that have come from ODIs & now T20s.

But it has happened a bit too often in the last decade, very good/great bowling attacks in test history are hardly ever dominated with batsmen scoring at 3.5 to 4 rpo againts them that regularly. The contest between quality batsmen vs quality bowling is usually very balanced.

How many opposition teams have scored 300+ in a day vs AUS or in IND or SRI facing Kumble/Harbhajan or Vaas/Murali - or for top opposition batsmen how many of them smoked hundreds againts these few top attacks?. I dont recall many.

 

[Furball]

Here we go again..



Firstly when you said something similar about a year ago: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2142620-post206.html



You said for example SR for bowlers are going up. Now you say its going down??.

He didn't say that. Try reading his post.

 

[Flem274*]

Right on old fella...

Haha, like you've seen half the past stars you talk about play. Talk it up bro.

 

[weldone]

If anything, the '30s and the '40s can be compared with this decade in terms of conditions etc. (no. of minnow countries being one factor, too) being favorable to batsmen, certainly not the '60s.

 

[aussie]

He didn't say that. Try reading his post.

I was confused thats why i asked. Either way i fundamentally disagree with both posts.

Haha, like you've seen half the past stars you talk about play. Talk it up bro.

What does me not seeing the past stars, have to do with me acknowledging with the old man said?.

Either way that fact that basically every old cricket fan i have spoken to face to face or on cricket chat websites in my lifetime have basically said exactly what JBMAC has said in some way in the other. Means that people like us who weren't lucky enough to see great stats of the past - need to accept that such POVs as the facts.

 

[aussie]

If anything, the '30s and the '40s can be compared with this decade in terms of conditions etc. (no. of minnow countries being one factor, too) being favorable to batsmen, certainly not the '60s.

Exactly. 1900-1939 (45-49) is the only comparable era to 2000-2009.

 

[weldone]

Exactly. 1900-1939 (45-49) is the only comparable era to 2000-2009.

Certainly not 1900-1920, come on.

 

[Cevno]

Playing devil's advocate, one might say that what you're really comparing is the apple you're eating now with an apple you remember eating 30 years ago. Which is a very tricky comparison indeed...

Interesting point.

There is more likelihood of their being a extreme view on the apple you ate 30 years ago.It is very likely you will remember it being Very Tasty or remember it as being bad.
You won't neccesarily remember the small things you did not like in a very good apple and vice versa.

But when you are eating a apple currently ,you are more likely to find small small likes and dislikes as you continously make one bite after another.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I find myself doing the same with television shows I watched a long long time back. Sometimes I track down a few episodes on youtube, and am surprised at how high I used to rate that crap

 

[aussie]

Certainly not 1900-1920, come on.

Yes. Everything pre-war.

 

[Cevno]

I think there's a lot of truth in that but the opportunity to play in such a manner is itself an advantage borne of, amongst other things, better coaching attitudes, better bats and a vast amount of shorter-format cricket in which to harness such skills.

But then the bowlers have the same oppurtunities as well with things such as Reverse Swing,conventional swing,Googlies,Flippers being more prominent.

There is a lot of video Technology as well in finding a weakness with a batsmen with coaches and analyst paid to do it.
Ultimately the Bowler only has to exploit this weakness only once to get the batsmen out.

Which is exactly the Reason which makes me beleive that there will be no one in the current or future era unless cricket changes dramatically that will have a Bradmanesque record,because with more Matches there is a more likelihood of failing with the law of probability and Specially with more Different conditions,different balls .
There are also different type of bowlers and more bowling and even fielding techniques that have been developed.
So with different kind of bowlers and with Video Technology and different conditions there is more than likely that a shortcoming will be found which will get you out on a few occasion to neutralise your record.
Yes there are more Chances to score big and even make ordinary players look better than what they are,but at the same time there are less Chances for the great players to pull away from the rest of the pack. So their is a kind of neutralisation from lower to upwards and from upwards to lower too.

 

[robelinda]

I was confused thats why i asked. Either way i fundamentally disagree with both posts.




What does me not seeing the past stars, have to do with me acknowledging with the old man said?.

