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

[aussie_ben91]

Open your eyes. His been destroyed by many batsman over the last few years.

 

[manee]

Deadset, have you actually seen him bowl other then youtube clips? Have you watched any of the Foxsports matches from the 80's & early 90's? Yes, he was quite tidy but you could obviously tell the difference between to today's batsman and the batsman of 30 years ago. They didn't play as many shots and didn't always put the clear bad ball away.

I have seen the great West Indian team play on TV on ESPN Classic. I have witnessed entire matches. Of course batsmen scoring rates were lower back then, everybody knows that, but with that came higher strike rates for bowlers and notice just how low Malcolm Marshall's is.

Look what happened towards Shaun Pollock's career. Even the great Glenn McGrath wasn't as threatening towards the end of his career as batsman begun to figure out that he was indeed a bowler that constantly put the ball on a good length. Look what the likes of Tendulkar, Lara & Pietersen were able to do to him at the best of times.

Go look at Shaun Pollock's career timeline and that you'll see that over the last several years, his average in Test Cricket deteriated as soon the quality of batsman started coming into their prime.

Wouldn't it make more sense that their was a large scale flattening of pitches post-2001 caused this effect. Moreover, Pollock's body detiorated, as one does with age, and so his pace dropped - as it did throughout his career. Keep in mind that Pollock started his career just a shade slower than Donald.
In Mcgrath's last two seasons (years not being appropriate for a southern hemisphere cricketer), he took 21 wickets at 23.90 - hardly awful. Looks like this sudden increase in the quality of batsmen didn't affect him - or was it only Australians?

 

[Cricket_god]

Pollock's last 2 seasons in Test cricket were actually quite impressive, 21 wickets at 18 at an economy of 2.33 in 2006/07 and 5 wickets at 17 in 2007 at an economy of 3.03. They were against fairly decent teams aswell, with India and Pakistan in 06/07 and West Indies in the 1 test match in 2007. He struggled slightly more in ODi's though, but his economy was still fantastic, 3.46 in 06/07 and 3.04 in 2007. Pollock only had 2 slightly dissapointing years in Test Cricket in his whole career, 2005 against England, and 2006 against Australia. Those are the only 2 series that he's majorly struggled, his averages and wickets then improved in the next 2 years. Also, over his entire Test career, the only team he averaged above 30 against was Australia. Seems he wasn't found out too much after all.

again man you do not get it do you look at his record when playing on flat tracks away from home.

 

[manee]

Open your eyes. His been destroyed by many batsman over the last few years.

He bowls a good length, of course batsmen are going to go after him. Likewise, he is an extremely talented and skillful bowler and so this 'destruction' usually does not persist for more than a couple of overs or a match at best.

 

[Cricket_god]

He bowls a good length, of course batsmen are going to go after him. Likewise, he is an extremely talented and skillful bowler and so this 'destruction' usually does not persist for more than a couple of overs or a match at best.

he is regularly destroyed by hayden

 

[aussie_ben91]

Wouldn't it make more sense that their was a large scale flattening of pitches post-2001 caused this effect. Moreover, Pollock's body detiorated, as one does with age, and so his pace dropped - as it did throughout his career. Keep in mind that Pollock started his career just a shade slower than Donald.
In Mcgrath's last two seasons (years not being appropriate for a southern hemisphere cricketer), he took 21 wickets at 23.90 - hardly awful. Looks like this sudden increase in the quality of batsmen didn't affect him - or was it only Australians?

Would it make more sense or it that just a convient excuse?

And maybe McGrath just benefitted in his last few years by playing in easily the strongest team in the world so that his detieration wasn't as statistically noticiable as Pollock's.

Take stats and other people's opinions out of arguement and go watch them play, FFS.

 

[manee]

Would it make more sense or it that just a convient excuse?

It would make more sense. What makes more sense to you, a large scale flattening of pitches to increase scoring rates with fans demanding more from Test cricket as fast scoring ODI cricket gains popularity or a sudden generation of super-batsmen, acknowledged by nobody except you?

I have watched teams play and it is clear to anyone that the pitches of these days offer far less movement than the pitches of the 1990s. I happen to have a lot of tapes of matches of the 1990s and pitches were quicker and offered far more for the bowlers. You continue to cite Pollock's decline, but it is clear that this was a physical decline in his body as his pace dropped from 140kph in the mid 1990s to about 125kph in 2008. As a bowler's pace drops simultaneously with a large scale flattening of pitches, of course their performances will worsen.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I'm over this, I'm beginning to repeat myself continously as small little insignificant questions keep getting asked and the topic is beginning to drift off topic.

