What's new

Cricket is now a ‘sissy’s game’, no aggression left: Andy Roberts

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,981
While the entire Caribbean is going gaga over Alzarri Joseph, who appears a rare positive emerging from the region, fellow Antiguan and former West Indies fast bowling great Andy Roberts refuses to even consider him an out and out fast bowler.

“He is not fast. No, he is not fast. He bowls medium pace at 85 and 86 miles. What some of these guys need to do is speak to people, especially those from the past, and learn about their methods of training which made them bowl quick,” says Roberts.

Joseph, 20, was a member of the squad which beat India in the final of the 2016 U-19 World Cup and graduated to the senior side soon after.

Killing aggression

Roberts, the Antigua’s leader of the lethal West Indies bowling quartet in the 1970s and 80s, says cricket is becoming a ‘sissy’s game’ as the administrators are doing their best to weed out aggression.

“We don’t have enough pacers in the world. No one’s bowling fast because rules for short-pitched bowling have changed, batsmen are fully protected. The rules of the game are cutting aggression. You cannot even stare hard at the batsmen else they would fine you. They are taking all the aggression out of the game.

“What part of cricket is gentle? Let me ask you, women are playing, is it a female’s game? No. People who make all these rules make them sissy’s game,” he adds.

“As a spectator what do you like to see, aggression between batsman and a fast bowler. Cricket, when I played, wasn’t for the chicken-hearted, it was for people with a lion’s heart. Not anymore.”

The pace leader

Roberts, 66, took 202 wickets in a nine-year Test career from 1974, the spearhead of Clive Lloyd’s ploy to win matches with an all-out pace attack.

Michael Holding, Malcolm Marshall, Joel Garner, Winston Davis and Colin Croft all spread fear among the finest batsmen of the time.

The game has undergone transformation over the years and training methods of the bowlers too have changed. Gym work has become an integral part of the game. There are trainers who lay emphasis on that during off-season.

However, Roberts, a longtime critic of this method, reiterates the need to pay attention to the basics. “I have been asking all along, why do you need the gym? To build muscles? But is fast bowling about muscles, or is it about strength? You build strength only through running and speaking about the West Indies pacers, I think they are not doing enough running.

Not connected to the game

“Who are the ones bringing in all these types of training? Someone who has not played the game.”

Roberts says they are making a big issue out of burnout, but the fact is they don’t have enough strength.

“They may be playing more matches but they are spending less time on the field. T20 is four overs, ODIs are less and less now, it is 10 overs. In a Test match, you could bowl as many as 20-25 overs a day. Yeah, there are too many matches but (bowlers are) not spending time on field. They are bowling as much. We would play back-to-back ODIs, sometimes they’d fit in an ODI on the rest day. But now there is a gap.”

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...ndy-roberts/story-gpmHxrk0QHNFosTLBssmpK.html
 
I agree. Not only cricket though, even in NBA basketball, players are softer now.
 
True - if anything I could do, I would have taken out match referee from cricket match.
 
Think he means batsmen should play without helmets and protectors...
 
Yet another old timer with the "Things were better back in the day" argument. So predictable, boring and frankly disrespectful to the players who put their body through the inhuman amount of cricket played these days.

I agree with him that there are too many rules curbing aggression and I would not mind some hostility but he could have framed it better. In fact, it could have been better if he had kept his irrelevant and archaic thoughts to himself.
 
Old timer of every sports say the same crap.

Now adays cricket is more technical. Its not about bowling fast anymore. You could get spanked for bowling fast if your dont have line.

Batsmen need to be protected. At the end of the day, sixes and fours provide more entertainment then chin music.

Gaps are needed. This guy is talking nonsense. Look what happened when we had back to back games in PSL 1. Everyone was getting injured.
 
Old timer of every sports say the same crap.

Now adays cricket is more technical. Its not about bowling fast anymore. You could get spanked for bowling fast if your dont have line.

Batsmen need to be protected. At the end of the day, sixes and fours provide more entertainment then chin music.

Gaps are needed. This guy is talking nonsense. Look what happened when we had back to back games in PSL 1. Everyone was getting injured.
Back to back T20 games is not a problem. Only 80 overs in two days.
 
Back to back T20 games is not a problem. Only 80 overs in two days.

80 overs in a T20 are different from any other format. They are a lot more intense, a lot is going on. Players have to dive way more on the field because batsmen are way more attacking. Batsmen also have to exert more pressure to hit boundaries.
 
Old timer of every sports say the same crap.

Now adays cricket is more technical. Its not about bowling fast anymore. You could get spanked for bowling fast if your dont have line.

Batsmen need to be protected. At the end of the day, sixes and fours provide more entertainment then chin music.

Gaps are needed. This guy is talking nonsense. Look what happened when we had back to back games in PSL 1. Everyone was getting injured.

I beg to differ, chin music will always entertain me more than sixes or fours. Look up videos of Shoaib Akhtar in his prime and that will send chills down your spine everytime you watch, that is what cricket is about and it can apply to any era, batsmen won't try to hit you if they fear you.
 
Old timer of every sports say the same crap.

Now adays cricket is more technical. Its not about bowling fast anymore. You could get spanked for bowling fast if your dont have line.

Batsmen need to be protected. At the end of the day, sixes and fours provide more entertainment then chin music.

Gaps are needed. This guy is talking nonsense. Look what happened when we had back to back games in PSL 1. Everyone was getting injured.
Speak for yourself, not everyone cares about a 4 and a 6 every ball. Even most every day fans I know get bored so stop assuming something just because it's your opinion.

Who actually remembers AB de Villiers' fastest ODI 100?
Now who remembers Mitchell Johnson chin music in his Peak?
 
Yes, he doesn't sound incredibly bitter at all over the fact that players today earn more in 5 years than they did over their whole careers.
 
Sure terrorizing a batsmen without proper gear takes real courage i suppose.

Funny and ironic how the rest of the world evolves decade by decade, but the sportsmen actually regresses in such people's minds.
 
Stupid,bitter comments.

Another old timer with his ranting.He is an ATG but he should talk like one.
 
I beg to differ, chin music will always entertain me more than sixes or fours. Look up videos of Shoaib Akhtar in his prime and that will send chills down your spine everytime you watch, that is what cricket is about and it can apply to any era, batsmen won't try to hit you if they fear you.

Spot on.I agree with you,but I don't agree with Robert's comments.
 
Speak for yourself, not everyone cares about a 4 and a 6 every ball. Even most every day fans I know get bored so stop assuming something just because it's your opinion.

