Print

[Alvaro]

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.

[Gelds]

[

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

[tim2000s]

Warne made Smith English Batsmenlook particularly silly.

[Manormanic]

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

[Alvaro]

I'd added a caveat, Tim.
I remember Smith looking particularly dumbfounded.

[farnham_quins_2]

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?

[Village Trundler]

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.

[The_Bird]

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

[dmacwana]

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!  )

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 !

[RossViper]

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 ;-)

[Mortimer]

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.

[ProCricketer1982]

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.

[Village Trundler]

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.

[SOULMAN1012]

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

[ProCricketer1982]

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.