Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Players => Topic started by: The_Bird on January 10, 2013, 02:01:24 PM
-
Just watching the thousandth rerun of ESPN Classics and made me think;
Do we consider Atherton, Thorpe, Robin Smith, Stewart, Hussain to be better batsmen than the current England players such as Bell, KP, Cook, Trott.
The older guard faced proper scary attacks like Walsh/Ambrose, McGrath/Warne, Wasim/Waqar. Whereas the latter face some pretty poor attacks. Should we be applauding the old guys for averaging 38-44 against world class attacks or are we inflating the current crops egos for averaging 45-55 against poor attacks.
Just a thought..
-
Just to spin this around, maybe is was the poorer batting that made these bowlers look better than they were? I'm not saying that's the case, however no-one will ever know.
-
Current crop would not survive against the bowling attacks of the past
-
Alot of factors make the current players stats look better. Take the bat, ones used 10/20 years ago were a fraction of the size and clearing the rope was alot harder.
The game has also moved on and batsmen want to score at around 4 an over in tests, whereas years ago 2 an over was acceptable.
-
Alot of factors make the current players stats look better. Take the bat, ones used 10/20 years ago were a fraction of the size and clearing the rope was alot harder.
The game has also moved on and batsmen want to score at around 4 an over in tests, whereas years ago 2 an over was acceptable.
On the other hand, the standard of fielding is out of sight compared to even 20 years ago, so that'll cost the batsman more runs than his bigger bat would gain him I'd think.
-
Kulli - tell that to Jonty Rhodes or Colin Bland.
However - where does this leave Dale Steyn - there is a good argument for him being one of the best fast bowlers in history.
-
I think it's a bit of both - in the 90s the bowling was better and the batting wasn't quite as good as it is now. Good bowlers create soft dismissals though. Batsman now have better tools and training methods compared to the early 90s. Grounds are smaller, wickets flatter. I do think we are in a period with very few exceptional quick bowlers or spinners, good bowlers but not great.
The likes of Cook, Bell would still prosper in the 90s but their averages would be lower, but maybe 5 runs per wicket higher than players of that era due to the performance benefits they had?
-
Certainly, I would say so.
Old guards played in 'bowlers era' where bowlers would be dominating, pitches would be fair unlike today how they are more flatter. Apart from pitches there would be many other external factors such as smaller grounds, better bats, more batting friendly game rules et cetra.
I can firmly say that so called "bug guns" of current era ala 'batsman era' would not be able to dominate if played in past.
Average in 40s of that era would be equivalent to todays 50s.
-
Kulli - tell that to Jonty Rhodes or Colin Bland.
However - where does this leave Dale Steyn - there is a good argument for him being one of the best fast bowlers in history.
I meant the overall standard, I doubt either of them would stand out (or certainly not as much) for their fielding in the current game. Traveling back the idea of your opening bowler sprinting 40 yards and diving just to turn a 4 into a 3 would have been crazy, half them barely stuck out a size 10 even when the ball went 3-4 meters either side of them!
-
You also need to consider the arcane selection systems that were in place many years ago - the batsmen weren't always facing the best bowlers!
EG: Ultimately, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jackson's omission was partly due to snobbery. Derbyshire was an unfashionable county; Jackson was a coal miner. His biographer, Mike Carey, lays the blame at the door of Freddie Brown and Gubby Allen.
Brown, who captained England in 1949, 1950 and 1951, apparently decided that Jackson lacked the stamina to come back for a second spell - a ludicrous criticism of a man who would bowl an average of 886 overs a season between 1949 and 1963.
Gubby Allen, an Old Etonian who played in 25 Tests but never took 100 wickets in a season (a feat Jackson achieved 10 times), was chairman of the Test selectors from 1955 to 1961, when Jackson was at his peak. "My information is," Fred Trueman observed, "that he [Allen] would not have Les at any price and if that's true it's criminal." Even when Jackson played against the Australians in 1961, it was at Peter May's insistence.
Tom Graveney, reflecting that RWV Robins played 19 times for England against Jackson's twice, called this discrepancy "sacrilege". But Jackson himself never complained, either privately or in print. For him, playing cricket at any level was preferable to working in the pits.