Who actually remembers AB de Villiers' fastest ODI 100?
Now who remembers Mitchell Johnson chin music in his Peak?

Can't agree with this more. Boundaries are way to easy to come by now and it gets boring. Watching fast bowlers dish out chin music and swing and reverse the ball irs so much fun to watch
 
I'm pretty sure players from the 30's and 40's felt the same way in some aspects regarding players from Andy Robert's time. Cricket will always evolve with time. The sooner these ex cricketers get this through their head the better for them.
 
Ask him to come and bowl with today's boundary/fielding rules and protective gear.

Him and Michael Holding are Grade-A turnips. Don't hold a candle to the likes of contemporary pacemen such as McGrath or Steyn.
 
Yes, he doesn't sound incredibly bitter at all over the fact that players today earn more in 5 years than they did over their whole careers.

Hardly.

Kerry Packer made him a rich man, and he's got a knighthood, for goodness sake.

He's not jealous. He's just telling the truth.
 
:))

Exactly.

Such a macho man flinging bouncers at helmetless batsmen.
He took around 50 Test wickets before helmets.

The rest - plus the SuperTest wickets - were against fully protected batsmen.

His issue is the limits on bouncers, grassless wickets, huge bats.
 
Show some respect.

It's not "Andy Roberts".

He's Sir Andy Roberts.

IMG_5219.JPG
 
He took around 50 Test wickets before helmets.

The rest - plus the SuperTest wickets - were against fully protected batsmen.

His issue is the limits on bouncers, grassless wickets, huge bats.

He never bowled to a fully protected batsman. The helmets had no grills.

Heck, some of them refused to wear the helmet!

Go watch his last WC game. Sunil Gavaskar is facing WI without a helmet.
 
I can pretty much guarantee that the people here castigating Sir Andy will have the same attitude as him in twenty years.
 
He never bowled to a fully protected batsman. The helmets had no grills.

Heck, some of them refused to wear the helmet!

Go watch his last WC game. Sunil Gavaskar is facing WI without a helmet.

I remember the first ever grille helmet in an international in England, worn by Derek Pringle when he faced WI in 1984. Everyone laughed at him for cowardice.

Gavaskar didn't like helmets. He had a thin pad under his cap. He never got hit, as I recall. Helmets make you easier to hit, but they absorb the energy. Modern batters can plonk their front foot forward against fast bowlers with little fear now.
 
I actually wonder why WI can't produce any more world class bowlers like they used to in the past, that's something I don't get at all. They're due a world-class player by now.
 
Can't agree with this more. Boundaries are way to easy to come by now and it gets boring. Watching fast bowlers dish out chin music and swing and reverse the ball irs so much fun to watch
Is that username a reference to a certain legendary bodybuilder?
 
I actually wonder why WI can't produce any more world class bowlers like they used to in the past, that's something I don't get at all. They're due a world-class player by now.
Roach, Joseph, Taylor were/are quality.

Roach in particular was pure class...145kph regular who could move the ball both ways and took a 10fer vs a quality Aussie line up. That Roach surely would've walked into any current test team and was my favourite bowler...alas injuries tho. Am sure he was averaging like 25/26 and was in top 10 test bowlers too at that time..

He still is only 29.
 
Roach, Joseph, Taylor were/are quality.

Roach in particular was pure class...145kph regular who could move the ball both ways and took a 10fer vs a quality Aussie line up. That Roach surely would've walked into any current test team and was my favourite bowler...alas injuries tho. Am sure he was averaging like 25/26 and was in top 10 test bowlers too at that time..

He still is only 29.

I actually think the WICB is the worst cricket board in the world. I love Caribbean people, culture and whatnot, and they have a good history when it comes to sport. If they can get rid of some of the people who run the board and eventually sort themselves out then we can eventually see a new breed of WI cricketers that can make the game more exciting.
 
I actually wonder why WI can't produce any more world class bowlers like they used to in the past, that's something I don't get at all. They're due a world-class player by now.

The Caribbean bowlers of the past were not necessarily more skilled than their counterparts from other countries, but they were extremely good at terrorizing the batsmen. Batsmen facing them would fear for their lives more than their wicket.

Imran Khan joked in his autobiography that Mudassar Nazar would often pray before facing the Caribbean bowlers because he feared that he might get killed.

Modern batsmen are not easy to intimidate with hostile pace bowling and 150 kph bouncers because of the improved protective gear. They no longer fear getting hit on the head or on the face because they know that the possibility of getting seriously hurt is quite low.

Yes, you still have freak accidents every now and then, e.g. the Phil Hughes tragedy, but batsmen getting hurt was quite common in the past. That's why someone like Viv Richards is considered in a league of his own because he played pace bowlers like the modern batsmen but with no room for error. One misjudgment and he would have had his skill cracked into two. Fakhar got hit on the head thrice in the Champions Trophy, which would have ended his career 30 years back.

The likes of Roach, Gabriel, Edwardes etc. would have been intimidating as well if they were playing in the 70's and 80's. People are quick to write off modern batsmen because of flat pitches, big bats, short boundaries, field restrictions, bouncer restrictions, protective equipment etc.

However, for some hilarious reason, the same logic is not extended to the "great" bowlers of the past who had the luxury of bowling to batsmen without protective equipment, no big bats, no field restrictions, no bouncer restrictions, grassy pitches and big boundaries.

Keeping these facts into consideration, one wonders how great "Sir" Andy Roberts would have been in this era without all the luxuries that he enjoyed in his time; he may not have been much better than someone like Gabriel or Joseph. This era may be "sissy" for him, but he would regularly get demolished in this era, even if he was among the top bowlers.
 
While the entire Caribbean is going gaga over Alzarri Joseph, who appears a rare positive emerging from the region, fellow Antiguan and former West Indies fast bowling great Andy Roberts refuses to even consider him an out and out fast bowler.

“He is not fast. No, he is not fast. He bowls medium pace at 85 and 86 miles. What some of these guys need to do is speak to people, especially those from the past, and learn about their methods of training which made them bowl quick,” says Roberts.

Joseph, 20, was a member of the squad which beat India in the final of the 2016 U-19 World Cup and graduated to the senior side soon after.

someone needs to tell Roberts that Joseph is just as fast as Roberts was in the 70s (if not faster ) .... but the problem is who is going to bell the cat ? :)))
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Caribbean bowlers of the past were not necessarily more skilled than their counterparts from other countries, but they were extremely good at terrorizing the batsmen. Batsmen facing them would fear for their lives more than their wicket.

Imran Khan joked in his autobiography that Mudassar Nazar would often pray before facing the Caribbean bowlers because he feared that he might get killed.

