Print

[Chad]

But you'd have to be a compelte tool to do this. You don't get wickets by incessant short bowling, you get wickets by variation and (trying) to make the batsman make mistakes. 3 bouncers and a yorker (assuming the batsman is a bunny) is not an option with the current rules.

I would love to see a 3 bouncer then yorker combo. If we give the bowler that extra bouncer, it keeps the batsman on their toes after the second bouncer, wondering if the next will be a yorker or a bouncer. That would be a true test on wits and skill. Just a shame I'm not quite fast enough to bowl bouncers here! I think there has been only one day in my life where I could bowl a bouncer at will in a match, and that was thanks to the really hard pitch!

[Buzz]

right, I have spent some time thinking about this and having watched the videos have a bot of a view.

Firstly the videos you see with stumps flying everywhere are typically against real tail end bunnies.
I think it is an excepted fact that lower order players have been forced to work much harder to become multi-dimensional players and are now much more capable batsmen than previously. This has been helped by the improving kit they can wear.

As for top order players. Certainly techniques have changed. Much like speeds of race horses I don't think bowling is faster now or then. I think there are fast bowlers now as there were in previous generations. You can't tell me Finn, Stein etc are massively quicker or slower than bowlers from the past.
As touched upon there has clearly been a slowing down and flatening of pitches. Anyone who has played on an uncovered wicket will know the bounce and pace on the pitch can vary considerably, which can make a bowler appear faster or get more bounce.
Realistically o wouldn't fancy any of holding, lillee, Thompson or lee, acktar, harmisson or Finn, stein, morkle or a pumped up tino mind the Windows.

Even with the best body armour!

Personally I do think batsmen do have better techniques now than in the past, I think they spend more time at practice, it is significantly easier to review the areas of concern, analyse bowlers and thus improve.

I also think spinners are much much better now than in the past. But that is a different thread...

[uknsaunders]

That was my point. 30 years ago if we pretty difficult to get bowlers to prepare you for short pitched bowling. They often weren't quick enough or couldn't keep going for hours. Even in 1989 I heard how Boycott prepped the England batsman for the Windies by get 2nd XI bowlers bowling off 17 yards at Headingley. Bowling machines have allowed batsman to spend hours on specific short ball weaknesses, as has video footage and hawkeye type tools.

Finn/Steyn and co clock high 140s, as did the Windies 20 years ago. The only difference is the Windies had 4 guys bowling that pace and the batsman were far less use to it. Quick is quick but a batsman now would be better prepared.

[Manormanic]

Finn/Steyn and co clock high 140s, as did the Windies 20 years ago. The only difference is the Windies had 4 guys bowling that pace and the batsman were far less use to it. Quick is quick but a batsman now would be better prepared.

But thats not the only difference at all.  Firstly, what people clock is different because the measures used for speed guns have changed (ie what part of the delivery is captured).  Secondly, the ball loses far more energy in the surface than it used to, so the net effect on the batsman is less than it used to be. 

[uknsaunders]

Uncovered wickets were finished by the mid 70s. The Windies bowled mainly on covered decks and the Oval excluded none of them were quicker than today. Indeed Lords and Old Trafford have got quicker. What I would say is there is less variable bounce making it easier to line up the ball. Overseas the Aussie decks are getting quicker again, SA decks aren't particularly slow either. The Windies decks have slowed down significantly and of course the asian decks are on the slow side but they always have been.

[Manormanic]

Uncovered wickets were finished by the mid 70s. The Windies bowled mainly on covered decks and the Oval excluded none of them were quicker than today. Indeed Lords and Old Trafford have got quicker.

Really?  Every pitch in the West Indies, most Australian pitches, many Yarpie ones?

[Kulli]

Realistically o wouldn't fancy any of holding, lillee, Thompson or lee, acktar, harmisson or Finn, stein, morkle or a pumped up tino mind the Windows.

Did you have a brain freeze at this point Buzz, or did the boss walk past

[Cys1]

But you'd have to be a compelte tool to do this. You don't get wickets by incessant short bowling, you get wickets by variation and (trying) to make the batsman make mistakes. 3 bouncers and a yorker (assuming the batsman is a bunny) is not an option with the current rules.

Exactly, only an idiot would think that hitting the batsman when 3-4 bouncers an over without tossing up a full wide one or attacking the stumps would get you wickets.  I simply wanted to make the point that even if bowlers were allowed to have more bouncers an over this would not automatically make it an even contest and it would certainly not guarantee them taking more wickets.

Batsman certainly play short stuff a lot better than in the past. We would be naive to think that this is not the case since the game has evolved a lot since the 70's and 80's.
Just take a look at the average 50 over scores in the 80's compared to what it would be presently.

[uknsaunders]

Really?  Every pitch in the West Indies, most Australian pitches, many Yarpie ones?

I think weather only really affected England during test matches so I can't quote you when other countries they made the move but could've been earlier or later depending on the governing bodies. Cricinfo claims they were phased out in the 60s.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/461172.html

I'd be surprised if anybody wasn't using covers by the 80's. There was a playing condition about leaving covers off during a game but I know England phased that out due to a few incidents in the seventies. England were done this way in 1975 when it rained at the start of Englands innings and they were skittled in an Ashes test match at Edgbaston. Gooch collected 2 ducks on his debut!.

[uknsaunders]

what makes a huge difference today is the length of the grass left on the track. More grass use to be left on tracks across the world and it's coming back into fashion to force results against Asian sides in particular.

[Cys1]

Seems like we're going round in circles and not sticking to the point.
Have defensive techniques improved?
I would say no, not really or by much at all. I think we just play significantly less defensive shots than 30 years ago. All formats have evolved into more attacking cricket being played and the sides who defend more most often get left behind.

[Manormanic]

I am not, and have never really been, referring to the effects of covering wickets, but to the actual pace of the wickets themselves.  Where you used to see lightning quick tracks in the Islands and around Oz, now most tracks are of a mediumish or even more sluggish pace on to the bat.

Aside from the added reaction time that this gives batsmen, it makes bowlers pitch that much shorter to get the necessary spring off the surface...