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

[Cricketdude]

LMAOOOOOO!!!

Excuses, excuses and poor excuses at that. To say that the camera's were slower back then is an absolute farce, just like the theory that pitches that were played on back in the day were almost impossible to score runs. I watched the clip and there is absolutely no difference between the matches shown in the 1980's and the ones of the current age.

Shaun Pollock was once as successful as Malcom Marshall but look what happened towards the end of his career. I'm sure at the time the Windies were a great side and were as dominant as what Australia have been but cricket has evolved and will continue to evolve and improve for future generations and nothing will stop that. Players will most likely be allot better then the ones of the current age in 20-30 years time because old traits and technique have always been passed down and younger players have found ways of executing them in a more effective fashion.

You're just in a make believe world and can't admit that someone or something can't be bettered just because they were the original.

Thats right.

 

[nightprowler10]

LMAOOOOOO!!!

Excuses, excuses and poor excuses at that. To say that the camera's were slower back then is an absolute farce, just like the theory that pitches that were played on back in the day were almost impossible to score runs. I watched the clip and there is absolutely no difference between the matches shown in the 1980's and the ones of the current age.

Shaun Pollock was once as successful as Malcom Marshall but look what happened towards the end of his career. I'm sure at the time the Windies were a great side and were as dominant as what Australia have been but cricket has evolved and will continue to evolve and improve for future generations and nothing will stop that. Players will most likely be allot better then the ones of the current age in 20-30 years time because old traits and technique have always been passed down and younger players have found ways of executing them in a more effective fashion.

You're just in a make believe world and can't admit that someone or something can't be bettered just because they were the original.

Your ignorance is not nearly as frustrating as your arrogance about it, I think I've figured that out now. I'm not even going to argue about the quality of the coverage as that should be a moot point. You say that players get better over generations but not technology? Its obvious that you will say anything at all to suit your argument.

I'll agree with you that the techniques have evolved but that doesn't necessarily mean they're better. The batsmen of that era played the ball really late so they could compensate for the ball moving around so much. Styles have changed as run rates had to go up and getting results in Tests is a lot more important now than ever.

As for your last "point", where have I said in my post that no players can ever better the players from the past? Unlike you, I happen to respect great players from every generation, be it mine or my great grandfather's. They deserve their place in history. I'll happily admit that the Aussies of the last few years at their peak were probably one of the best ever. Besides, the players I'm talking about were hardly the 'original' players.

nightprowler10 added 4 Minutes and 31 Seconds later...

Why does Tendulkar average less than he did in the 90s with Akram, Younis etc.
Because The standard has got better and the way West indies batsman hits their shots it seems not as fluid and very risky and edgy. They seemed very uncoordinated and you know these days you will get out. Also the reason West Indies dominated was because the other teams were crap it wasnt because they were that good. Richards was able to smack part timers out of the park... so what?

I actually think the poms would give them a run for their money.

The point you try and make about why the West Indies were dominant, well your reasoning is just terrible. You're telling that a Pakistani side containing the likes of Imran Khan, Wasim, Zaheer, Miandad is no better than the yahoos we have playing for Pakistan today? Pakistan were at their strongest in the 80s. Alan Border's Australia were certainly not as good as the Aussie teams of the last decade, but they were probably good enough to beat most teams of today (they had Lillee FFS). India had the best spinners they've ever had along with guys like Gavaskar and Kapil. Even New Zealand had Hadlee to get them a few wins. England were as good as the England today I'd say, just as inconsistent. So yeah, your argument about other teams being crap goes out the window.

As far as Sachin goes, I think its a bit obvious why average is lower now than ever, and its because he's gotten older, well past his peak. He's still good but nearly as good as he used to be.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Your ignorance is not nearly as frustrating as your arrogance about it, I think I've figured that out now. I'm not even going to argue about the quality of the coverage as that should be a moot point. You say that players get better over generations but not technology? Its obvious that you will say anything at all to suit your argument.

I'll agree with you that the techniques have evolved but that doesn't necessarily mean they're better. The batsmen of that era played the ball really late so they could compensate for the ball moving around so much. Styles have changed as run rates had to go up and getting results in Tests is a lot more important now than ever.

As for your last "point", where have I said in my post that no players can ever better the players from the past? Unlike you, I happen to respect great players from every generation, be it mine or my great grandfather's. They deserve their place in history. I'll happily admit that the Aussies of the last few years at their peak were probably one of the best ever. Besides, the players I'm talking about were hardly the 'original' players.

Maybe because arguement is based on a realistic view. I already proved my point why cricket gets better over generations, how could it not? The skill and how teams go about their business is obviously allot more professional then it was 20 years ago. Traits and theories are handed down from generations and with the facilities nowadays the players are given the best opportunity possible to reach their maximum potential.

Players may not have the same impact as players as in the past but that doesn't mean the standard of quality if much higher nowadays.

 

[nightprowler10]

Thats right.


Not really as back then the coaching wasnt very good and didnt have much technique. These days its if you have a sort of unorthidox technique its really hard to make the team only for some.

The strokes these days are much more justified and thats why these days teams score more than they did back then even when batters have to push up the run rate to leave something for the bowlers near stumps.

