A serious question re. bowlers of today and the past

There is often discussion surrounding how lacklustre the bowling is compared with days of yore, especially the 'golden era' of quicks between the late 70s to probably the early 90s.

It's interesting how we are prepared to devalue the records and contributions of contemporary batsmen because of the perception that the pitches are flatter and the bowling is weaker.

Why then don't we also consider the performances of many of the bowlers from the aforementioned era in light of the advantages they enjoyed in respect of the bowler-friendly conditions. Pitches were greener, there were (according to weather records) more rainier, and cloudy days, quite applicable for English conditions which afford bowlers a big advantage when on the bleaker side. Bowlers from Australia for instance, tended to go less to the sub-continent during that period.

There's no doubt that the great West Indians were superb bowlers. Ditto the likes of Lillee, Thomson, Hadlee and sundry Englishmen such as Snow and Willis. Were they though advantaged by prevailing conditions and circumstances in a similar way to the batsmen of today?

For eg. Lillee never bowled in India and only once bowled in Pakistan where he was cannon-fodder. In his prime the Aussie pitches were more conducive to pace. The WACA track was at its zenith, Sydney was habitually a greentop, Brisbane (especially during the reign of Clem Jones) could be difficult for batsmen and provide the pacemen with a lot of assistance, while they didn't have to play tests at the flat Hobart venue.

Undoubtedly their stats would have benefited from Zim and Bang, the issue is that we judged them by their bowling on much more bowler-friendly surfaces.

Would the likes of Steyn, Morkel, Johnson, Broad, Asif, Aamer, Malinga and co. but a lot better if they consistently bowled on greener and more helpful tracks?

Interesting to note that when Steyn/Morkel have bowled on helpful tracks in SA recently, and Asif and Aamer several times such as Sydney/Lord's/Leeds, they've demolished the opposition.

Do we underrate the bowlers because we're used to seeing them being towelled on flat tracks?

Imagine had Lillee for eg. bowled more on the tracks he encountered during his brief sojourn onto the sub-continent. Imagine also if Perth was what it's been in recent years, and Sydney the sleepy spin-friendly surface we saw for much of the 90s and early noughties.

Would he have performed to the level he did in his exposed conditions? Would he be held in as high as esteem as he currently is?

Remember also the bowlers have today have to contend with the bigger bats, and smaller playing areas. A boundary or six today is not what it was thirty or so years ago.

Red, possibly the best thread you have started.

I think modern players are often judged unfairly. Some of us seem to imagine in the past that every pitch was a greentop, and every bowler was fearsome, thus every run was thus worth double then what it is today. There was plenty of flat tracks and sh!t bowlers 20-30 years ago. India, New Zealand and Sri Lanka were hardly competitive back then.

That's three really sh!t teams in the one era.

Pro batsmen in modern times -

Heavier bats.
Flat lifeless wickets.
Covered wickets.
Smaller boundaries.
Lids and full-kit body armour.
Bowlers restricted to 2 shoulder high bouncers per over.
Walk off as soon as the lightmeter reads 5.00.

Pro bowlers in modern times ...
It's still a round, red ball.
Superior fielding.

IMO bowlers of the modern era would have performed at a level par, if not at a superior level, than their counterparts of previous decades, given the emphasis on fitness today plus the several facets which favour today's batsmen that did not exist way back then.

Conversely, wouldn't yester-years batting geniuses be streets ahead of their modern contemporaries, given the above criteria.

It's all hypothetical at the end of the day.

I'd add the technology at bowlers disposal to work out a batsman. Stacks of DVDs plus hawk eye and super slow mo's etc. I'd say that's more helpful to bowlers figuring out batsmen than the other way round

I have for a while thought that the bowling averages around these days are inflated simply because of smaller grounds, bigger bats, overwork and the relative lack of genuine tail enders.

What is interesting is that bowling strike rates (the measure of how regularly a bowler takes wickets) in the 00s are among the best of any decade since the WWI including the 70s.

1920s	78.67
1930s	74.09
1940s	84.09
1950s	78.19
1960s	80.08
1970s	75.59
1980s	70.66
1990s	68.30
2000s	73.43

As for Lillee, I would say that the umpiring had as much to do with his inability to take wickets on that tour than his bowling. The fact is that the Paks were scared sh!tless of what he could do prior to that tour and so prepared featherbeds to go with the home grown umps.

