West Indies (70's-80's) vs Australia (2000's)?

[aussie_ben91]

I have to disagree once more, there aren't many batsmen from this era that will be remembered for generations to come, Ponting and Tendulkar are probably the only 2, possibly Pietersen if he regains his dominating form. All the icons of the game come from the past era, and players like Bradman, Richards, Graeme Pollock, Botham, Benaud, Allan Donald, Holding, Marshall, Garner, Greenidge, Imran, Dev, Hadlee, Border, De Freitas, Lillee, Thomson. The standard of cricketers was far higher in the past eras. The competition was far higher, and the sheer amount of world class players was far higher than the amount today. I struggle to see how the game is more skilled now, the element of danger in the past era, and the sheer pace of the fast bowlers meant that batsmen had to have no fear, Richards has said that he was hit in the face a few times by the quickies. He got injured but battled on, the players in the past generations were far stronger and more willing to bowl long spells and take a battering. Ian Botham bowled a whole day long spell in India, you wouldn't see a Lee or Steyn doing that today.

Greenidge and De Freitas aren't icons of the game and Graeme Pollock hardly even played any International cricket. :

The facts are on the table, you are just choosing to ignore them. Manee's provided the stats from the 75 and 76 competition already in this thread, and it was ignored, and you still claim that the bowlers didn't reach the speeds that they were measured at. You can choose to ignore the facts all you want, as that's all you seem to be doing at the moment. I've not seen any hard evidence to back up any of your points thus far, you're just passing your opinion off as fact. At least myself and Manee have been providing stats and figures to back up our points. Maybe we'd start to consider your argument if you actually gave facts and didn't go about this discussion in an arrogant and dismissive manner.

You haven't added anything in this arguement, you've said a few things and I've replyed back and you dwifted away until someone else posted.

Everything you are saying is completely unrealistic, if your theory was the case then bowlers would have bowling averages of under 10 and a batting average of over 30 would be enormous. You make players from the past sound like robots who were invinciable and could do no wrong.

You obviously can't accept the concept of evolution.

 

[manee]

Greenidge and De Freitas aren't icons of the game and Graeme Pollock hardly even played any International cricket.

Gordon Greenidge was very good. Not too sure about De Freitas but Graeme Pollock was a superb batsmen. He didn't play much Test cricket due to South Africa's isolation from ICC cricket so your rolleyes is extremely ignorant.

"Perhaps the finest left-hand batsman the game has ever produced - Donald Bradman certainly thought so, classing only Garry Sobers as his equal among those he saw play."

I understand that you are weary of listening to players from past generations, but those are two great compliments.

You obviously can't accept the concept of evolution.

What do you mean by evolution? Batting is still largely natural talent and the top batsmen in the game are not taught how to play their shots except the basics at a very young age - something which was done in the 1970s as it is today. Batsmen in poor form these days often find that the best way to help their game is to play domestic cricket or recieve chuck downs rather than any sort of video analysis.

Speaking of video analysis, fast bowling coaching has not advanced as it should have since the 1970s. Coaching is still largely "monkey see, monkey do" in terms of merely copying the aspects of the successful bowlers' actions rather than any sort of scientific advancement. Not to say that this is not useful, but this was present to a lesser widespread extent in the 1970s. Indeed, the standard of coaching has improved and the majority of cricket fans accept that the standard pace for a fast-medium bowler has increased since the 1970s/1980s to 130-135kph from about 125kph; but there are still the same number of out and out fast bowlers and the true quickest of generations are around the same pace, topping in the high 150s kph. Think Lee, Akhtar, Steyn, Tait compared to Lillee, Holding, Roberts and Thompson in terms of the fastest bowlers.

 

[aussie_ben91]

It's also funny because the two leading wicket takers in the history of the game played in this era and you're completely discounting them.

The greatest wicketkeeper batsman aswell, Adam Gilchrist, who revolutionized the role of a keeper batsman.

Geoff Marsh, the former wicketkeeper of Australia described Ponting as the best teenage he'd ever seen and Marsh played in the same era as all of the names you mentioned, so obviously that counts for something?

