1960s - Weakest decade for bowling?

[AlizeeFan]

Fred Trueman was only bowler to average below 25 in 1960s. Otherwise all decades have 4-5 bowlers averaging below 25

 

[Abdullah719]

The absence of great bowlers during this period also puts a question mark on Sobers' feats IMO.

Some people rate him extremely highly as a batsman ahead of most modern all-time greats; unsure if he's worthy of that.

 

[CricFan2012]

The absence of great bowlers during this period also puts a question mark on Sobers' feats IMO.

Some people rate him extremely highly as a batsman ahead of most modern all-time greats; unsure if he's worthy of that.

Or bowlers averaged high because of Sobers' batting.

Either way its foolish to rate people like him or Bradman where we have very little documentation and where they played against a handful of good sides, you get used to the bowling and it is easier

 

[Sachin136]

Or bowlers averaged high because of Sobers' batting.

Either way its foolish to rate people like him or Bradman where we have very little documentation and where they played against a handful of good sides, you get used to the bowling and it is easier

A single batsman can't significantly affect the averages of multiple bowlers.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

All decades before the 70s were weak for bowling. Barring one or two, most wouldn't have made it in modern cricket.

 

[Cric1234]

Fred Trueman was only bowler to average below 25 in 1960s. Otherwise all decades have 4-5 bowlers averaging below 25

F Trueman
A Davidson
K Higgs
P Sajjad
F Mahmood
J Statham
N Adcock

All the above bowlers played in the 60s and all averaged sub 25.

 

[MMHS]

Or bowlers averaged high because of Sobers' batting.

Either way its foolish to rate people like him or Bradman where we have very little documentation and where they played against a handful of good sides, you get used to the bowling and it is easier

Indeed he was responsible for hiking Indian & PAK bowlers average - he averages close to 100 against them. Not sure against AUS and ENG though - may be he decided to take it against English bowlers after 1963, after Truman, Statham & Laker retired. And, he liked the Aussies too much - allowed them a little mercy for his average of 43 - that too sponsored by 2 series in '65 & '68 when Lindwall, Miller, Davidson & Benaud had retired and I can bet - half of PP doesn't even heard of any of the Aussie bowlers for those 2 series, may be barring GD Mackenze. Try to recall Norman Hawake, Norman O'neil, Mayene, Philpott, Freeman, Gleesson ...........

I shouldn't have posted such, but the idea is so hilarious that couldn't resist - such urban legends happen when you compete with Ramakant Desahi & Intekhab & Trevor Bailey ......

 

[Cric1234]

The absence of great bowlers during this period also puts a question mark on Sobers' feats IMO.

Some people rate him extremely highly as a batsman ahead of most modern all-time greats; unsure if he's worthy of that.

He faced a dozen bowlers who ended up averaging sub 25 in test cricket it wasn't so weak according to the average of the bowlers.

 

[Cric1234]

All decades before the 70s were weak for bowling. Barring one or two, most wouldn't have made it in modern cricket.

That must mean modern bowlers averaging over 30 are better than these bowlers:

Trueman
Tyson
Lindwall
Millar
O'reilly
Laker
Davidson

The list goes on the main thing is bowlers did well pre 1970s when wickets became flatter and had very good economy rates which must mean they were accurate and better than the average modern day bowler.

 

[Ellipsism]

That must mean modern bowlers averaging over 30 are better than these bowlers:

Trueman
Tyson
Lindwall
Millar
O'reilly
Laker
Davidson

The list goes on the main thing is bowlers did well pre 1970s when wickets became flatter and had very good economy rates which must mean they were accurate and better than the average modern day bowler.

Lol, you're telling me this Tyson is better than the modern bowler.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gN1UAhYPByQ

The modern day 16 year old fast bowler can bowl faster than this guy.

 

[Cric1234]

Lol, you're telling me this Tyson is better than the modern bowler.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gN1UAhYPByQ

The modern day 16 year old fast bowler can bowl faster than this guy.

Let's see these bowlers because most bowlers can't bowl express pace and it takes extra to produce bowlers bowling 90mph plus something which would be very rare for a 16 year old.
For sure Tyson is better than the average modern day bowler.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Or bowlers averaged high because of Sobers' batting.

Either way its foolish to rate people like him or Bradman where we have very little documentation and where they played against a handful of good sides, you get used to the bowling and it is easier

Sobers was averaging close to 60, not 150.

All decades before the 70s were weak for bowling. Barring one or two, most wouldn't have made it in modern cricket.

It's not about modern or past bowlers. Thing is 1960s was one time when bowlers couldn't well in comparison to their own peers. Before 1960s they were doing, after 1960s too they did well.

F Trueman
A Davidson
K Higgs
P Sajjad
F Mahmood
J Statham
N Adcock

All the above bowlers played in the 60s and all averaged sub 25.

He faced a dozen bowlers who ended up averaging sub 25 in test cricket it wasn't so weak according to the average of the bowlers.

1930s, list of top bowlers with 75+ wickets

1940s, war affected decade, no one picked 100+ wickets. List of bowlers with 50+ wickets

1950s, bowlers found their feet and had a great time

1960s, there was obvious in bowler standard and they had no clue what to do with changes

1970s, great bowlers started emerging again and found ways to deal with conditions

1930 - 3 bowlers below 25 and > 75 wickets
1940s - 2 bowlers (war affected) below 25 and >50 wickets
1950s - 11 bowlers below 25 and > 100 wickets
1960s - 1 bowler below 25 and > 100 wickets, include Pollock (25) and you can say there were 2 bowlers. After that all averaged 27+. Total 6 averaging below 30.
1970s - 3 below 25 and 3 more in 25, so total 6 bowlers with very good numbers, total 13 bowlers averaging below 30.