You could also add other variables such as technology-assisted wickets such as stumpings and run outs which militate against the modern batsman because decisions tended not to be given in the past when the batsman was only out his crease by a bee's dick.

Today's bowlers, however sluggishly, do have to bowl ninety overs, while the bowlers in the Windian heyday bowled a lot fewer as over-rates weren't enforced.

Merlin's penultimate point is probably a pivotal one though. Batting geniuses tended to stand out by dint of averaging over fifty while their peers averaged a lot less, or certainly below fifty. Today fifty is hardly a barometer because players barely above average can hit the fifty mark by virtue of playing a lot of cricket on flat surfaces and/or against inferior opposition.

BTW Henry, while NZ was arguably not that strong thirty years ago, the presence of Hadlee was often enough to account for struggling batsmen. He was at a level that the modern kiwi bowler struggles to emulate.

Re NZ - Hadlee and Crowe alone made them better than Aust for a few years and better than the current team.

Good thread.

Henry wrote:There was plenty of flat tracks and sh!t bowlers 20-30 years ago. India, New Zealand and Sri Lanka were hardly competitive back then.

That's three really sh!t teams in the one era.

Er, this would mean NZ from 1980-1990. Hadlee, Crowe etc. won series in England and Australia.

The really sh!t teams for much of that era were England & Australia!

And Red, WTF is this - a proper cricket thread? FFS

Nice tits Red.

Actually, no - nice thread. I would agree with the comments re: less green tops.

A couple of other points I would make one in favour of the old-timers, one in favour of modern players.

I think (in English cricket at least) players up to the 1990s were expected to play every available game for their counties. The number of overs they bowled was much greater, and the burden was heavier as they could often be dropped for poor county form, which is not considered as important now. Tours were often 4 or 5 months long and consisted of a busy programme of First Class games in addition to Tests.

On the other hand, Ed Smith makes some good points in one of his books - about why there will never be another Bradman. Looking at baseball and cricket statistics he shows how advances in training, preparation and developing talent in sport have affected the modern game. It is an interesting argument that while the modern great players haven't improved compared to the past great players - the level of the average players may have. He argues that the standard of the average to mediocre players that make up the majority of the county scene has improved due to professionalism. The great players of today have to perform against what is effectively a higher overall standard. And that's why he believes we'll never see another Bradman who averages 30-40 runs more than his contemporaries.

Gary 111 wrote:Nice tits Red.

Actually, no - nice thread. I would agree with the comments re: less green tops.

A couple of other points I would make one in favour of the old-timers, one in favour of modern players.

I think (in English cricket at least) players up to the 1990s were expected to play every available game for their counties. The number of overs they bowled was much greater, and the burden was heavier as they could often be dropped for poor county form, which is not considered as important now. Tours were often 4 or 5 months long and consisted of a busy programme of First Class games in addition to Tests.

On the other hand, Ed Smith makes some good points in one of his books - about why there will never be another Bradman. Looking at baseball and cricket statistics he shows how advances in training, preparation and developing talent in sport have affected the modern game. It is an interesting argument that while the modern great players haven't improved compared to the past great players - the level of the average players may have. He argues that the standard of the average to mediocre players that make up the majority of the county scene has improved due to professionalism. The great players of today have to perform against what is effectively a higher overall standard. And that's why he believes we'll never see another Bradman who averages 30-40 runs more than his contemporaries.

I see what you mean. The only likely way that players can average 99.94 is in one particular series (nowadays the non-sensical two test series'). As you say, while the modern player is professional, the schedules are also a handful. Travelling and acclimatising is something Bradman and many players during the pre-war era never had to do as often - as they played the majority of their cricket in England or Australia.

If the modern player is an enhancement of players from the past, then what will things be like in 30 years?

I have thought for quite a while that the problem with bowlers is that they have the individuality coached out of them. I pity a young lad who rocks up to a club with an action like Bob Willis or Max Walker.

If Aamer was English he'd never be successful.

DJ_Smerk wrote:If Aamer was English he'd never be successful.

An 18 year old would still be schlapping around in the U-19s.

Basil wrote:

DJ_Smerk wrote:If Aamer was English he'd never be successful.

An 18 year old would still be schlapping around in the U-19s.

Then the bowling doctors of the Test squad would have their way with him.