McGrath averages amongst the best in the history of cricket but played in this era which is apparently 'easy' and at times his been taken apart from batsman from the current era.

aussie_ben91 added 9 Minutes and 13 Seconds later...

What do you mean by evolution? Batting is still largely natural talent and the top batsmen in the game are not taught how to play their shots except the basics at a very young age - something which was done in the 1970s as it is today. Batsmen in poor form these days often find that the best way to help their game is to play domestic cricket or recieve chuck downs rather than any sort of video analysis.

Speaking of video analysis, fast bowling coaching has not advanced as it should have since the 1970s. Coaching is still largely "monkey see, monkey do" in terms of merely copying the aspects of the successful bowlers' actions rather than any sort of scientific advancement. Not to say that this is not useful, but this was present to a lesser widespread extent in the 1970s. Indeed, the standard of coaching has improved and the majority of cricket fans accept that the standard pace for a fast-medium bowler has increased since the 1970s/1980s to 130-135kph from about 125kph; but there are still the same number of out and out fast bowlers and the true quickest of generations are around the same pace, topping in the high 150s kph. Think Lee, Akhtar, Steyn, Tait compared to Lillee, Holding, Roberts and Thompson in terms of the fastest bowlers.

With video analysis comes disadvantages for batsman aswell. I'm sure back in the 70s & 80s, batsman weren't targetted and reviewed by the opposition on videos to target their weaknesses like they are today, so that fieldsmen are placed perfectly into position.

I mean Matthew Hayden was a great example when he went through his rough patch in 2004/05 when opposition captains started figuring him out because prior to that, he was the best batsman in the world & averaging around about 60 in Test Cricket and no one could bowl to him. It's notable because there is always someone fielding at short cover for him because he was so dominant through the cover regens through 2001-2004 but was found later found out because of it. His slightly more cautious in Test Cricket nowadays aswell because of it.

 

[manee]

It's also funny because the two leading wicket takers in the history of the game played in this era and you're completely discounting them.

My omission of spin bowlers from my analysis of evolution is because spin bowling coaching has not advanced, but the techniques have evolved (as they have done in the past, with Jack Iverson's 'doosra'), making it a somewhat moot point.

The greatest wicketkeeper batsman aswell, Adam Gilchrist, who revolutionized the role of a keeper batsman.

Did he? There have been few who have even come near his batting prowess whilst being an adequate keeper. He was more of a superstar than a revolutionary.

Geoff Marsh, the former wicketkeeper of Australia described Ponting as the best teenage he'd ever seen and Marsh played in the same era as all of the names you mentioned, so obviously that counts for something?

Why not? Ponting was/is one of the greatest batsmen of all time. The best 'teenage' does not equal the best adult batsman though does it? Ponting's relative failure in the 1990s, an era of strong fast bowlers will haunt him in the mind of many cricket purists as proof of his deficiencies in an age of fast bowling and lively tracks. Of course, Ponting is a far better batsman than in the 1990s, but a batsman can only advance so far during a career.

McGrath averages amongst the best in the history of cricket but played in this era which is apparently 'easy' and at times his been taken apart from batsman from the current era.

What is your point? Mcgrath is among the two best seam bowlers of all time, along with Maco - can't separate them, imo. Mcgrath getting taken apart is a sign of increased scoring rates, I am sure he has earned a fair few wickets from batsmen trying to attack him too and of course, this does not happen often, at all, in Test cricket - which is the basis of the arguement - hence his outstanding economy rate of 2.49. As economy rates have risen, strike rates have dropped in Test cricket and this is why I believe Maco to have been so exceptional, due to his low strike rate. Likewise, Mcgrath's superb economy rate in the 2000s, as well as the (to be expected) low strike rate is a testament to his brilliance.

manee added 2 Minutes and 39 Seconds later...

With video analysis comes disadvantages for batsman aswell. I'm sure back in the 70s & 80s, batsman weren't targetted and reviewed by the opposition on videos to target their weaknesses like they are today, so that fieldsmen are placed perfectly into position.