Trevor Bailey wrote that professionals around the country were aghast when John Warr, of Cambridge University and Middlesex, was preferred to Jackson for the 1950-51 trip to Australia.
Don Bradman, who batted against him in 1948, the day after his 173 not out in the Headingley Test had won the Ashes for Australia, reckoned he was one of the best bowlers he encountered on that year's tour; while Freddie Trueman rated him "the best six-days-a-week bowler I ever saw in county cricket."
-
Good point Trypey!
I think it's so hard to judge. If you look around at the attacks back in the 80's and 90's with guys like Marshall (my personal favourite!) Garner, Wasim, Waqar, Walsh, Ambrose, Warne, McGrath plus 5-6 others then there is obviously much, much more strength in depth than there is now. Only Steyn and at a push Jimmy A can even be compared to these guys currently and even then it's a push!
With bat technology improving and fielding improvements maybe negating that a bit the only variables left are the pitches which I honestly think are a lot less 'competitive' than they used to be. It's become more of a batsmens game and the pitches reflect this.
Are the batsmen better now than then? Well, I think the likes of Sachin, KP, Gayle, Ponting, Kallis, Cook etc would be good in any era but I honestly think the likes of Bell, Clarke, Sehwag, Dhoni, Strauss would probably get found out fairly quickly and not enjoy the decent careers they have got/had. I've just used names off the top of my head. Could name most batsmen in any international team. (And I had to mention Bell because I don't rate him! :D )
-
Good point Trypey!
I think it's so hard to judge. If you look around at the attacks back in the 80's and 90's with guys like Marshall (my personal favourite!) Garner, Wasim, Waqar, Walsh, Ambrose, Warne, McGrath plus 5-6 others then there is obviously much, much more strength in depth than there is now. Only Steyn and at a push Jimmy A can even be compared to these guys currently and even then it's a push!
With bat technology improving and fielding improvements maybe negating that a bit the only variables left are the pitches which I honestly think are a lot less 'competitive' than they used to be. It's become more of a batsmens game and the pitches reflect this.
Are the batsmen better now than then? Well, I think the likes of Sachin, KP, Gayle, Ponting, Kallis, Cook etc would be good in any era but I honestly think the likes of Bell, Clarke, Sehwag, Dhoni, Strauss would probably get found out fairly quickly and not enjoy the decent careers they have got/had. I've just used names off the top of my head. Could name most batsmen in any international team. (And I had to mention Bell because I don't rate him! :D )
Not quite made up my mind about Clarke yet. Having a phenomenal spell atm.
-
... and when you consider that when Marshall first got into the team he was viewed as the runt of the litter!
-
Interesting topic this; I don't believe there to be an easy answer tot eh question posed, but a few thoughts...
1. I don't think it is quite simple as to say that there is a one size fits all answer to this question. For some batsmen - Hick is one that springs to mind - a career beginning ten years later would have been massively different because he would have played on a central contract and under a coach who understood that continuity was the way to go, whilst the comparative lack of super fast wickets and genuinely nasty bowlers would eliminate his single major technical issue. For others - Robin Smith perhaps - I doubt it would have made much difference because he would still have been a comparatively poor player of spin.
2. It makes a huge difference playing in a winning side as against one that loses for fun.
3. The biggest change in the game has been the speed of run scoring - it went up by near enough a run and over around the turn of the century. This means that stats are not so easy to compare - if someone like Alec Stewart had been looking to score a bit quicker, would he have made more of the chance he had to score? Flipped on its head, would someone like Big Bird have seemed quite so awesome if batsmen had actually tried to challenge him?
4. Equipments has all gone in the way of the batsman. Not just willow, we're talking lids, padding, even tougher shoes...
-
myth - Robin Smith was a bad player of spin. Didn't he get a ton in Sri Lanka, not many have done that! Certainly with the exception of Mumbai I doubt Robin Smith would of struggled against India.
-
Warne made Smith look particularly silly. Kind of like an English cullinan.
That's not to say he didn't have a perennial hold over English batters.
I think Ramps would still have been the intense so and so, even despite the better coaching infrastructure. Manormanic, I completely agree about Hick. He could have been an English (Zim) Hayden.
-
[
Certainly, I would say so.