It's clear that there was decline in 1960s compared with other decades.

1980s had 8 bowlers averaging below 25 with 100+ wickeets, with many 4 having more than 200+ wickets. 13 below 30

1990s had 8 bowlers below 25, and 23 bowlers averaging below 30. Probably best decade for bowlers.

200s had 5 bowlers below 25, but their wickets count increased with likes of Murali picking up 500+ in a decade. 10 below 30

2010s - 6 bowlers below 25, 3 in 25, 10 total 19 bowlers below 30.

 

[Tusker]

Let's see these bowlers because most bowlers can't bowl express pace and it takes extra to produce bowlers bowling 90mph plus something which would be very rare for a 16 year old.
For sure Tyson is better than the average modern day bowler.

You are back again with this nonsense ? Just few months ago we did this topic of old vs new and you quietly slipped away from that thread after you ran into significant problems trying to prove that standards were comparable or even better back in the day.

Lets do this a different way .... what will it take for you to accept that you are wrong about Tyson (that he bowled 90+ mph?) If I understand you ... then it appears that you are just simply not willing to accept anything that will prove Tyson as just any ordinary bowler today. Whats the point of arguing if you want to keep believing in fiction ?

 

[Ellipsism]

Let's see these bowlers because most bowlers can't bowl express pace and it takes extra to produce bowlers bowling 90mph plus something which would be very rare for a 16 year old.
For sure Tyson is better than the average modern day bowler.

If that's 90 MPH you sir really have no clue. For one the ball is barely carrying to keeper, and he isn't very far back either. If he's bowling 90 MPH with that action and weak follow through he's a super human, which you and I both know he is not.

He's about 115-120 km/h at best.

 

[Tusker]

That must mean modern bowlers averaging over 30 are better than these bowlers:

Trueman
Tyson
Lindwall
Millar
O'reilly
Laker
Davidson

The list goes on the main thing is bowlers did well pre 1970s when wickets became flatter and had very good economy rates which must mean they were accurate and better than the average modern day bowler.

Then why do they look sooo ordinary in the video clips ?

If that's 90 MPH you sir really have no clue. For one the ball is barely carrying to keeper, and he isn't very far back either. If he's bowling 90 MPH with that action and weak follow through he's a super human, which you and I both know he is not.

He's about 115-120 km/h at best.

exactly !!

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

If that's 90 MPH you sir really have no clue. For one the ball is barely carrying to keeper, and he isn't very far back either. If he's bowling 90 MPH with that action and weak follow through he's a super human, which you and I both know he is not.

He's about 115-120 km/h at best.

It is not just about the pace. The uncovered pitches and the fact that the protection equipment was minimal made batting a different kind of challenge.

I do however believe that you are right, these bowlers weren't that pacy, maybe the speeds of what women fast bowlers bowl these days and that's why women cricket is interesting because it's at the early evolution of their game. In twenty years or so, the upward curve in their game will be an interesting thing to view.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=145645]Cric1234[/MENTION]

"Necessity is the mother of invention" - Plato

Helmets did not become common until the 1970s because they were not needed. Once express fast bowlers who could bowl 90 mph emerged, helmets became a necessity for the survival of the batsmen. If the bowlers of the early 1900s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s etc. were express, helmets would have been invented much earlier.

If you look at the number of batsmen who got hurt or died by getting hit on the head, you will see that it simply doesn't add up to the logic that bowlers of those eras were genuinely fast.

If batsmen today bat without helmets against the genuine pacers, who are allowed to bowl bouncers without restrictions, a batsmen will get badly injured or perhaps die almost every series. However, that wasn't the case in the early to mid 20th century, which either means two things:

(A) the fastest bowlers were not quicker than 70 mph trundlers

OR

(B) batsmen from 1870s to 1960s had superhuman ability and courage against rapid short-pitched bowling, basically they were all clones of Viv Richards.

Common sense dictates that it is (A), and that is why helmets were not a necessity at a time when 70 mph bowlers were considered fast, and the generation of Lillee and Thompson were the first to break the 90 mph barrier. As soon the bar was raised, helmets became commonplace.

You don't need to deduce bowling speeds from grainy old videos. The timeline of the invention of the helmet - and its widespread use - is enough proof to deduce that the pre-1970 generations of fast bowlers were dibbly-dobblers like Gavin Larsen and Mark Ealham, and not the tearaway fast bowlers they are considered today.

 

[Cric1234]

[MENTION=145645]Cric1234[/MENTION]

"Necessity is the mother of invention" - Plato

Helmets did not become common until the 1970s because they were not needed. Once express fast bowlers who could bowl 90 mph emerged, helmets became a necessity for the survival of the batsmen. If the bowlers of the early 1900s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s etc. were express, helmets would have been invented much earlier.

If you look at the number of batsmen who got hurt or died by getting hit on the head, you will see that it simply doesn't add up to the logic that bowlers of those eras were genuinely fast.

If batsmen today bat without helmets against the genuine pacers, who are allowed to bowl bouncers without restrictions, a batsmen will get badly injured or perhaps die almost every series. However, that wasn't the case in the early to mid 20th century, which either means two things:

(A) the fastest bowlers were not quicker than 70 mph trundlers

OR

(B) batsmen from 1870s to 1960s had superhuman ability and courage against rapid short-pitched bowling, basically they were all clones of Viv Richards.

Common sense dictates that it is (A), and that is why helmets were not a necessity at a time when 70 mph bowlers were considered fast, and the generation of Lillee and Thompson were the first to break the 90 mph barrier. As soon the bar was raised, helmets became commonplace.