In theory, yes. But how often is a batsmen realistically felled due to video analysis. More often than a particular bowler would remember the weakness of a batsmen in the 1970s and 1980s? Not likely. Furthermore, TV was around in the 1970s and 1980s and as was video analysis, albeit not in as much abundance, but it was there nonetheless.

WI mean Matthew Hayden was a great example when he went through his rough patch in 2004/05 when opposition captains started figuring him out because prior to that, he was the best batsman in the world & averaging around about 60 in Test Cricket and no one could bowl to him. It's notable because there is always someone fielding at short cover for him because he was so dominant through the cover regens through 2001-2004 but was found later found out because of it. His slightly more cautious in Test Cricket nowadays aswell because of it.

You, as a spectator, did not need to look through video footage in slow motion to realise that he was a strong cover-driver, neither did the players of the 1970s and 1980s need to do so either - they can still see a strength and act to combat it.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Okay, I'm wrong about Malcom Marshall. I'll admit that, it was just a theory based on what I saw in a One-Dayer and he sort've reminded me of medium pacers who have keepers up to the stumps nowadays. He was a great bowler and statistics show that in Tests but I still believe that the batting was nowhere near as good in the 80's then it is nowadays.

 

[King Pietersen]

The batsmen of today aren't facing the quality bowling that existed in the 80's though, the amount of truely brilliant bowlers in world cricket has decreased massively in recent years, with very few still remaining in the game, Brett Lee, Dale Steyn and Muttiah Muralitharan being really the only 3 major threats left in the game. This compares with the quality bowlers of the 70's and 80's such as Garner, Holding, Marshall, Croft, Hadlee, Botham, Willis, Lillee, Thomson, Dev, Imran, Roberts, Reid. The improvement in bats, shorter boundaries and better pitches also make things easier for the batsmen of today. Today's game is a far more batsman friendly one, whereas the game of the 70's and 80's was far more even.

Also, batsmen such as Viv Richards, Garry Sobers, Graeme Pollock, Sunil Gavaskar, the Chappels, Allan Border, Clive Lloyd, Gordon Greenidge, Imran Khan, Javed Miandad, Geoff Boycott, Sir Ian Botham, Alvin Kallicharran, David Gower, Graeme Gooch, Basil D'Oliveira (he was who I meant, not DeFreitas ), would disagree that batting was much worse in the 70's and 80's.

 

[Cricket_god]

And how are these accurate? Aren't they just estimations?

exactly
of what i saw in the video the recordings were taken from hand and
even at most there can be 2-3 km here and there ,camera never lies
and the fact is except thomo rest did not even clock 140 consistently

Cricket_god added 1 Minutes and 28 Seconds later...

The World's Fastest Bowler was the average speed of the ball over the distance.

The 1975 and 1976 study were calculated as speeds today are, although naturally with far larger computers.

1975 Study:
Jeff Thomson 160.45kph
Jeff Thomson 160.45kph
Andy Roberts 159.49kph
Michael Holding 150.67kph (age 22)
Dennis Lillee 148.54kph (sick at the time)

1976 Study:
Jeff Thomson 99.8mph--> 160.6kph
Andy Roberts 97.8mph--> 157.4kph
Dennis Lillee 96.2mph--> 154.8kph
Michael Holding 95.2mph--> 153.2kph
Wayne Daniel 93.7mph--> 150.8kph
Bob Willis 90.7mph--> 145.9kph
Alan Ward 86.5mph--> 139.2kph
John Snow 86.2mph--> 138.7kph

give some evidence not baseless calculations

Cricket_god added 2 Minutes and 16 Seconds later...