Old guards played in 'bowlers era' where bowlers would be dominating, pitches would be fair unlike today how they are more flatter. Apart from pitches there would be many other external factors such as smaller grounds, better bats, more batting friendly game rules et cetra.
I can firmly say that so called "bug guns" of current era ala 'batsman era' would not be able to dominate if played in past.
Average in 40s of that era would be equivalent to todays 50s.
Great debate, Cover_Drive hit the nail on the head
-
Warne made Smith English Batsmenlook particularly silly.
-
myth - Robin Smith was a bad player of spin. Didn't he get a ton in Sri Lanka, not many have done that! Certainly with the exception of Mumbai I doubt Robin Smith would of struggled against India.
He did, but on a shirt front, and it was more or less of a one off
-
I'd added a caveat, Tim. :)
I remember Smith looking particularly dumbfounded.
-
I think it's a hard argument, similar to would Ronaldo/Messi score as many in Pele's day and vice versa in the world of football.
All round fitness/fielding/coaching methods/amount of time/effort put into practising has increased which should mean both should have improved since "My day".
There are still bowlers who bowl at 90mph, so I don't think you can say batsmen have it easier.
The great batsmen of the present such as Cook/Clarke/KP/Trott all posses enough talent and skill that they would get runs in any era. Technique is something you're born with but you develop with practise. If Cook was born in the 50s/60s I think he might play a bit differently (definitely true for KP) but I still think he would have made it to the top of his profession.
The same can probably be said of the best bowlers (Anderson/Steyn/Swann). They would all have taken wickets in the past I reckon.
Also, bats have improved but have balls? Do they do more off the seam than ye olde cricket balls of years gone by? I think they last longer/however long the makers want them to last, but do they swing/spin more?
-
Statistically 2000-2010 had the highest number of batsmen averaging over 50 when standardised by number of players, indicating it was the easiest era to bat and hardest to bowl since 1940-1950 (which had (No Swearing Please) all cricket and the cricket it did have included the don). Not surprisingly it works both ways at there are less bowlers who averaged under 30 in that era.
Another interesting statistic is that caught and bowleds, as a means of dismissal, have sharply decreased the last decade. One plausable theory is the bats are now so good that misnamed drives and leading edges are not the catchable returns that once they were.
I think this decade has been more evenly balanced, I'll post some stats later.
On a personal note, I really dislike the way the game has lost balance. Compare the 1960s batting equipment to today's..... he gets a drink every 2 overs, change of gloves if he starts to sweat, protected head to toe by a full suit of armor, smaller boundaries, flatter fields, flatter pitches. You can bat with pretty much no fear at all of being hurt.
And the bowler....... well he is still doing the exact same thing he did 100 years ago, using exactly the same bit of equipment.
-
Another interesting statistic is that caught and bowleds, as a means of dismissal, have sharply decreased the last decade. One plausable theory is the bats are now so good that misnamed drives and leading edges are not the catchable returns that once they were.
That's a great stat
-
Good point Trypey!
I think it's so hard to judge. If you look around at the attacks back in the 80's and 90's with guys like Marshall (my personal favourite!) Garner, Wasim, Waqar, Walsh, Ambrose, Warne, McGrath plus 5-6 others then there is obviously much, much more strength in depth than there is now. Only Steyn and at a push Jimmy A can even be compared to these guys currently and even then it's a push!
With bat technology improving and fielding improvements maybe negating that a bit the only variables left are the pitches which I honestly think are a lot less 'competitive' than they used to be. It's become more of a batsmens game and the pitches reflect this.
Are the batsmen better now than then? Well, I think the likes of Sachin, KP, Gayle, Ponting, Kallis, Cook etc would be good in any era but I honestly think the likes of Bell, Clarke, Sehwag, Dhoni, Strauss would probably get found out fairly quickly and not enjoy the decent careers they have got/had. I've just used names off the top of my head. Could name most batsmen in any international team. (And I had to mention Bell because I don't rate him! :D )
Not related to the topic but looking at your list ...Sachin is the only current batsman to have played against all the bowlers you have mentioned save Garner ...
Totally agree with what you've said .. Its a batsman's game now a days with power-play , field restrictions and flat pitches. Plus with the amount of test matches played I think skills of most batsman are not tested enough these days.
Although I have my reservations about KP !