Modern batsmen are not easy to intimidate with hostile pace bowling and 150 kph bouncers because of the improved protective gear. They no longer fear getting hit on the head or on the face because they know that the possibility of getting seriously hurt is quite low.

Yes, you still have freak accidents every now and then, e.g. the Phil Hughes tragedy, but batsmen getting hurt was quite common in the past. That's why someone like Viv Richards is considered in a league of his own because he played pace bowlers like the modern batsmen but with no room for error. One misjudgment and he would have had his skill cracked into two. Fakhar got hit on the head thrice in the Champions Trophy, which would have ended his career 30 years back.

The likes of Roach, Gabriel, Edwardes etc. would have been intimidating as well if they were playing in the 70's and 80's. People are quick to write off modern batsmen because of flat pitches, big bats, short boundaries, field restrictions, bouncer restrictions, protective equipment etc.

However, for some hilarious reason, the same logic is not extended to the "great" bowlers of the past who had the luxury of bowling to batsmen without protective equipment, no big bats, no field restrictions, no bouncer restrictions, grassy pitches and big boundaries.

Keeping these facts into consideration, one wonders how great "Sir" Andy Roberts would have been in this era without all the luxuries that he enjoyed in his time; he may not have been much better than someone like Gabriel or Joseph. This era may be "sissy" for him, but he would regularly get demolished in this era, even if he was among the top bowlers.

If the WI bowlers of the past were good at terrorising the batsmen, then why can't the current crop of WI bowlers do the same? The great WI bowlers of the past were outstanding and were ripping apart so many teams, and yeah I agree about the current WI bowlers being able to intimidate if they were in the 70's due to the absence of protective gear. But then again I don't see one quality fast bowler that's hyped from WI anymore and even batsmen too. Brian Lara was an absolute genius and the last great WI batsman I've seen in my lifetime of watching cricket was Chanderpaul and the only current "legend" I see now is Gayle.
 
The lack of pressure is a real reason. The bowlers of the 80s collectively as a unit were all stupendous which allowed them all to go all out attack..

Of recent we've seen that in Ashes 2013 when the attack consisted of Harris and Johnson, the margin for error was very minute for batsmen and they couldn't score runs because they had to face both Harris and Johnson

What experts like the Tuskers and Mamoons do not understand (am sure Mamoon is intelligent enough to, his point is something else) is that the Windies collectively were all quality, there was no bowler who could release the pressure which meant batsmen could attack. I'm 100% sure if the 80s bowlers bowled against the current Aussies in their den, they'd be just as effective because there was no weak link. The only thing would be that there'd be a higher run rate and these bowlers would be more expensive.

Just look at the recent CT when Pakistan had no weak link...you thought you could score off Junaid Khan but nope, he'd nip the ball around, you thought you could score off Amir but he bowled defensively (and latter games attackingly),you thought you could bowl against Ruman but he had a lot of tools up his sleep and then Hasan who was...well Hasan.

When a unit bowls well collectively, they become unstoppable and this was the case with the 80s Windies. The Tuskers of today won't understand because all they moan about is what they see on 2min youtube videos.

Batsmen like Steve Smith and AB de Villiers when he wants to will surely do well. I've seen both of em at ease vs genuine quality pace (Smith vs Wahab in 2015 WC, AB vs peak mitch)

[MENTION=135332]ExplicitAI[/MENTION] onto your question, the answer is that they simply don't work well as a collective unit. An attack of Joseph, Taylor, Roach and possibly Edwards can emulate the 80s bowlers. Problem is the latter 3 all more or less finished now sadly.
 
Last edited:
The lack of pressure is a real reason. The bowlers of the 80s collectively as a unit were all stupendous which allowed them all to go all out attack..

Of recent we've seen that in Ashes 2013 when the attack consisted of Harris and Johnson, the margin for error was very minute for batsmen and they couldn't score runs because they had to face both Harris and Johnson

What experts like the Tuskers and Mamoons do not understand (am sure Mamoon is intelligent enough to, his point is something else) is that the Windies collectively were all quality, there was no bowler who could release the pressure which meant batsmen could attack. I'm 100% sure if the 80s bowlers bowled against the current Aussies in their den, they'd be just as effective because there was no weak link. The only thing would be that there'd be a higher run rate and these bowlers would be more expensive.

Just look at the recent CT when Pakistan had no weak link...you thought you could score off Junaid Khan but nope, he'd nip the ball around, you thought you could score off Amir but he bowled defensively (and latter games attackingly),you thought you could bowl against Ruman but he had a lot of tools up his sleep and then Hasan who was...well Hasan.

When a unit bowls well collectively, they become unstoppable and this was the case with the 80s Windies. The Tuskers of today won't understand because all they moan about is what they see on 2min youtube videos.

Batsmen like Steve Smith and AB de Villiers when he wants to will surely do well. I've seen both of em at ease vs genuine quality pace (Smith vs Wahab in 2015 WC, AB vs peak mitch)

[MENTION=135332]ExplicitAI[/MENTION] onto your question, the answer is that they simply don't work well as a collective unit. An attack of Joseph, Taylor, Roach and possibly Edwards can emulate the 80s bowlers. Problem is the latter 3 all more or less finished now sadly.

With due respect I have watched enough cricket and I understand my cricket. The difference between me and you is the ability to set aside dogma, bias, stereotypes , 2nd hand information , media hype and blatant self promotion by players like Roberts here , Chappell etc and deal exclusively in hard evidence logic and common sense. If you are interested in that sort of discussion let me know and I will explain my position but unlikely you have the patience to engage in that sort of detailed analysis.

BTW there is plenty of footage on Youtube that is not short by any means.
 
However, Roberts, a longtime critic of this method, reiterates the need to pay attention to the basics. “I have been asking all along, why do you need the gym? To build muscles? But is fast bowling about muscles, or is it about strength? You build strength only through running and speaking about the West Indies pacers, I think they are not doing enough running.

This is nonsense.
 
I actually wonder why WI can't produce any more world class bowlers like they used to in the past, that's something I don't get at all. They're due a world-class player by now.

Too many dustbowl pitches - much easier to be a spinner.
 
Andy is right. Cricket has removed the excitement of a true fast bowler scaring batsmen.
 
With due respect I have watched enough cricket and I understand my cricket. The difference between me and you is the ability to set aside dogma, bias, stereotypes , 2nd hand information , media hype and blatant self promotion by players like Roberts here , Chappell etc and deal exclusively in hard evidence logic and common sense. If you are interested in that sort of discussion let me know and I will explain my position but unlikely you have the patience to engage in that sort of detailed analysis.