I have to disagree once more, there aren't many batsmen from this era that will be remembered for generations to come, Ponting and Tendulkar are probably the only 2, possibly Pietersen if he regains his dominating form. All the icons of the game come from the past era, and players like Bradman, Richards, Graeme Pollock, Botham, Benaud, Allan Donald, Holding, Marshall, Garner, Greenidge, Imran, Dev, Hadlee, Border, D'Oliveira, Lillee, Thomson. The standard of cricketers was far higher in the past eras. The competition was far higher, and the sheer amount of world class players was far higher than the amount today. I struggle to see how the game is more skilled now, the element of danger in the past era, and the sheer pace of the fast bowlers meant that batsmen had to have no fear, Richards has said that he was hit in the face a few times by the quickies. He got injured but battled on, the players in the past generations were far stronger and more willing to bowl long spells and take a battering. Ian Botham bowled a whole day long spell in India, you wouldn't see a Lee or Steyn doing that today.



The facts are on the table, you are just choosing to ignore them. Manee's provided the stats from the 75 and 76 competition already in this thread, and it was ignored, and you still claim that the bowlers didn't reach the speeds that they were measured at. You can choose to ignore the facts all you want, as that's all you seem to be doing at the moment. I've not seen any hard evidence to back up any of your points thus far, you're just passing your opinion off as fact. At least myself and Manee have been providing stats and figures to back up our points. Maybe we'd start to consider your argument if you actually gave facts and didn't go about this discussion in an arrogant and dismissive manner.

what are you talking about facing 130-140 as you saw in the video and getting hit shows the class of the batsman

just show me some evidence they were that fast which is ilogical
as at that time fitness did not exist

 

[King Pietersen]

The speeds were calculated using the exact same method as speeds are calculated today. Therefore not baseless calculations, if you had read Manee's post you'd have realised this.

 

[Cricket_god]

The batsmen of today aren't facing the quality bowling that existed in the 80's though, the amount of truely brilliant bowlers in world cricket has decreased massively in recent years, with very few still remaining in the game, Brett Lee, Dale Steyn and Muttiah Muralitharan being really the only 3 major threats left in the game. This compares with the quality bowlers of the 70's and 80's such as Garner, Holding, Marshall, Croft, Hadlee, Botham, Willis, Lillee, Thomson, Dev, Imran, Roberts, Reid. The improvement in bats, shorter boundaries and better pitches also make things easier for the batsmen of today. Today's game is a far more batsman friendly one, whereas the game of the 70's and 80's was far more even.

Also, batsmen such as Viv Richards, Garry Sobers, Graeme Pollock, Sunil Gavaskar, the Chappels, Allan Border, Clive Lloyd, Gordon Greenidge, Imran Khan, Javed Miandad, Geoff Boycott, Sir Ian Botham, Alvin Kallicharran, David Gower, Graeme Gooch, Basil D'Oliveira (he was who I meant, not DeFreitas ), would disagree that batting was much worse in the 70's and 80's.

its not the quality of bowling it higher than ever before bowlers
have adapted to placid tracks by developing reverse swing,different slower
ball,different variations as the pitches are placid batsman get away.i can
easily say if todays bowlers bowled in condition like that of 70's everybody
would have averaged below 25

Cricket_god added 1 Minutes and 47 Seconds later...

The speeds were calculated using the exact same method as speeds are calculated today. Therefore not baseless calculations, if you had read Manee's post you'd have realised this.

what footage are you talking about ,as the footage clearly shows
thomo-147km/hr too of a high fulltoss
holding-144km/hr
imran-142/hr
as there fastest


if you want us to believe you show some video or pictures not calculations

 

[manee]

give some evidence not baseless calculations

Here is the link.

just show me some evidence they were that fast which is ilogical
as at that time fitness did not exist

Fitness did not exist?! Why don't you play some cricket before you make your judgements. When Shoaib Akhtar bowled at 160kph, did he attribute it to running on the treadmill? No, it is because he is superbly talented. Similarly, Brett Lee is very athletic, but is the fastest bowler in the world because he has what is commonly accepted as the best action. Another example is Ishant Sharma, I doubt he had spend months in the gym before timing 150kph in Australia.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I'm watching an Australia vs Australia A match from 1995.

None of the batsman are wearing helmets and are playing comfortably off the front foot.