As far as the thread goes, I've basically justified myself correctly and hence why some of the posters who I was argueing with have swayed the arguement off topic by using some of my proven examples as a corridor to another arguement which suits in their favour.

The conditions in cricket have changed, but to no massive difference. Technology has been enhanced and the equipment has improved but I'm a firm believer that cricket have evolved into a game allot more skilled that it was about 30-40 years ago and nothing is going to change that.

How you can say someone can be able to bowl 160kph on pitches which are often described as bowler friendly without helmet and real protective equipment is beyhond me because realistically, if that was the case, then nobody would want to play cricket and to have any success against that sort of bowling in that sort of scenario would almost be impossible. I'm not doubting that the likes of Lillie, Thompson & the Windies bowlers could touch into the mid 140's but any further then that would be stretching it.

 

[manee]

What do you think was wrong with the readings which had a few bowlers up in the 150s kph and Thompson at 160kph.

 

[aussie_ben91]

They had the world's fastest bowler competition and those weren't the recordings?

 

[manee]

They had the world's fastest bowler competition and those weren't the recordings?

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

 

[aussie_ben91]

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

 

[manee]

What do you mean estimations, these were readings from computers from studies into the pace of the bowlers.

 

[Owzat]

Just for interest and maybe add to the discussion (not read all pages of the discussion so someone may have done this already)

Fast Bowler Stats (AUS/WIN)


WIN Marshall - 81 Tests, 376 wkts @ 20.95 (SR 46.77, ER 2.69)
WIN Garner - 59 Tests, 259 wkts @ 20.98 (SR 50.87, ER 2.47)
WIN Ambrose - 98 Tests, 405 wkts @ 20.99 (SR 54.58, ER 2.31)
AUS Clark - 18 Tests, 81 wkts @ 21.47 (SR 50.05, ER 2.57)
AUS McGrath - 124 Tests, 563 wkts @ 21.64 (SR 51.95, ER 2.50)
WIN Holding - 60 Tests, 249 wkts @ 23.69 (SR 50.92, ER 2.79)
WIN Walsh - 132 Tests, 519 wkts @ 24.44 (SR 57.84, ER 2.54)
WIN Roberts - 47 Tests, 202 wkts @ 25.61 (SR 55.13, ER 2.79)
AUS Gillespie - 71 Tests, 259 wkts @ 26.14 (SR 54.96, ER 2.85)
AUS Lee - 68 Tests, 289 wkts @ 29.59 (SR 51.09, ER 3.48)

No contest for Shane Warne, as I've read somewhere in Wisden or some such publication, Richards thought spin was a handy setting on a washing machine.

Batting Stats (AUS/WIN)

AUS Ponting - 119 Tests, 10,099 runs @ 58.38
AUS Hayden - 94 Tests, 8,242 runs @ 53.52
WIN Richards - 121 Tests, 8,540 runs @ 50.24
AUS Clarke - 35 Tests, 2,212 runs @ 47.06
WIN Lloyd - 110 Tests, 7,515 runs @ 46.68
AUS Martyn - 67 Tests, 4,406 runs @ 46.38
AUS Langer - 105 Tests, 7.696 runs @ 45.27
WIN Greenidge - 108 Tests, 7,558 runs @ 44.72
WIN Kallicharran - 68 Tests, 4,399 runs @ 44.43
WIN Richardson - 86 Tests, 5,949 runs @ 44.40
WIN Fredericks - 59 Tests, 4,334 runs @ 42.49
WIN Haynes - 116 Tests, 7,487 runs @ 42.30

Hope I haven't missed any, fully checking and listing all possibles would take all lunch. Considering batting averages are in theory going up, not least because of the ordinary opposition provided by the likes of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and ironically more recently West Indies, the West Indians of the past hold up pretty well. It would certainly make for an interesting match or series.

 

[King Pietersen]

The conditions in cricket have changed, but to no massive difference. Technology has been enhanced and the equipment has improved but I'm a firm believer that cricket have evolved into a game allot more skilled that it was about 30-40 years ago and nothing is going to change that.

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.

How you can say someone can be able to bowl 160kph on pitches which are often described as bowler friendly without helmet and real protective equipment is beyhond me because realistically, if that was the case, then nobody would want to play cricket and to have any success against that sort of bowling in that sort of scenario would almost be impossible. I'm not doubting that the likes of Lillie, Thompson & the Windies bowlers could touch into the mid 140's but any further then that would be stretching it.

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.