You don't need to deduce bowling speeds from grainy old videos. The timeline of the invention of the helmet - and its widespread use - is enough proof to deduce that the pre-1970 generations of fast bowlers were dibbly-dobblers like Gavin Larsen and Mark Ealham, and not the tearaway fast bowlers they are considered today.

This is partly true from the video evidence available from the 30s onwards there have been bowlers bowling over 80mph up to 90mph but the increase in numbers led to helmets being introduced.
Even the likes of Viv faced Thompson without a helmet who was as quick as they come at times.
The main thing is bowling bouncers is dangerous without a helmet the first example was bodyline in 1932 where continued barrage of bouncers were bowled to stop Bradman the hits and injuries and serious risk it posed meant it was banned.
Now they were less teams aswell until the 50s and 60s when India Pak New Zealand became competitive and joined Aus Eng WI SA and this meant more fast bowlers would be produced over time.
I find it hard to believe there are better fast bowlers apart from the ATG who are better than Trueman Davidson or an average spinner in modern times is better than Laker O'reilly the quality has been there from the 30s onwards.

 

[RamLakhan]

Actually there is no one today who is bowling at Top Speed. Even in 90s and 00s we have Akthers, Lees, Bonds, etc. Also there was no necessity to bowl at express pace when the pitches those days were offering so much.

 

[The_Odd_One]

You just need to look at their runup. Miller's bowling average is similar to Imran's but it is laughable if someone thinks he was as good as Imran with his 3 steps run up.

 

[Tusker]

This is partly true from the video evidence available from the 30s onwards there have been bowlers bowling over 80mph up to 90mph

don't forget to tell us how you failed miserably to substantiate that ... Remember [MENTION=88991]AlizeeFan[/MENTION] 's excellent analyis of Larwood ?

I find it hard to believe there are better fast bowlers apart from the ATG who are better than Trueman Davidson or an average spinner in modern times is better than Laker O'reilly the quality has been there from the 30s onwards.

Again .... what kind of evidence will make you change your mind ? I guess nothing. If so why bother ?

 

[Princejain191]

Cricket, like every single sport, is gradually improving in quality. Bowlers are bowling faster, batsmen are batting better, and fielders are fielding increasingly better. Cricketers now have greater endurance, have greater skills and are more athletic. There will always be exceptions, such as Michael Holding and Viv, but on average, the game has and will keep on improving.

It doesn't change the fact that people will keep overestimating the past and underestimating the present. That is just the fallible human nature.

 

[big_gamer007]

Cricket, like every single sport, is gradually improving in quality. Bowlers are bowling faster, batsmen are batting better, and fielders are fielding increasingly better. Cricketers now have greater endurance, have greater skills and are more athletic. There will always be exceptions, such as Michael Holding and Viv, but on average, the game has and will keep on improving.

It doesn't change the fact that people will keep overestimating the past and underestimating the present. That is just the fallible human nature.

I think cricket has reached a plateaue now for last 20-30 years.. The rate of growth of quality is minimal during this period and certain aspects like bowling has maybe regressed.. Batting and shot playing has improved but defensive batting may have regressed.. Fielding has improved 10 folds..

 

[Robert]

Or bowlers averaged high because of Sobers' batting.

Either way its foolish to rate people like him or Bradman where we have very little documentation and where they played against a handful of good sides, you get used to the bowling and it is easier

But they had shorter careers for the most part. Sixty tests was a great career in those days. There was less cricket so teams did not get to see each other as much. Sobers was an exeption and sustained his performance for twenty years.

Sobers is still well within living memory. He didn't finish until 1974, it's not that long ago. He made people like Snow and Underwood (England's best quick since Trueman and best spinner since Laker) look rubbish.

Anyway, in the sixties there were Hall, Griffith, Gibbs, Snow, Underwood, Mahmood, MacKenzie, and the Indian Unholy Trinity were starting up.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=145645]Cric1234[/MENTION]

"Necessity is the mother of invention" - Plato

Helmets did not become common until the 1970s because they were not needed. Once express fast bowlers who could bowl 90 mph emerged, helmets became a necessity for the survival of the batsmen. If the bowlers of the early 1900s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s etc. were express, helmets would have been invented much earlier.

If you look at the number of batsmen who got hurt or died by getting hit on the head, you will see that it simply doesn't add up to the logic that bowlers of those eras were genuinely fast.

If batsmen today bat without helmets against the genuine pacers, who are allowed to bowl bouncers without restrictions, a batsmen will get badly injured or perhaps die almost every series. However, that wasn't the case in the early to mid 20th century, which either means two things:

(A) the fastest bowlers were not quicker than 70 mph trundlers

OR

(B) batsmen from 1870s to 1960s had superhuman ability and courage against rapid short-pitched bowling, basically they were all clones of Viv Richards.

Common sense dictates that it is (A), and that is why helmets were not a necessity at a time when 70 mph bowlers were considered fast, and the generation of Lillee and Thompson were the first to break the 90 mph barrier. As soon the bar was raised, helmets became commonplace.

You don't need to deduce bowling speeds from grainy old videos. The timeline of the invention of the helmet - and its widespread use - is enough proof to deduce that the pre-1970 generations of fast bowlers were dibbly-dobblers like Gavin Larsen and Mark Ealham, and not the tearaway fast bowlers they are considered today.

I disagree. They were not worn until Dennis Amiss' motorbike helmet in 1976 because they were thought unmanly.

There have always been bowlers quick enough to break bones. Players get hit far more these days because they wear helmets. Before helmets they learned to duck and weave, and didn't get hit so much. There are exceptions, such as Sutcliffe getting skulled by Heine and batting on with a burst eardrum, or Illingworth batting with blood coming from a head wound. Jardine got hit time and time again by the Windies bowling Bodyline, spat blood into the sink during the tea break and went back in to bat.