Pitch is pretty flat aswell.

Ball seems to be rocketing off the bat aswell as if it was a bat of the modern day.

 

[Cricket_god]

Here is the link.



Fitness did not exist?! Why don't you play some cricket before you make your judgements. When Shoaib Akhtar bowled at 160kph, did he attribute it to running on the treadmill? No, it is because he is superbly talented. Similarly, Brett Lee is very athletic, but is the fastest bowler in the world because he has what is commonly accepted as the best action. Another example is Ishant Sharma, I doubt he had spend months in the gym before timing 150kph in Australia.

where is the video evidence.its just some false stats and the high speed cameras they so used if todays bowlers used it they may cross 200 km/hr
and the fact is as in everysport the physical side of every game has increased
be it football,hockey,cricket.todays bowlers are real fast bowlers where as the video shows ,most of them barely managed to clock 140 .

i have played better grade of cricket than you so do not get in to that,and what you thought of ishant after afew matches i know
shoaib trained by pusing tyres up the slope,brett lee is not as quicker as shoaib as shoaib action is side-on and he hits the deck hard .
you think bowling fast is easy you do not know what even a120 km/hr bowler
has to do to maintain his pace.ishant sharma has improved his pace after
spending tiem with indian team for a year he got better facilities coaching so he increased his speed.do not comment on things you don't know about its hard work now fast bowling on dead tracks.its apity todays commentators specially those who played in the 70's and 80's
say such things about mordern bowlers.
sunil gavaskar if you remember in the icc function when imran said the fast bowling standards have gone down replied it had not gone down and no better than him to judge as he faced them

 

[manee]

where is the video evidence.its just some false stats and the high speed cameras they so used if todays bowlers used it they may cross 200 km/hr
and the fact is as in everysport the physical side of every game has increased
be it football,hockey,cricket.todays bowlers are real fast bowlers where as the video shows ,most of them barely managed to clock 140 .

i have played better grade of cricket than you so do not get in to that,and what you thought of ishant after afew matches i know
shoaib trained by pusing tyres up the slope,brett lee is not as quicker as shoaib as shoaib action is side-on and he hits the deck hard .
you think bowling fast is easy you do not know what even a120 km/hr bowler
has to do to maintain his pace.ishant sharma has improved his pace after
spending tiem with indian team for a year he got better facilities coaching so he increased his spees.do not comment on things you don't know about its hard work now fast bowling.its apity todays commentators specially those who played in the 70's and 80's
say such things about mordern bowlers.
sunil gavaskar if you remember in the icc function when imran said the fast bowling standards have gone down replied it had not gone down and no better tahn him to judge

I do know somewhat about fast bowling. Physical training has been in cricket since the 1970s. I am unsure what you mean, when you ask of video evidence, but I assume that this will suffice.

i have played better grade of cricket than you so do not get in to that

How do you know which grade I have played?

 

[King Pietersen]

I'm almost 100% certain that Manee has a far deeper knowledge regarding the make up of a bowling action, the strains it has on the body and what is needed to maintain a high level of performance. Manee knows that bowling fast isn't easy, and you'd know this if you had read his blog, or read his struggles in various sections of this forum, and cricket coaching forum "SimplyCricket". Playing a higher grade of cricket than Manee doesn't make you more intelligent, I'm sure that Manee has a far better idea of what it takes to be a truely fast bowler, as from reading your above post, you're pretty clueless.

 

[Cricket_god]

I do know somewhat about fast bowling. Physical training has been in cricket since the 1970s. I am unsure what you mean, when you ask of video evidence, but I assume that this will suffice.


How do you know which grade I have played?

its thes same speed displayed in the video as the video i posted with 147 km/hr being the quickest.so just use your brains
how come even if in 76 they were bowling at 160 km/hrin 79 then bowled
at 140,km/hr its simple the computer used in 79 is more accurate

physical training may have existed but it was not as much as today .

i am participating in a comp for first class cricket so i thought you may not be a first class cricketer