Technique means diddly squat if you don't have the talent to back it up, but it doesn't work that way when you look at it the other way around. Guys like Hayden and Sehwag, you'll agree, don't exactly have the best technique but average in the 50s. Its because they have the hand eye coordination needed to be real good at picking up the ball. Basically that's what Bradman was, a guy with exceptional ability to pick up the ball no matter how or where you bowled it, so technique wasn't really an issue. Just to tell how good he really was, he averaged 50 in the bodyline tour. I don't I need to tell anyone how incredibly tough batting was in that situation for the Aussie batsmen.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Hayden doesn't have the best technique?

 

[nightprowler10]

Hayden doesn't have the best technique?

Actually no, he doesn't. Just ask any experts. Doesn't mean he's not great. He makes up for it by his natural ability.

 

[Cricketdude]

As far as Sachin goes, I think its a bit obvious why average is lower now than ever, and its because he's gotten older, well past his peak. He's still good but nearly as good as he used to be.

Didnt know once you got to 28 you past your peak, cant imagine what Michael Hussey could have been.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Actually no, he doesn't. Just ask any experts. Doesn't mean he's not great. He makes up for it by his natural ability.

It looks fairly normal, to be honest.

 

[manee]

Didnt know once you got to 28 you past your peak, cant imagine what Michael Hussey could have been.

Injuries, such as those Tendulkar had, obviously shorten a batsman's peak!

manee added 2 Minutes and 43 Seconds later...

It looks fairly normal, to be honest.

'Fairly' normal, but not quite near the 'best technique'. This is why he struggles in England and New Zealand's seaming conditions.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Injuries, such as those Tendulkar had, obviously shorten a batsman's peak!

Ricky Ponting's had a bad back since 2001 which is why he doesn't bowl anymore, from then to now his been averaging over 70 with the bat in Test Cricket.

 

[manee]

Ricky Ponting's had a bad back since 2001 which is why he doesn't bowl anymore, from then to now his been averaging over 70 with the bat in Test Cricket.

Naturally, different injuries affect different people in different ways. The elbow injury which Tendulkar had has naturally restricted his movement somewhat. Moreover, he started international cricket at 16 and became a main fixture in the time in his teens and so he has played more cricket than Ponting/Hussey to tire and fatigue his muscles. The effect of Tendulkar's injuries is more evident by his reemergance as a very good batsman, the further way get from reoccurances of his elbow injury.

 

[nightprowler10]

Maybe because arguement is based on a realistic view. I already proved my point why cricket gets better over generations, how could it not? The skill and how teams go about their business is obviously allot more professional then it was 20 years ago. Traits and theories are handed down from generations and with the facilities nowadays the players are given the best opportunity possible to reach their maximum potential.

Players may not have the same impact as players as in the past but that doesn't mean the standard of quality if much higher nowadays.

Cricket was plenty professional 20 years ago. I would have agreed with you had you said that about players from the pre-WWII era. Again, techniques may have improved, but you can't really improve skill or talent. I believe that's what lack these days compared to 20 years ago, real skill and real talent. I certainly don't want to say that many players today are talentless hacks, they obviously aren't, but I just feel that we are going through a bit of a drought in quality bowlers these days and that has affected the quality of cricket. But yeah in a way I agree with you there, of course that doesn't mean as you were suggesting that compared to the bowlers today guys like Malcolm Marshall were a big fat nothing. If anything they could learn from guys like that.

 

[Cricketdude]

Injuries, such as those Tendulkar had, obviously shorten a batsman's peak!

That means Watson has past his peak and also hayden has had toe problems i dont see any bad form from him.
Peitersen got injured ribs but i didnt see any bad form from him either.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Just the game I saw, it was played in swinging conditions and he wasn't swinging the ball and the way he was bowling, in the modern day he'd get eaten alive. Aggressive batting has evolved because the conditions were no different to what they are today as so many people have tried to make out.

We're probably heading into a bowling dominated era because they're certainly more talented bowlers out there then they're batsman.

 

[nightprowler10]

Just the game I saw, it was played in swinging conditions and he wasn't swinging the ball and the way he was bowling, in the modern day he'd get eaten alive. Aggressive batting has evolved because the conditions were no different to what they are today as so many people have tried to make out.

We're probably heading into a bowling dominated era because they're certainly more talented bowlers out there then they're batsman.

One video doesn't tell the story of his career. From the videos I have seen its a bit tough to pick up where the ball is swinging so it could be that. One thing to keep in mind is that they often took wickets on flat decks by working the batsman over, something you won't see that much these days unfortunately, so if you were watching the highlights you would have missed all the drama and caught only the climax.

As for your last sentence, well I certainly hope so, but I've been a bit disappointed so far with a few obvious exceptions.

nightprowler10 added 2 Minutes and 52 Seconds later...

That means Watson has past his peak and also hayden has had toe problems i dont see any bad form from him.
Peitersen got injured ribs but i didnt see any bad form from him either.

Yeah as manee said it depends what sort of injury it is. Inzamam had back problems in late 04 and early 05 and missed most of the Australia series but came back strong and averaged something like 70 that year. Sachin injured his front arm didn't he? I'd imagine that would have a big negative effect on a man's batting.