Blokes were just tougher then.

 

[MMHS]

But they had shorter careers for the most part. Sixty tests was a great career in those days. There was less cricket so teams did not get to see each other as much. Sobers was an exeption and sustained his performance for twenty years.

Sobers is still well within living memory. He didn't finish until 1974, it's not that long ago. He made people like Snow and Underwood (England's best quick since Trueman and best spinner since Laker) look rubbish.

Anyway, in the sixties there were Hall, Griffith, Gibbs, Snow, Underwood, Mahmood, MacKenzie, and the Indian Unholy Trinity were starting up.

I think, it was indeed a poor bowling decade - even from your list, Mahmood (Fazal) retired by 1961, Hall & Griffith probably by 1963, while Bedi & Venkat debuted probably half way of the decade. Add PM Pollock, in that list still it’s no where close to previous or next decade.

Here I won’t go to comparison between generations, but compared to 50s (Truman, RR Lindwall, Mahmood, Miller, Davidson, Statham, Tyson, Neil Adcock, Peter Haine, Wes Hall, Bill Johnston, Khan Md... Laker, Lock, Mankad, Benaud, Ramdhin, Valentine, Tayfield..) 1960s was poor, then start 1970s with DK and Roberts, it’s not even a comparison. Among Indian unholy trinity, only Pras had a better career in 1960s, rest are actually more dominant in 1970s. Dudley was also more of a 1970s bowler than 1960s.

 

[Princejain191]

I think cricket has reached a plateaue now for last 20-30 years.. The rate of growth of quality is minimal during this period and certain aspects like bowling has maybe regressed.. Batting and shot playing has improved but defensive batting may have regressed.. Fielding has improved 10 folds..

Disagree. The aggressive play has so clearly gone to another level. There are hardly many 90s cricketers that would make t20 sides of today. Remember the match India vs. England series in January. India were 63/4 and still chased 360. And then the Kolkata ODI, that pitch had seam and swing and both teams were still able to make 300+. Now, people can just be ignorant and call a pitch flat just because they see a 300+ score or put everything on bat sizes. But that pitch had a lot for the bowlers. It is just the sheer attitude of modern day batsmen, which is due to better skills, that allows them to take those chases on or score 300+ on those pitches. Also, the recent chase by NZ against a really good Indian attack in Wankhade (which was far from a flat pitch) shows how far those skills have come.

Compare that to the time when Gavaskar made 36* off 174 chasing 336 in a WC match against an average attack on a flat pitch. You can't imagine that happening now.

Since people recognize that fact, they like to put down todays batsmen based on their defense techniques (because that part is still arguable).

And bowlers on average are faster today. Even India and Bangladesh have 2-3 bowlers who can bowl 140+. We used to have so many trundlers in 90s in India, NZ, and other teams. Look at the skills of todays bowlers. Hardly any fast bowler who can't bowl reverse swing. The game is IMO definitely getting better.

 

[Robert]

I think, it was indeed a poor bowling decade - even from your list, Mahmood (Fazal) retired by 1961, Hall & Griffith probably by 1963, while Bedi & Venkat debuted probably half way of the decade. Add PM Pollock, in that list still it’s no where close to previous or next decade.

Here I won’t go to comparison between generations, but compared to 50s (Truman, RR Lindwall, Mahmood, Miller, Davidson, Statham, Tyson, Neil Adcock, Peter Haine, Wes Hall, Bill Johnston, Khan Md... Laker, Lock, Mankad, Benaud, Ramdhin, Valentine, Tayfield..) 1960s was poor, then start 1970s with DK and Roberts, it’s not even a comparison. Among Indian unholy trinity, only Pras had a better career in 1960s, rest are actually more dominant in 1970s. Dudley was also more of a 1970s bowler than 1960s.

Hall and Griffith were in England in 1966.

Covered wickets started to come in during the sixties which may account for the less good bowling figures.

 

[Haz95]

The guys here giving stats about how the bowling in the 60s was the weakest which the stats clearly show but obviously we got the typical whiners back again whinging about the quality (or lack thereof) of pre-modern era cricket.

 

[Tusker]

I disagree. They were not worn until Dennis Amiss' motorbike helmet in 1976 because they were thought unmanly.

And with benefit of hindsight we now know how stupid they were to attach bravado to facing fast bowling without Helmets. Today nobody thinks highly of a player if he doesnt wear Helmet. Or maybe you think the likes of Nari Contractor, Raman Lamba were the bravest people that ever lived.

The main reason for wearing helmets is common sense. If a player gets hit his career is over. And it can happen due to no fault on the players part. It is the player who suffers. Believe me none of the armchair critics and fans will look after that player.

BTW wearing helmet is no guarantee that it protects batsmen from all injuries.

here watch this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQS4bV9UeTI

same happened to Kirsten facing Shoaib.

There have always been bowlers quick enough to break bones. Players get hit far more these days because they wear helmets. Before helmets they learned to duck and weave, and didn't get hit so much. There are exceptions, such as Sutcliffe getting skulled by Heine and batting on with a burst eardrum, or Illingworth batting with blood coming from a head wound. Jardine got hit time and time again by the Windies bowling Bodyline, spat blood into the sink during the tea break and went back in to bat.

You don't need to be quick to break bones. Anil Kumble has done that. It doesnt mean Kumble was quick.

Blokes were just tougher then.

As seen from how Larwood was un-ceremoniously dismissed from all cricket. Very tough indeed. And lastly why do the video footages tend to invariably paint a completely different picture of these said demonic fast bowlers from those ERA's ?