BTW there is plenty of footage on Youtube that is not short by any means.
There's disputing somethings, then there's just nonsense. Stuff like Thommo apparently bowling 170kph is nonsense, if you call something like that out then fair enough. But when you claim people like Holding are slower than the Kumars and Andersons of today, then I will call it out. There's oldies bias and there's people who genuinely saw how the game was played in the 80s, i.e. my father or on this forum [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] and I'd take their word over yours because they keep neutral viewpoints and have no unnecessary oldie nostalgia. Not much has changed in literally 2 years, apparently the 80s cricket was dinousaur era compared to the 90s onwards where all bowlers suddenly became 90mph speed demons. A lot has changed in cricket in terms of rules, pitches and etc..natural ability however is still there from the beginning onwards, if I'm calling the 70s the beginning.
 
There's disputing somethings, then there's just nonsense. Stuff like Thommo apparently bowling 170kph is nonsense, if you call something like that out then fair enough. But when you claim people like Holding are slower than the Kumars and Andersons of today, then I will call it out.

While I don't recall comparing Holding to any Kumars but here is the HARD Evidence if you purely talk speed :
https://youtu.be/uRlyFVCLOr4?t=27m27s

Try to dispute that based on any other evidence that supports your view point.


There's oldies bias and there's people who genuinely saw how the game was played in the 80s, i.e. my father or on this forum [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] and I'd take their word over yours because they keep neutral viewpoints and have no unnecessary oldie nostalgia. Not much has changed in literally 2 years, apparently the 80s cricket was dinousaur era compared to the 90s onwards where all bowlers suddenly became 90mph speed demons.

Not sure what you are talking about (which 2 yrs ??) ... while I don't read all of his posts but FWIW [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] isnt a big fan of old era cricket

A lot has changed in cricket in terms of rules, pitches and etc..natural ability however is still there from the beginning onwards, if I'm calling the 70s the beginning.

Yes a lot has changed ... and one biggest change is overall fitness and athleticism. You cannot deny this simple glaring fact.
 
Times have changed. We don't have the great West Indian or any fast bowlers of yesteryear. The game is poorer for it.
 
While I don't recall comparing Holding to any Kumars but here is the HARD Evidence if you purely talk speed :
https://youtu.be/uRlyFVCLOr4?t=27m27s

Try to dispute that based on any other evidence that supports your view point.




Not sure what you are talking about (which 2 yrs ??) ... while I don't read all of his posts but FWIW [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] isnt a big fan of old era cricket



Yes a lot has changed ... and one biggest change is overall fitness and athleticism. You cannot deny this simple glaring fact.

I read lots on Cricket from old days as part of history, but to be honest, I don't rate much of cricket before 70s, or may be 60s at latest. However, I don't compare players from different era - for me, Trumper, Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond or Kanhai, Sobers, Miller, Truman were true legends of the game - but I won't go beyond that. Just like them, Kallis, Sanga, Smith, Root, Kohli, Styen, Anderson, Ashwin, Yasir or Sakib are latest greats - if I am to rate any player, I do like how good Kanhai was compared to Weeks or Hervey, Larwood over Wall or Trumper over Clem Hill or Grimmet over O'Reilley - but never Richie Benaud vs Warne or Truman vs Styen or Hammond vs KP.

Personally, I rate cricket highest in 80s flanked by 70s & 90s because of the quality of competition, intensity of rivalry & most importantly - balance between bat & ball. In every aspect of the game - top all-rounders, batsmen, fast bowlers, spinners, WKs cricket was at it's prime in that 30 years. Also, Cricket in 70s/80s, even till 90s was competing as the top team sports in UK/SAF with Soccer, in AUS/NZ with Rugby - now, it's a dying sports outside South Asia.
 
I read lots on Cricket from old days as part of history, but to be honest, I don't rate much of cricket before 70s, or may be 60s at latest. However, I don't compare players from different era - for me, Trumper, Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond or Kanhai, Sobers, Miller, Truman were true legends of the game - but I won't go beyond that. Just like them, Kallis, Sanga, Smith, Root, Kohli, Styen, Anderson, Ashwin, Yasir or Sakib are latest greats - if I am to rate any player, I do like how good Kanhai was compared to Weeks or Hervey, Larwood over Wall or Trumper over Clem Hill or Grimmet over O'Reilley - but never Richie Benaud vs Warne or Truman vs Styen or Hammond vs KP.

Personally, I rate cricket highest in 80s flanked by 70s & 90s because of the quality of competition, intensity of rivalry & most importantly - balance between bat & ball. In every aspect of the game - top all-rounders, batsmen, fast bowlers, spinners, WKs cricket was at it's prime in that 30 years. Also, Cricket in 70s/80s, even till 90s was competing as the top team sports in UK/SAF with Soccer, in AUS/NZ with Rugby - now, it's a dying sports outside South Asia.

The one simple reason why I rate last 2 - 3 decades of cricket as better than most is because of Professionalism. This one reason is the biggest reason why we see superior quality cricket contrary to what bitter old fools like Andy Roberts like to think. Andy never had to deal with a rampaging Sehwag or a Kohli or a ABD type batsmen who completely demoralize you if you get it wrong.
 
More than skill or pace, I believe (what I have read from his contemporary batting greats), Roberts was extremely cunning fast bowler, who would often catch batsmen off-guard. His "silent" bouncer was probably the most awkward ball to face, because he could hide 25km in back to back bouncers literally with same action & run-up. Another thing is, both Andy & Holding were extremely accurate with their bouncers - these days I see lots of fast bouncers missing targets, but Andy was probably someone who would hit (if not avoided) Adams Apple of Gavaskar & Graeme Pollock ( 1 feet height difference & being right/left hander) in back to back bouncers. I read somewhere that in practice, Andy would put a gloves or helmet hanging at 4.5 to 6 feet height & he'll try to hit those with his bouncers. He was deceptively fast, probably faster than Lillee at their fastest. He'll be Lillee's new ball partner for my team of the decade 1970s.

One thing I am sure that fast bowlers/cricketers from 70s-90s were much fitter than present days. It's not because of the training methods or diet, rather because of the way they were groomed in their early days. Most WI fast bowlers (others as well - Imran, DK, Hadlee, Procter, Vvd Bijl, Le Roux, Kapil, Sarfraz ...) used to play in Counties & they bowled over 1000 overs in 5 months only in match condition, then they'll play the SEP-April period in domestics & Internationals - average 2000+ overs/year only in match & the all-rounders used to put similar effort with bat - add to that the nets time. Cricket's fitness requirement isn't like a sprinter or middle distance runner or a gymnast or a tennis/soccer/hockey player or a boxer - rather it's a soft tissue & strong ligament sports. Here, instead of body mass & heavy muscles, players need flexible twitching muscles, tight ligament & lots of endurance - which can be better built through long First Class season & exercise like running/swimming/hiking/biking/stretching, rather than building six pack in gym.