-
I think it's a bit of both - in the 90s the bowling was better and the batting wasn't quite as good as it is now. Good bowlers create soft dismissals though. Batsman now have better tools and training methods compared to the early 90s. Grounds are smaller, wickets flatter. I do think we are in a period with very few exceptional quick bowlers or spinners, good bowlers but not great.
The likes of Cook, Bell would still prosper in the 90s but their averages would be lower, but maybe 5 runs per wicket higher than players of that era due to the performance benefits they had?
I agree with this ;-)
-
Kulli - tell that to Jonty Rhodes or Colin Bland.
Whllst there have been outstanding individual fielders throughout cricket history, the overall standard of fielding is probably higher now than it has ever been.
-
Personal Opinion on this is that the 'general' standard of fielding in all pro's has increased. You still have the outstanding fielders of all generations that would if you put them all into one single generation look amazing. I don't personally believe there is the bowling stock there was of yesteryear for various reasons. I think the general standard of batting has improved but again, the greats of each era would be stand out any era. Now a days there are a lot more over inflated averages due to boundaries, bats, helmets (which would have made a big difference to the WI attack for instance).
I think one of you said about the fact Test matches are not really played enough, I agree.. HOwever I'd also say they don't actually 'test' the players anymore. When you factor in drinks breaks, unsheduled drinks breaks, gloves changing, toilet stops, slow over rates etc etc.. I think they need to re-dress this by making boundaries bigger again, and literally go back to the minimum stops they 'used' to have and force batsmen to bat for 2 hours without more than a cup of drink.. Testing their skills, mental fitness and fitness! Same with bowlers going off for a quick change of whites, rub down.. ice down etc.. No.. Bowl your overs and then stand for 2 hours in your sweaty kit WITHOUT drinks after every over!
I'd say overall though there are bits that are better now and there are things that are worse. TBH, I think you can look to the lower levels for all your answers as although the skill levels are lower it's a pretty accurate reflection.
-
Personal Opinion on this is that the 'general' standard of fielding in all pro's has increased. You still have the outstanding fielders of all generations that would if you put them all into one single generation look amazing. I don't personally believe there is the bowling stock there was of yesteryear for various reasons. I think the general standard of batting has improved but again, the greats of each era would be stand out any era. Now a days there are a lot more over inflated averages due to boundaries, bats, helmets (which would have made a big difference to the WI attack for instance).
I think one of you said about the fact Test matches are not really played enough, I agree.. HOwever I'd also say they don't actually 'test' the players anymore. When you factor in drinks breaks, unsheduled drinks breaks, gloves changing, toilet stops, slow over rates etc etc.. I think they need to re-dress this by making boundaries bigger again, and literally go back to the minimum stops they 'used' to have and force batsmen to bat for 2 hours without more than a cup of drink.. Testing their skills, mental fitness and fitness! Same with bowlers going off for a quick change of whites, rub down.. ice down etc.. No.. Bowl your overs and then stand for 2 hours in your sweaty kit WITHOUT drinks after every over!
I'd say overall though there are bits that are better now and there are things that are worse. TBH, I think you can look to the lower levels for all your answers as although the skill levels are lower it's a pretty accurate reflection.
Exactly....... It's one of the few sports where the top level has become less grueling than the ametuer game.
-
Do you think that the introduction of the referral system for batsmen has now helped as well or also possibly made it even more of an achievement to average 45+ in test cricket now a days?
A decade ago if you got in a big stride you were highly unlikely to get given LBW now with all the technology about that doesn't work, same as that tiny little feather of an inside edge etc
Just a view that could go either way I suppose
-
Do you think that the introduction of the referral system for batsmen has now helped as well or also possibly made it even more of an achievement to average 45+ in test cricket now a days?
A decade ago if you got in a big stride you were highly unlikely to get given LBW now with all the technology about that doesn't work, same as that tiny little feather of an inside edge etc
Just a view that could go either way I suppose
Yes I think that has helped to give bowlers wickets BUT also how many times have we seen decisions changed to not out and how many No Balls that would have been given out have since been called back whereas years ago they were gone. LIke you said, I think the review system is good for both bowler and batsmen. Umpires are more inclined to give you out LBW even if you take a stride... and because they see that on tv I reckon some board umpires give more LBW's too.