 

[Tusker]

Disagree. The aggressive play has so clearly gone to another level. There are hardly many 90s cricketers that would make t20 sides of today. Remember the match India vs. England series in January. India were 63/4 and still chased 360. And then the Kolkata ODI, that pitch had seam and swing and both teams were still able to make 300+. Now, people can just be ignorant and call a pitch flat just because they see a 300+ score or put everything on bat sizes. But that pitch had a lot for the bowlers. It is just the sheer attitude of modern day batsmen, which is due to better skills, that allows them to take those chases on or score 300+ on those pitches. Also, the recent chase by NZ against a really good Indian attack in Wankhade (which was far from a flat pitch) shows how far those skills have come.

Compare that to the time when Gavaskar made 36* off 174 chasing 336 in a WC match against an average attack on a flat pitch. You can't imagine that happening now.

Since people recognize that fact, they like to put down todays batsmen based on their defense techniques (because that part is still arguable).

And bowlers on average are faster today. Even India and Bangladesh have 2-3 bowlers who can bowl 140+. We used to have so many trundlers in 90s in India, NZ, and other teams. Look at the skills of todays bowlers. Hardly any fast bowler who can't bowl reverse swing. The game is IMO definitely getting better.

I agree with this. In my opinion the next level that will be aimed at would be improving batting skills of bowlers. We already see this in some teams. The days of walking wkt tailenders are numbered. Also numbered are the days of unfit players . A minimum benchmark of fitness will be mandatory to play.

Those that like to pull down current players are generally those who cannot come to terms with the reality that they spent lot of time following , supporting and idolizing players who wouldnt cut it today. The easiest way would be to use their stature and laugh at current players. Afterall who is going to question.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

I think cricket has reached a plateaue now for last 20-30 years.. The rate of growth of quality is minimal during this period and certain aspects like bowling has maybe regressed.. Batting and shot playing has improved but defensive batting may have regressed.. Fielding has improved 10 folds..

Not just cricket, pretty much every sport. Skill level and athleticism are comparable for the past 30 years.

 

[Cric1234]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S7FEcLTdDZk

The 60s had the best ever left arm pacer of all time only Wasim could be better in the modern era.

 

[Tusker]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S7FEcLTdDZk

The 60s had the best ever left arm pacer of all time only Wasim could be better in the modern era.

What is sooo exceptional about this footage that you are comparing it to Wasim Akrams bowling ? If it is Alan Davidson hitting stumps then I suggest you watch the footwork of the batsmen instead of the stumps. Most are stuck on the crease and are poking at the ball. Even tailenders today will have better technique than that.

 

[big_gamer007]

Disagree. The aggressive play has so clearly gone to another level. There are hardly many 90s cricketers that would make t20 sides of today. Remember the match India vs. England series in January. India were 63/4 and still chased 360. And then the Kolkata ODI, that pitch had seam and swing and both teams were still able to make 300+. Now, people can just be ignorant and call a pitch flat just because they see a 300+ score or put everything on bat sizes. But that pitch had a lot for the bowlers. It is just the sheer attitude of modern day batsmen, which is due to better skills, that allows them to take those chases on or score 300+ on those pitches. Also, the recent chase by NZ against a really good Indian attack in Wankhade (which was far from a flat pitch) shows how far those skills have come.

Compare that to the time when Gavaskar made 36* off 174 chasing 336 in a WC match against an average attack on a flat pitch. You can't imagine that happening now.

Since people recognize that fact, they like to put down todays batsmen based on their defense techniques (because that part is still arguable).

And bowlers on average are faster today. Even India and Bangladesh have 2-3 bowlers who can bowl 140+. We used to have so many trundlers in 90s in India, NZ, and other teams. Look at the skills of todays bowlers. Hardly any fast bowler who can't bowl reverse swing. The game is IMO definitely getting better.

Ofcourse I said that attacking batting style has become way better than it was in 90's and fielding standards and fitness standards are also better.. However the overall skills are not that different between 90's and now in batting and bowling.. You are talking about Gavaskar that is a different era last 20-30 years mean Sachin and Lara's era not Gavaskar..

My point was cricket or like someone else said any other sport has reached a plateau in terms of skills now the growth would not be that much compared to the growth between 1950-60's to 1970-80's where growth in terms of professionalism and skill level was very high..

 

[big_gamer007]

Not just cricket, pretty much every sport. Skill level and athleticism are comparable for the past 30 years.

That is true there can always be some improvement but the growth rate would be marginal for e.g. In 100 mts race someone might break bolts record by some milliseconds but no one in near future without genetic enhancements is gonna break under 9secs..

 

[Robert]

And with benefit of hindsight we now know how stupid they were to attach bravado to facing fast bowling without Helmets. Today nobody thinks highly of a player if he doesnt wear Helmet. Or maybe you think the likes of Nari Contractor, Raman Lamba were the bravest people that ever lived.

The main reason for wearing helmets is common sense. If a player gets hit his career is over. And it can happen due to no fault on the players part. It is the player who suffers. Believe me none of the armchair critics and fans will look after that player.

You don't need to be quick to break bones. Anil Kumble has done that. It doesnt mean Kumble was quick.

As seen from how Larwood was un-ceremoniously dismissed from all cricket. Very tough indeed. And lastly why do the video footages tend to invariably paint a completely different picture of these said demonic fast bowlers from those ERA's ?

We live in a more and more risk-averse culture. Viv Richards never wore a helmet, not to Lillee and Thomson, not to Imran. Botham only wore one against WI. Perhaps he recalled Andy Roberts knocking his front teeth out when he was 18 (Botham spat them out, carried on batting and hit fifty].

What bones did Kumble break?

It was certainly tough on old Harold.