The amount of work load a fast bowling all-rounder could take between the era of Procter to Wasim/Pollock - I just don't see that capability in Flintoff, Stokes or Mathews; though they play far, far less cricket (overall). This actually tells me that cricket will die prematurely - it's a game which is built on endurance & durability; it's skills are learned by hours of concentration (batting is the most perfectionist job in any sport - one mistake & a batsman might become spectator for 5 days), and the physical capacity through long, long matches - for which the game can be learned & survived only through 4 days (at least) FC matches of 400+ overs. Just like Golf can't be mastered playing in 3 hole courses, without investing in FC Cricket, this game won't survive long.
 
The one simple reason why I rate last 2 - 3 decades of cricket as better than most is because of Professionalism. This one reason is the biggest reason why we see superior quality cricket contrary to what bitter old fools like Andy Roberts like to think. Andy never had to deal with a rampaging Sehwag or a Kohli or a ABD type batsmen who completely demoralize you if you get it wrong.

Cricket was much, much, much more professional in 70s & 80s trust me. These days cricketers do cat walk for their Bugati Vyron & Lamborghini Huracan - from Wes Hall to Mike Holding in between Imran to Sarfraz used to work like slaves for 100 hours per/week just for their Toyota Corolla!!! Professionalism isn't measured by the amount you are paid - Johan Cruyff's annual income was less than a week's earning of CR07; it's measured by the amount of dedication you are giving to learn/master your profession. Any given day, I'll take Sunil Gavaskar as a better pro than Virat Kohli - that guy even didn't read newspaper at the start of a Test morning so that any negative comments/news doesn't distract/irritate him.
 
Cricket was much, much, much more professional in 70s & 80s trust me. These days cricketers do cat walk for their Bugati Vyron & Lamborghini Huracan - from Wes Hall to Mike Holding in between Imran to Sarfraz used to work like slaves for 100 hours per/week just for their Toyota Corolla!!! Professionalism isn't measured by the amount you are paid - Johan Cruyff's annual income was less than a week's earning of CR07; it's measured by the amount of dedication you are giving to learn/master your profession. Any given day, I'll take Sunil Gavaskar as a better pro than Virat Kohli - that guy even didn't read newspaper at the start of a Test morning so that any negative comments/news doesn't distract/irritate him.

There is no doubt that SMG was a consummate professional, but the comparison with Kohli is unfair. Kohli is a top pro too -- very dedicated. SMG was a classic Bombay player -- grew up through the system (school, club, office cricket, Ranji) and super dedicated to his cricket. Once he landed back from one of the trips overseas at 4am, and was at the stadium in time for the start of a Ranji game.

Kohli doesn't need to do this anymore because the structure of the game has changed. But in terms dedication I'd put him on par with Gavaskar and Kapil -- he's no way inferior.
 
Cricket was much, much, much more professional in 70s & 80s trust me. These days cricketers do cat walk for their Bugati Vyron & Lamborghini Huracan - from Wes Hall to Mike Holding in between Imran to Sarfraz used to work like slaves for 100 hours per/week just for their Toyota Corolla!!! Professionalism isn't measured by the amount you are paid - Johan Cruyff's annual income was less than a week's earning of CR07; it's measured by the amount of dedication you are giving to learn/master your profession. Any given day, I'll take Sunil Gavaskar as a better pro than Virat Kohli - that guy even didn't read newspaper at the start of a Test morning so that any negative comments/news doesn't distract/irritate him.

What you forget is that like any other profession people wont bother to give it a try if it doesn't offer a decent chance in hell to make a good living. While Iam grateful that these cricketers did give their best despite no hope of being paid properly but you can't possibly claim that the environment back then encouraged more people to take up cricket. More participation = More competition = Overall Better Standards.

This is what Gordon Greenidge said recently :

"For us, if we didn't play, we didn't get paid. There was no contract. So, we had to play. It didn't matter if we had game after game, consecutive games within two or three days… we would have played, we wanted to play"

That is just soo wrong on soo many levels !!

And yes I will Kohli over Sunny even on Rainy days :)
 
Show some respect.

It's not "Andy Roberts".

He's Sir Andy Roberts.

View attachment 75332

Are you serious? Who cares about the prefix?

He got his knighthood for being the first modern all-time great fast bowler.

To put it in perspective, Asia has only EVER produced two fast bowlers in the same quality level: Imran Khan and Wasim Akram.

I watched Andy Roberts at length, both for the West Indies and Hampshire.

Most of the time he was only slightly quicker than Dale Steyn bowls in Tests,operating around 140-145K. That included his "normal" bouncer, of which he bowled around three in every over.

But roughly once every two overs he threw in his fast bouncer - the one [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] described - which all of us aged over 40 agree was the fastest bouncer in history - around 155-160K.

It made him absolutely lethal until his pace started to drop after 1981-82. By the time the West Indies toured England in 1984 he mainly operated around 135-140K, but his fast bouncer was only around 145K by then, and he was less threatening.

There is a reason he makes fun of modern fast bowlers in the 85-86 mph range (137-138K).

Quite simply, he was a lot faster than the modern crop of bowlers, and he knows it.
 
While I don't recall comparing Holding to any Kumars but here is the HARD Evidence if you purely talk speed :
https://youtu.be/uRlyFVCLOr4?t=27m27s

Try to dispute that based on any other evidence that supports your view point.




Not sure what you are talking about (which 2 yrs ??) ... while I don't read all of his posts but FWIW [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] isnt a big fan of old era cricket



Yes a lot has changed ... and one biggest change is overall fitness and athleticism. You cannot deny this simple glaring fact.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283875.html

What about this?
 
He got his knighthood for being the first modern all-time great fast bowler.

To put it in perspective, Asia has only EVER produced two fast bowlers in the same quality level: Imran Khan and Wasim Akram.

I watched Andy Roberts at length, both for the West Indies and Hampshire.

Most of the time he was only slightly quicker than Dale Steyn bowls in Tests,operating around 140-145K. That included his "normal" bouncer, of which he bowled around three in every over.

But roughly once every two overs he threw in his fast bouncer - the one [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] described - which all of us aged over 40 agree was the fastest bouncer in history - around 155-160K.

