Conditions include soil and weather too mate. Playing on stickies on home soil don't equate to playing on a dust bowl in 90% humidity at 37C or playing on a minefield pitch on a hot sticky day. Whether the soil is salt laden or not will decide on how fast the ball arrives too. There is no point denying that players of yesteryears were challenged with less variety of conditions than modern players.
The Mattings have bounce eratic and awkward that's foreign to modern players, wet wickets do indeed change a lot, the ball's bounce and turns becomes completely unpredictable and downright illogical, and Australia can get really hot while England can get really cold, the challenges faced are relative from temperature to the wickets, not that it matters considering India was not only not competitive but inferior bats to Hammond were downright monsterous in India IE Compton in Ranji, Worrell, Weekes and so forth.
I am not sure what are you talking about mate. Junior cricketers of the subcontinent are brought on matting wickets even today unless they are from extremely affluent schools. Even Sangakkara played his some of his FCC on mattings. Mattings bounce a lot, but a good quality matting is pretty good for batting if you can play the bounce. The tests would have had best mattings, where as some of modern players start on low quality, torn mattings, with god knows what ball will do after pitching. You need to bring on better arguments.
Junior Cricket is not even compareable to Test Cricket, a Test class bowler on a matting wicket would be a massacre, the last time we saw this was with Fazal Mahmood in Pakistan in 1950s and he was unplayable on those for a reason, averaging something silly like 16.
Not to get into the whole conditions debate but just as a thing to see how matting may affect batting. Hammond on matting in SA vs turf (yes, this is over a period of 12 years, bowlers will have changed, I can’t account for everything)
Test class bowler on a matting will be a massacre to test class batsmen who have not been brought on it. Fazal Mahmood example is a perfect one. Many inferior Pakistani first class batsmen would have scored centuries against Fazal on mattings. It is whether you have played on it or not. It bounces more yes, so batsmen poor at handling bounce will suffer. Since we are discussing ATG level bats, they are capable of handling it. Australia, England, nor south Africa register 35C+ with 80% humidity and tracks spinning square that regularly. That is an entire Indian thing. Sri Lanka is couple of ticks cooler, but more humid while Pakistan is couple of ticks hotter, but drier. Sub continental cricketing conditions are unique. Other than for Guyana, no other country can produces those conditions. Even Guyana can only replicate SL and BAN, not continental climates of India and Pakistan.
So why wouldn’t they be able to handle sub continental conditions? Batsmen can adapt to uneven bounce but not spin? Is this what you are saying?
Because they have not been brought on such conditions. ATG ones play through difficulties. Some fail. Without taking the test you cannot say about sucess, but ones who jas taken the test and passed should be regarded higher then ones who never took it orbwere not ableto take it.
Mate, do you even understand how wet wicket works? Australia hits 35C+ pretty commonly. Are we seriously saying the Australian Batsmen who play uneven bounce are suddenly bad against bounce because they got massacred on matting wickets? lol
Mate you don't even understand how sub continental climates vary. Australia is a grand climatic monolith compared to the sub continent. From deserts to rain forests, and coasts to highland tundras, subcontinent has all of them. Cricket is played everywhere. International cricket played in most of the climatic zones other than for extreme highlands.
You literally just said that modern ATG ones would be able to adapt to the unfamiliar conditions from the past. Such hypocritical ****
find where I said "modern" ATGs an we can have a conversation
so you think batting is based on weather and not on the pitch, where Hammond faced greater variety?
You said players who haven’t played in those particular conditions which heavily implies modern players
Oh I got stumped to the level of intellect of that statement.
Even among "modern" players there are ones who have played less conditions due to one or another reasons. When you cannot appreciate a large difference in their averages next prudent thing would be to look at the variety of conditions they've played in to achieve it.
Ok Mr Kapil Dev > Clive Lloyd against spin
confirms the assumption of single digit IQ
we know you have a single digit IQ, you don't need to announce it.
Further confirms it.