 

[Tusker]

We live in a more and more risk-averse culture. Viv Richards never wore a helmet, not to Lillee and Thomson, not to Imran. Botham only wore one against WI. Perhaps he recalled Andy Roberts knocking his front teeth out when he was 18 (Botham spat them out, carried on batting and hit fifty].

We live in a more wiser/sensible/logical environment. Unless you think getting koncked on the head and losing your career - if not life- is such a wise thing to do even if it means you will attain some super ATG status ( which only a select very few will attain ). Cant believe we are even discussing such a simple thing in 2017. Do you think highly of Phil Hughes and Raman Lamba because what happened to them ?

This is the same like saying driving a car without wearing a seat belt, a bike without a helmet is the right thing to do else you are a wuss.

BTW Viv Richards did wear a helmet albeit only once or twice when facing Sylvester Clarke.

What bones did Kumble break?

Graeme Smith. Rib fractures.

It was certainly tough on old Harold.

Yup but lets keep pretending that all players before 1980s were superhumans who did not know what fear was. It never existed in their vocabulary. Larwood's story is a shinning example of the high levels of hypocrisy that old era fans exhibit without realizing that their stories cannot hold up to even basic scrutiny.

 

[Robert]

What is sooo exceptional about this footage that you are comparing it to Wasim Akrams bowling ? If it is Alan Davidson hitting stumps then I suggest you watch the footwork of the batsmen instead of the stumps. Most are stuck on the crease and are poking at the ball. Even tailenders today will have better technique than that.

Does it occur to you that Davo was deceiving batters, setting them up so they get stuck in the crease?

 

[Robert]

We live in a more wiser/sensible/logical environment. Unless you think getting koncked on the head and losing your career - if not life- is such a wise thing to do even if it means you will attain some super ATG status ( which only a select very few will attain ). Cant believe we are even discussing such a simple thing in 2017. Do you think highly of Phil Hughes and Raman Lamba because what happened to them ?

This is the same like saying driving a car without wearing a seat belt, a bike without a helmet is the right thing to do else you are a wuss.

BTW Viv Richards did wear a helmet albeit only once or twice when facing Sylvester Clarke.



Graeme Smith. Rib fractures.




Yup but lets keep pretending that all players before 1980s were superhumans who did not know what fear was. It never existed in their vocabulary. Larwood's story is a shinning example of the high levels of hypocrisy that old era fans exhibit without realizing that their stories cannot hold up to even basic scrutiny.

People were less risk-averse in those days. They had different approaches to risk management. They trusted to their reflexes instead of armour. And nine, ten, jack didn’t get bounced, it was considered dishonourable.

Kumble broke a big bloke like Smith’s ribs? Sounds wrong. Phil Edmonds took multiple hits in the chest from 100 mph Patrick Patterson (who made Marshall look slow in 1986) and didn’t get cracked ribs, just plate sized bruises.

No idea what your point about Larwood is.

 

[Tusker]

Does it occur to you that Davo was deceiving batters, setting them up so they get stuck in the crease?

pls explain how they were setup considering that there is not a single short ball bowled in that footage.

 

[Tusker]

People were less risk-averse in those days. They had different approaches to risk management. They trusted to their reflexes instead of armour. And nine, ten, jack didn’t get bounced, it was considered dishonourable.

thats politically correct way of describing what is otherwise nothing but fool hardiness. No matter how skillful you are a ball can climb from good length and get you in the teeth. We know this thru years of watching Cricket. And given how much faster bowlers are the odds of that happening are much much higher today. its just simply stupidity to pretend that bravado and skills have disappeared. Do you think the batsmen who wear helmets simply have no fear of the cricket ball? Let me tell you that is just not the case at all. See the video of Steyn Ending the NZ batsmans career and then there is Phil Hughes.

I can't believe that we are even discussing this in 2017.

Kumble broke a big bloke like Smith’s ribs? Sounds wrong. Phil Edmonds took multiple hits in the chest from 100 mph Patrick Patterson (who made Marshall look slow in 1986) and didn’t get cracked ribs, just plate sized bruises.

This is like saying Nari Contractor survived a direct hit on his skull but Phil Hughes did not nor did Raman Lamba therefore something fishy. The thing is with a cricket ball even a gently lob if not caught can hurt you if it gets you in the wrong spot. Sometimes a Shoaib bouncer can leave you howling in pain and nothing broken ( Saurav Ganguly ). There is no explanation for such things. Just luck or the lack of it.

No idea what your point about Larwood is.

Why was he unceremoniously forced out of the game if batsmen were so valiant, brave and fearless ? Why was there such an unprecedented song and dance about a fast bowler bowling short ?

 

[Robert]

thats politically correct way of describing what is otherwise nothing but fool hardiness. No matter how skillful you are a ball can climb from good length and get you in the teeth. We know this thru years of watching Cricket. And given how much faster bowlers are the odds of that happening are much much higher today. its just simply stupidity to pretend that bravado and skills have disappeared. Do you think the batsmen who wear helmets simply have no fear of the cricket ball? Let me tell you that is just not the case at all. See the video of Steyn Ending the NZ batsmans career and then there is Phil Hughes.

I can't believe that we are even discussing this in 2017.



This is like saying Nari Contractor survived a direct hit on his skull but Phil Hughes did not nor did Raman Lamba therefore something fishy. The thing is with a cricket ball even a gently lob if not caught can hurt you if it gets you in the wrong spot. Sometimes a Shoaib bouncer can leave you howling in pain and nothing broken ( Saurav Ganguly ). There is no explanation for such things. Just luck or the lack of it.



Why was he unceremoniously forced out of the game if batsmen were so valiant, brave and fearless ? Why was there such an unprecedented song and dance about a fast bowler bowling short ?