It made him absolutely lethal until his pace started to drop after 1981-82. By the time the West Indies toured England in 1984 he mainly operated around 135-140K, but his fast bouncer was only around 145K by then, and he was less threatening.

There is a reason he makes fun of modern fast bowlers in the 85-86 mph range (137-138K).

Quite simply, he was a lot faster than the modern crop of bowlers, and he knows it.

Post a Video clip or it did not happen. Meawhile here is the speed of the "fastest" bouncer : https://youtu.be/uRlyFVCLOr4?t=27m27s
 

I have seen that list before ... though never seen any video clips for the first set which has ridiculous speeds. There is no logical reason to suggest that at age 27 or 28 the same Andy Roberts is measured 20+ KPH below the 1975 speed.

you can see Andy Roberts bowling in 1975 in a Test Match here in this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60vyDMSQrwI

if you think he is capable of 155Ks based on that clip there cant be a honest discussion.
 
The one simple reason why I rate last 2 - 3 decades of cricket as better than most is because of Professionalism. This one reason is the biggest reason why we see superior quality cricket contrary to what bitter old fools like Andy Roberts like to think. Andy never had to deal with a rampaging Sehwag or a Kohli or a ABD type batsmen who completely demoralize you if you get it wrong.

Are you kidding, or are you having a bad day?

Andy Roberts didn't have to deal with a "rampaging" Sehwag or Kohli.

Very true.

He had to bowl to Barry Richards in the nets from April to September, and he had to bowl to Viv Richards in the nets in his home season.

And he had to bowl to Greenidge, Fredericks, Rowe, Kallicharran and Lloyd in domestic matches.

And then he spent his summers bowling to them plus Clive Rice and Mike Procter and Peter Kirsten and Glenn Turner and Javed Miandad and Geoff Boycott and Graham Gooch and Zaheer Abbas and Majid Khan.
 
Are you kidding, or are you having a bad day?

Andy Roberts didn't have to deal with a "rampaging" Sehwag or Kohli.

Very true.

He had to bowl to Barry Richards in the nets from April to September, and he had to bowl to Viv Richards in the nets in his home season.

Haven't I done this topic to death ... you can't possibly keep exiting these threads everytime you get stuck arguing your theories and come back in a different thread weeks later and start all over again lol
 
There is no logical reason to suggest that at age 27 or 28 the same Andy Roberts is measured 20+ KPH below the 1975 speed.
There is a blindingly obvious logical reason.

The 1979 study is the inaccurate one and the 1976 and 1978 studies are accurate.

You consistently cherry pick the results from the one outlier study which places the bowlers of that era in the 135-148 range, and you ignore the two studies which place the same bowlers in the 155-161 range.

I don't even have grey hair. I'm not the generation people on this forum think I am.

I have watched all the quick bowlers from around 1974 onwards.

And I know that Holding was around Shoaib's pace, early Marshall and Clarke were a little bit quicker, and Thomson was around 10-15K quicker than Shoaib Akhtar.

I'm also well aware that Andy Roberts was measured at 159.5 and Sylvester Clarke at 162.5, which means that Shoaib was never measured to bowl as quick as Clarke was.
 
There is a blindingly obvious logical reason.

The 1979 study is the inaccurate one and the 1976 and 1978 studies are accurate.

You consistently cherry pick the results from the one outlier study which places the bowlers of that era in the 135-148 range, and you ignore the two studies which place the same bowlers in the 155-161 range.

Neither can you ... prove that scientifically. As it stands the speeds listed and the observations add up unless you think that the other video from 1975 that I posted appears to show Andy Roberts bowling at 155K+

I have also proven to you in the past how human beings are grossly unreliable when it comes to judging speeds sitting in the stands about 100 mtrs away from the action .
 
Too many dustbowl pitches - much easier to be a spinner.

They've got dustbowl pitches yet they can only produce Narine out of all those years. I wonder what the pitches in WI were like back in the day.
 
Too many dustbowl pitches - much easier to be a spinner.

Ironically Roberts used to oversee the preparation of pitches - he helped prepare the pitches in Antigua on which Lara twice scored his record scores.
 
They've got dustbowl pitches yet they can only produce Narine out of all those years. I wonder what the pitches in WI were like back in the day.

Absolute flat, but with good carry & bounce. Kingston was a bit uneven with cracks, Barbados faster with little grass on it, Guyana flat pan cake while PoS a bit dry with brown grass. Playing 5 Test there meant you have a world tour - WACA, J'burg, Mumbai, Manchester.

Now it's dog yard .....
 
Cricket is a soft sport and that's one of the reasons why it'll never take off in America & Canada cause people here like macho sports where you can be openly hostile and aggressive.
 
Cricket is a soft sport and that's one of the reasons why it'll never take off in America & Canada cause people here like macho sports where you can be openly hostile and aggressive.

Nah I don't think it's soft, it takes guts to face a ball of hard material potentially aiming for your head at 80-90 mph. More than it's the fact that it's very lengthy. Baseball is the least followed out of the big 3 in Basketball-Baseball and American Football, because it is the longest of about 3 hours while the other 2 are barely an hour long.

But who cares yaar, cricket is an elitist game anyway, I don't mind it staying between 8 big teams.
 
Are you kidding, or are you having a bad day?

Andy Roberts didn't have to deal with a "rampaging" Sehwag or Kohli.

Very true.

He had to bowl to Barry Richards in the nets from April to September, and he had to bowl to Viv Richards in the nets in his home season.

And he had to bowl to Greenidge, Fredericks, Rowe, Kallicharran and Lloyd in domestic matches.

And then he spent his summers bowling to them plus Clive Rice and Mike Procter and Peter Kirsten and Glenn Turner and Javed Miandad and Geoff Boycott and Graham Gooch and Zaheer Abbas and Majid Khan.

The Sehwags, Kohlis can rampage because they play on flat decks of today, and are so armoured that they do not risk broken arms, broken teeth and detached retinas.

It's interesting that David Gower said that Sir Andy was the toughest bowler he faced - not Marshall or Waqar.
 
The Sehwags, Kohlis can rampage because they play on flat decks of today, and are so armoured that they do not risk broken arms, broken teeth and detached retinas.

Therefore, Steyn & McGrath > Roberts/Holding/Marshall/Garner, sir or no sir.
 
Cut out the flat wickets and crucket will become interesting again... There is no better sight than watching a fast bowler bowling at full throttle.
 
While I don't recall comparing Holding to any Kumars but here is the HARD Evidence if you purely talk speed :
https://youtu.be/uRlyFVCLOr4?t=27m27s

Try to dispute that based on any other evidence that supports your view point.