Either way that fact that basically every old cricket fan i have spoken to face to face or on cricket chat websites in my lifetime have basically said exactly what JBMAC has said in some way in the other. Means that people like us who weren't lucky enough to see great stats of the past - need to accept that such POVs as the facts.

Also, there's heaps and heaps of footage of 50's, 60's and 70's players, so everyone can see these guys and form their own opinions. No need to remember, you can relive it every day. I hate talking about some even using my faded memory, and i never do that. Seeing them live, watching tapes from back then, same thing for me. Whether or not youve seen them doesnt matter to me, and shouldnt be used as a criticism against you. These days people seem to think if it aint on you tube it never happened.

 

[Prince EWS]

TBF, I am not sure I'd even agree with it being more easier to score runs in this era than say the 60s for example. I think batsmen these days have maximised their run-scoring through their stroke-play. They take more calculated risks and they're paying off. Because, really, they're actually getting out faster these days (SRs of bowlers are going down).

I think this is just as speculative and, most importantly, irrelevant to a batsman's determined quality as the flat pitches argument though.

I mean, it's possible either of the arguments are true. It's possible that Sehwag wouldn't reach 20 if he suddenly found himself up against Lillee on a 1975 Gabba pitch on a weekly basis. It's also possible that Ian Chappell wouldn't really average 55 if he was playing today. But while it's perhaps an interesting side debate for people who grew up in the 70s, I find it completely irrelevant when judging the quality of a player. Your utility, your quality, your value - however you want to phrase it - is based on your ability relative to the average player of your time, IMO. If the global batting average in the next era skyrockets to 70 and a bowler manages to average 35 over a sustained period, I'll call him the best bowler of all time, because he'd be more valuable in his era than any other bowler in their own era. I wouldn't really care if he could average under 20 in the 1980s or not when evaluating it - I'd look at his performances relative to his contemporaries and then compare it to others' performances relative to their contemporaries. That's the only realistic way to really compare players between eras, IMO.

 

[weldone]

Yes. Everything pre-war.

Are you trying to say that everything pre-war was more batsmen-friendly?!? Then Lohmann, Spofforth and Barnes must have been ten times as good as Lillee, Hadlee, Marshall and Murali combined!

 

[Furball]

Yes. Everything pre-war.

Pre-war means before 1914.

Inter-war is 1919-1939.

Post-war refers to the period after 1945.

 

[aussie]

Are you trying to say that everything pre-war was more batsmen-friendly?!? Then Lohmann, Spofforth and Barnes must have been ten times as good as Lillee, Hadlee, Marshall and Murali combined!

Thanks to the unfair advantage of uncovered wickets. But not by 10 times at all. Just a slight more difficult. Flat roads like the one seen between 2000-2009 where around as well between 1900-1914, its not as if rain used to fall in every test match back then.

Pre-war means before 1914.

Inter-war is 1919-1939.

Post-war refers to the period after 1945.

Yes i know. Although i'd normally say:

Pre- 1st WW before 1914

Pre 2nd WW 1919-1939

Post war after 1945

I think the need to be so specific in that post, since when some war says "pre-war", given that everyone knows that two wars occured between 1900-1945. That enitre period is gnerally referred to as pre-war for time consuming sake.

 

[weldone]

Flat roads like the one seen between 2000-2009 where around as well between 1900-1914

Any evidence to suggest the same? I don't think so, not at all.

 

[aussie]

Also, there's heaps and heaps of footage of 50's, 60's and 70's players, so everyone can see these guys and form their own opinions. No need to remember, you can relive it every day. I hate talking about some even using my faded memory, and i never do that. Seeing them live, watching tapes from back then, same thing for me. Whether or not youve seen them doesnt matter to me, and shouldnt be used as a criticism against you. These days people seem to think if it aint on you tube it never happened.

Ye and they come up with all these outlandish theories questioning past greats they never had luxury of seeing, except in video highlights. But have the nerve to say people who are reviting in the past players or era's are just endulging in romanticism, while finding all sort of ways to defend modern day FTBs claiming they are just "products of their time" etc etc. You have to wonder, whats really going on.

Any evidence to suggest the same? I don't think so, not at all

Just check cricinfo scorecards & reports of that period & maybe by a few books that speak out that era. Plus as i mentioned in that post sticky wickets wasn't present in every test, since rain didn't fal in every test.