I would imagine that if you were a miner in constant fear of pit collapses and lung disease then the thought of being hit by a cricket ball held less terror. Or if you had just got through WW2 and so had all your mates. Of course they were scared of getting hit, but they didn’t show it because that would have been unmanly given the generally more harsh and dangerous life these blokes faced compared to their modern descendants.

Fair enough.

Because he was scapegoated by the Foreign Office and MCC for the Bodyline furore, which nearly saw Australia secede from the Empire. As you know it was not just a question of bowling short, it was almost a reinvention of the game into a nastier form of baseball. Bodyline wasn’t cheating but it was considered unsportsmanlike and ungentlemanly. Really Jardine should have been the one dropped but he was a gentleman while Larwood was a commoner.

 

[Tusker]

I would imagine that if you were a miner in constant fear of pit collapses and lung disease then the thought of being hit by a cricket ball held less terror. Or if you had just got through WW2 and so had all your mates. Of course they were scared of getting hit, but they didn’t show it because that would have been unmanly given the generally more harsh and dangerous life these blokes faced compared to their modern descendants.

Not all cricketers that played in those days were miners (certainly not most batsmen) and the Bodyline saga happened before WW2. So again your story does not pass basic scrutiny as always.

While I agree with the unmanly part. Those were the times of Bravado and Machoism. Smoking was considered cool and even prescribed by Doctors ( I kid you not) and so on and so forth. But how does one today defend that stupidity ?

Fair enough.

Because he was scapegoated by the Foreign Office and MCC for the Bodyline furore, which nearly saw Australia secede from the Empire. As you know it was not just a question of bowling short, it was almost a reinvention of the game into a nastier form of baseball. Bodyline wasn’t cheating but it was considered unsportsmanlike and ungentlemanly. Really Jardine should have been the one dropped but he was a gentleman while Larwood was a commoner.

I know all of that ... but isnt this against the entire concept of "Manliness" ? Diplomatic row because someone got bounced and that without violating any rules ? See the problem ?

 

[Robert]

Not all cricketers that played in those days were miners (certainly not most batsmen) and the Bodyline saga happened before WW2. So again your story does not pass basic scrutiny as always.

While I agree with the unmanly part. Those were the times of Bravado and Machoism. Smoking was considered cool and even prescribed by Doctors ( I kid you not) and so on and so forth. But how does one today defend that stupidity ?




I know all of that ... but isnt this against the entire concept of "Manliness" ? Diplomatic row because someone got bounced and that without violating any rules ? See the problem ?

The politicians had the problem with Bodyline, not the players.

But I'm unsure why you are conflating Bodyline with everything. Sir Len Hutton lost two inches from his arm fighting in WW2. His great adversary Miller was in dogfights. If you survived the war, work was full of hazards which would rip your arm off, burn or poison you in days or weak safety regulations Those sorts of activities were more dangerous than facing a cricket ball and blokes just got on with it.

 

[Tusker]

The politicians had the problem with Bodyline, not the players.

Not true at all. Aussie captains words were ... only one team playing cricket. Bradman threatening to pull out of next Ashes in England if bodyline was not addressed are 2 simple facts that once again make these stories unreliable. Stories not checking out is a regular occurrence with most topics under the old vs new discussions.

But I'm unsure why you are conflating Bodyline with everything. Sir Len Hutton lost two inches from his arm fighting in WW2. His great adversary Miller was in dogfights. If you survived the war, work was full of hazards which would rip your arm off, burn or poison you in days or weak safety regulations Those sorts of activities were more dangerous than facing a cricket ball and blokes just got on with it.

Using bodyline because it is thrown around by fans of older ERAs as though there was nothing remotely close to that ever.

 

[WengerOut]

Old footages are filmed at 16 FPS and played at 25 FPS . This is the only reason earlier era bowlers bowled fast.

 

[Robert]

Old footages are filmed at 16 FPS and played at 25 FPS . This is the only reason earlier era bowlers bowled fast.

Look at where the wicketkeeper and slips stand to get a better idea of pace.

 

[Robert]

Not true at all. Aussie captains words were ... only one team playing cricket. Bradman threatening to pull out of next Ashes in England if bodyline was not addressed are 2 simple facts that once again make these stories unreliable. Stories not checking out is a regular occurrence with most topics under the old vs new discussions.



Using bodyline because it is thrown around by fans of older ERAs as though there was nothing remotely close to that ever.

It caused a diplomatic crisis and a trade war. There was “nothing remotely close” to it since. The Bodyline series is singular in cricket history.

 

[Tusker]

It caused a diplomatic crisis and a trade war. There was “nothing remotely close” to it since. The Bodyline series is singular in cricket history.

Iam aware of all that ... just find it hilarious that people went to that extent because a fast bowler bowled bouncers at 75mph at best 80mph. Therefore it is one thing to say there was "nothing like it" and quite another to substantiate it with proper facts and reasoning. The thing with these stories is that they require an audience that is willing to accept them as-is. As soon as someone is not willing to do that it becomes incredibly hard to substantiate the tall claims for the story teller.

BTW this is not going to happen today because nobody gives a rats behind about such things. If they do that they will get laughed at. Not because there is shortage of bowlers that can cause same harm even with helmets on. Sadly the old era fanatics will twist that into something else. Like nobody bowled faster than Larwood.

Anyhow no response to my comment about how the players were complaining ? Don't see anyone accuse the bodyline series players as being un-manly despite all the whinging. See the problem ?