Not sure what you are talking about (which 2 yrs ??) ... while I don't read all of his posts but FWIW [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] isnt a big fan of old era cricket



Yes a lot has changed ... and one biggest change is overall fitness and athleticism. You cannot deny this simple glaring fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMmKSR2Pfes
The only person I seen recent bowling bouncers this well directed was Mitch Johnson, ditto with the pace. I find it very poor as an argument and very subjective anyway trying to calculate someones speed by watching them bowl off a youtube video...there are faar too many factors and once it's 140+, the speed more or less looks the same. That doesn't mean you cannot judge speed because I remember someone claimed Imran Khan was a 150kph bowler but to me looked more or less 135kph because it was pretty clear...that doesn't mean I'll dispute it and whinge of 'oldies bias' because there may be unseen footage they've seen that we haven't where he may well bowl that fast.

I mean by 2 years when it comes to talking about 1987 to like 1990s...just looking at the careers of Marshall and Waqar where it's univerally accepted that they bowled very similar, except that Marshall bowled with that same intensity pretty much all his career...it also helped a lot that he had some amazing bowlers alongside him which helped to intensify his spells. This shows that since their careers overlapped, the biases argument doesn't have as much weight as most the people like you claim they have....then from then on his career overlapped with many other of the (un)rated pacemen of pre 90s post 70s.

A lot has indeed changed but not all of it is for the good...Many modern day people are so fixated with how well we've advanced and whatnot but I will say the controversial thing that one must understand that nutrition is at an all time worst. All foods are pumped up whatnot, GMO and etc.. You do not know what to trust, back in those days it was all organic. All in all, I think the good and bad changes cancel eachother out...the only glaring change is footage and analysing peoples footage, microscopically. The rest [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] has pretty much already said and probably better than I ever will since he's much better equipped on this topic.
 
Also to the people that say Steyn and McGrath are the greatest ever using oldies logic...no. Because while pitches have become more flatter, techniques have become more looser which therefore means the chances of a wicket may even be higher...all in all they more or less negate themselves and bowlers therefore have the same stats. There's a reason bowlers of today generally have higher strike rates (barring a few of the past legends still having higher ones), see for yourself..

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/283274.html

Note that I'm talking about post 70s.
 
Therefore, Steyn & McGrath > Roberts/Holding/Marshall/Garner, sir or no sir.

Eh? How many injuries did McG and Steyn cause in their careers? WI put half the Indian team in hospital in one match!
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMmKSR2Pfes
The only person I seen recent bowling bouncers this well directed was Mitch Johnson, ditto with the pace. I find it very poor as an argument and very subjective anyway trying to calculate someones speed by watching them bowl off a youtube video...there are faar too many factors and once it's 140+, the speed more or less looks the same. That doesn't mean you cannot judge speed because I remember someone claimed Imran Khan was a 150kph bowler but to me looked more or less 135kph because it was pretty clear...that doesn't mean I'll dispute it and whinge of 'oldies bias' because there may be unseen footage they've seen that we haven't where he may well bowl that fast.

Did you even look at the youtube video I posted ? It was from the speed bowling competition in 1979 that measured speeds of prominent fast bowlers and they are all listed in there. Sorry but I cannot take your words as evidence about Imran and others just as you will not take mine. The only impartial evidence is the video with speed measurements and I can assure you I had nothing to do with its making lol. What is your response to the speeds listed in there ?


I mean by 2 years when it comes to talking about 1987 to like 1990s...just looking at the careers of Marshall and Waqar where it's univerally accepted that they bowled very similar, except that Marshall bowled with that same intensity pretty much all his career...it also helped a lot that he had some amazing bowlers alongside him which helped to intensify his spells. This shows that since their careers overlapped, the biases argument doesn't have as much weight as most the people like you claim they have....then from then on his career overlapped with many other of the (un)rated pacemen of pre 90s post 70s.

iam hearing this for the first time that Waqar and Marshall bowled similar .... Marshall like most WI fast bowlers was a back of the length bowler whereas Waqar was a pitch it up and make it swing bowler with significantly higher speed. He could also reverse it. Their runup and actions are also very different. And I don't understand what overlapping careers has to do with Waqar's speed.


A lot has indeed changed but not all of it is for the good...Many modern day people are so fixated with how well we've advanced and whatnot but I will say the controversial thing that one must understand that nutrition is at an all time worst. All foods are pumped up whatnot, GMO and etc.. You do not know what to trust, back in those days it was all organic. All in all, I think the good and bad changes cancel eachother out...the only glaring change is footage and analysing peoples footage, microscopically. The rest [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] has pretty much already said and probably better than I ever will since he's much better equipped on this topic.

These are all your opinion and I will address them as and when you post some credible evidence from reutable sources. As it stands anyone who watched old footage can easily see the difference in athleticism by just watching the fielding.

I have responded to MMHS posts and I wait for a response. I suggest you read my responses as well and let me know if it doesnt
 
Eh? How many injuries did McG and Steyn cause in their careers? WI put half the Indian team in hospital in one match!

I have debunked this atleast twice in the past but I am pretty sure you know the main reason for those injuries - a horrible un-even pitch. But why let the ugly facts spoil the story eh?

But gotta love the puerility ... so on that note ... I would say that Steyn alone has sent more batsmen with Helmets to hospital than all of those WI fast bowlers combined. Unless you think it takes same effort to injure a helmet-less batsman.

and here is one of them --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQS4bV9UeTI
 
Did you even look at the youtube video I posted ? It was from the speed bowling competition in 1979 that measured speeds of prominent fast bowlers and they are all listed in there. Sorry but I cannot take your words as evidence about Imran and others just as you will not take mine. The only impartial evidence is the video with speed measurements and I can assure you I had nothing to do with its making lol. What is your response to the speeds listed in there ?




iam hearing this for the first time that Waqar and Marshall bowled similar .... Marshall like most WI fast bowlers was a back of the length bowler whereas Waqar was a pitch it up and make it swing bowler with significantly higher speed. He could also reverse it. Their runup and actions are also very different. And I don't understand what overlapping careers has to do with Waqar's speed.




These are all your opinion and I will address them as and when you post some credible evidence from reutable sources. As it stands anyone who watched old footage can easily see the difference in athleticism by just watching the fielding.