 

[Robert]

Iam aware of all that ... just find it hilarious that people went to that extent because a fast bowler bowled bouncers at 75mph at best 80mph. Therefore it is one thing to say there was "nothing like it" and quite another to substantiate it with proper facts and reasoning. The thing with these stories is that they require an audience that is willing to accept them as-is. As soon as someone is not willing to do that it becomes incredibly hard to substantiate the tall claims for the story teller.

BTW this is not going to happen today because nobody gives a rats behind about such things. If they do that they will get laughed at. Not because there is shortage of bowlers that can cause same harm even with helmets on. Sadly the old era fanatics will twist that into something else. Like nobody bowled faster than Larwood.

Anyhow no response to my comment about how the players were complaining ? Don't see anyone accuse the bodyline series players as being un-manly despite all the whinging. See the problem ?

Nothing like it insomuch as nobody has come up with a field like that since. It won't happen today because it was banned under the Rules as a result of diplomatic pressure.

OK, Sir Donald didn't like it. Do we know why? I doubt that it was because he was unduly scared of getting hit. It seems more likely that the MCC team was being unsportsmanlike. Bouncers weren't the problem, those were expected. It was the field that caused the grief. Woodfull: "There are two teams out there and only one of them is playing cricket."

We seem to have got off the subject, which is why sixties bowlers seem weaker than their fifties and seventies counterparts.

 

[Cric1234]

Nothing like it insomuch as nobody has come up with a field like that since. It won't happen today because it was banned under the Rules as a result of diplomatic pressure.

OK, Sir Donald didn't like it. Do we know why? I doubt that it was because he was unduly scared of getting hit. It seems more likely that the MCC team was being unsportsmanlike. Bouncers weren't the problem, those were expected. It was the field that caused the grief. Woodfull: "There are two teams out there and only one of them is playing cricket."

We seem to have got off the subject, which is why sixties bowlers seem weaker than their fifties and seventies counterparts.

This is the problem the pre 1950s era gets discussed more due to Bradman but if I see something that might need replying to then I might like bowlers pre 70s wouldn't have made it in the modern era there's 15-20 that would've made it.
Also Davidson we can see came in the 50s and 60s and is clearly the best or 2nd best left arm pacer of all time.
Trueman would be up there as one of the best right arm pacers and Laker one of the best off spinners although he played mostly in the 40s and 50s not the 60s.

 

[Tusker]

Nothing like it insomuch as nobody has come up with a field like that since. It won't happen today because it was banned under the Rules as a result of diplomatic pressure.

OK, Sir Donald didn't like it. Do we know why? I doubt that it was because he was unduly scared of getting hit. It seems more likely that the MCC team was being unsportsmanlike. Bouncers weren't the problem, those were expected. It was the field that caused the grief. Woodfull: "There are two teams out there and only one of them is playing cricket."

We seem to have got off the subject, which is why sixties bowlers seem weaker than their fifties and seventies counterparts.

There is no logical or technical way anyone can explain to how that field setting is in anyway responsible for the injuries. If anything that field setting opens up so much acreage everywhere else that any decent batsman will fill his boots with or without helmet given that the pace at which Larwood bowled which is at best 80mph.

In any case we can still set that umbrella field today with the keeper moving towards legside the FSL standing right at the edge of the crease and 2 leg slips or leg gullies covering the same area that was covered by the Bodyline field setting. Its just that nobody does it. Its a waste of time. Wont make any difference.

Bodyline closein field settting :https://youtu.be/5wma0edaSKc?t=2m20s

Meanwhile a real express fast bowler is capable of hurting you today no matter what field is set or how much protection the batsman has.

here is an example : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6afPT1hbMLk ... I can show many examples of these. but nobody care for this today. anything that happened in the bodyline series is a walk in the park compared to that pace by Shoaib. Just no comparison whatsoever. It takes a lot of guts to just face up to bowlers like that.

 

[Tusker]

Also Davidson we can see came in the 50s and 60s and is clearly the best or 2nd best left arm pacer of all time.
Trueman would be up there as one of the best right arm pacers and Laker one of the best off spinners although he played mostly in the 40s and 50s not the 60s.

Why because you just said it and that becomes a fact? How about standing up and arguing like a grown up and substantiating your views with proper facts, reasoning and technical explanations instead of making silly comments ? Its very easy to do.

 

[Chrish]

Uncle Rob is on fire

Enjoying your form here mate..

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] - are we done here (If so what will your admirers do now) ? As always big difference between words , stories and actual evidence. So thats yet another round of the OLD >>> New debate ... as I had said a longtime ago in this post ---> http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ann-the-bowling-Bradman&p=7946216#post7946216

there is plenty of belief that they were the greatest players to ever set foot on a cricket field just as long as we don't ask for evidence beyond words and fairy tales.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] - are we done here (If so what will your admirers do now) ? As always big difference between words , stories and actual evidence. So thats yet another round of the OLD >>> New debate ... as I had said a longtime ago in this post ---> http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ann-the-bowling-Bradman&p=7946216#post7946216

there is plenty of belief that they were the greatest players to ever set foot on a cricket field just as long as we don't ask for evidence beyond words and fairy tales.

Oh gawd, are we still doing this?

I thrill to the tales of the greats of yesteryear and hold the firm belief that a champion in one era would be a champion in any era. You don’t. Let’s agree to disagree. Come on, give us a hug.

 

[Tusker]

Oh gawd, are we still doing this?

I thrill to the tales of the greats of yesteryear and hold the firm belief that a champion in one era would be a champion in any era. You don’t. Let’s agree to disagree. Come on, give us a hug.

IF only the real world operated based on just beliefs ... I would then start photocopying dollar bills and be rich very quickly

Sad day for your "friends" who like to hide behind you and fire off your shoulders .... I suspect they will quietly retreat into the woodwork and show up when someone else likes to start firing (even if it is blanks that they are firing )