I have responded to MMHS posts and I wait for a response. I suggest you read my responses as well and let me know if it doesnt
You keep bringing that up, I thought the fact that other lists were provided were just enough as evidence as the ones you were showing. As Junaids said, you are cherry picking then using your opinion to support it...both the 76 and 78 study said otherwise yet one of them supports your crusade against the 70s/80s bowlers which therefore apparently makes it correct. You say that the technology then was past it however when it suits what you're claiming, then suddenly it's your go to evidence (apart from your self proclaimed expert opinion).

If you are hearing for the first time that Marshall and Waqar bowled similar then there's little point to argue. Whenever, especially on PP threads, people ever discuss Waqars peak they always compare it to Marshall as the GOAT fast bowling, albeit only for a certain period of time as opposed to an entire career. Rather than bowling types, it's usually the destructive behaviour of both bowlers which is discussed and how both bowlers were savage. The overlapping careers thing is that both of them were said to bowl at similar speeds so that if Waqar was a genuine 150kph bowler, then so was Sir Marshall.

When it comes to modern day things, a thing I completely forgot to mention was intent which I have from the beginning stated as a thing which modern day play easily trumps the 80s or so. Intent is the reason run rate etc has improved while fielding and stuff has improved. However, it doesn't in this case have relation to ability and overall fitness rather it's more to do with belief and courage. It's why Fakhar Zaman is so succesful even tho he has a flawed technique.
 
The Sehwags, Kohlis can rampage because they play on flat decks of today, and are so armoured that they do not risk broken arms, broken teeth and detached retinas.

It's interesting that David Gower said that Sir Andy was the toughest bowler he faced - not Marshall or Waqar.

I see that you conveniently ignored the link I posted in my earlier post to refute this myth ... nor did you respond ( in a different thred) about the Green Pitches myth exposed by footage from the 1981 Ashes Test at Headingley ... inconvenient facts much ?


Its pretty easy to argue like this by making unilateral statements .... which makes me wonder what the Old ERA fan brigade might have said and done if you were actually able to substantiate your tall , lush and fanciful stories thru actually verifiable footage of cricketing action. Other than name dropping and producing "Certificates of Achievements" signed by players with vested interests from that ERA you got little else in the form of evidence to back up your stories.
 
Did you even look at the youtube video I posted ? It was from the speed bowling competition in 1979 that measured speeds of prominent fast bowlers and they are all listed in there. Sorry but I cannot take your words as evidence about Imran and others just as you will not take mine. The only impartial evidence is the video with speed measurements and I can assure you I had nothing to do with its making lol. What is your response to the speeds listed in there ?




iam hearing this for the first time that Waqar and Marshall bowled similar .... Marshall like most WI fast bowlers was a back of the length bowler whereas Waqar was a pitch it up and make it swing bowler with significantly higher speed. He could also reverse it. Their runup and actions are also very different. And I don't understand what overlapping careers has to do with Waqar's speed.




These are all your opinion and I will address them as and when you post some credible evidence from reutable sources. As it stands anyone who watched old footage can easily see the difference in athleticism by just watching the fielding.

I have responded to MMHS posts and I wait for a response. I suggest you read my responses as well and let me know if it doesnt

I think, I did response your post - how much money paid is just a function of inflation & demand-supply.

I give 2 classic examples - EPL pays obnoxiously high to it's players, because of British football economy; that doesn't mean players in Dutch or Serbian league are less professional or comited. They do try to perform well to reach in EPL, so that their 10K/week wage can reach to 60K/week - but that was relatively same in 90s as well - George Weiah converted his €100,000/year wage to €1.5 million at Milan. In that regard, compared to other people around back home, top cricketers in India was earning obnoxiously high even in 60s & 70s - that was one major reason hardly any Indian played in County or went to Packer series.

2nd factor is the economy of the game - Tennis is a first world game while badminton is an East Asian dominated game. Top tennis players earns several times more than the top badminton (or Teble Tennis) players; but that doesn't mean those badminton players are less professional or comited.

Players in 70s were equally comited & professional for their TOYOTA corolla, because many of their team mates that time used to travel with bike or at most Auto .....

Kohli is the shining sun these days, so obviously you'll pick him. 10 years later, you'll write the same for next Sun. Just like, one loss to PAK, Kohli's reputation as Captain has a nose dive - it's the millenia syndrome: "instant gratification" - obsessed with present.
 
You keep bringing that up, I thought the fact that other lists were provided were just enough as evidence as the ones you were showing. As Junaids said, you are cherry picking then using your opinion to support it...both the 76 and 78 study said otherwise yet one of them supports your crusade against the 70s/80s bowlers which therefore apparently makes it correct. You say that the technology then was past it however when it suits what you're claiming, then suddenly it's your go to evidence (apart from your self proclaimed expert opinion).

I responded to [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] post ... and there is a very good reason he did not respond ... because he has no evidence in the form of a video clip to go with those fanciful speeds.

However I did post a video of Roberts bowling from 1975 in Post#54 above ... here it is again : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60vyDMSQrwI

you can see roberts bowling in the first 2 mins or so and if you think that he is bowling above 150Ks it is just ludicrous and sorry to say but there can be no honest discussion that can be had.

If you are hearing for the first time that Marshall and Waqar bowled similar then there's little point to argue. Whenever, especially on PP threads, people ever discuss Waqars peak they always compare it to Marshall as the GOAT fast bowling, albeit only for a certain period of time as opposed to an entire career. Rather than bowling types, it's usually the destructive behaviour of both bowlers which is discussed and how both bowlers were savage. The overlapping careers thing is that both of them were said to bowl at similar speeds so that if Waqar was a genuine 150kph bowler, then so was Sir Marshall.

What kind of logic is this ? Sorry but I cannot take this seriously. 2 Bowlers bowled in the same time span therefore both bowled at the same speed ? I mean WTH .

If you want to debate you must do so based on some credible verifiable evidence otherwise I could quite easily type the opposite of what you have. I am well aware of the long stories written about Marshall and other 80s bowlers. You don't have to rehash them here. I know my cricket history. Unlike you I don't buy anything unless I can verify it myself..


When it comes to modern day things, a thing I completely forgot to mention was intent which I have from the beginning stated as a thing which modern day play easily trumps the 80s or so. Intent is the reason run rate etc has improved while fielding and stuff has improved. However, it doesn't in this case have relation to ability and overall fitness rather it's more to do with belief and courage. It's why Fakhar Zaman is so succesful even tho he has a flawed technique.

it is one thing to have intent but quite another to back that up as that requires skill ... a very good example is K. Srikkanth who played in the 80s .... his motto was to go after the bowling but it worked only on few occasions ... compare that to Sehwag who had the intent + skill to really excel at that kind of attacking batting.
 
I think, I did response your post - how much money paid is just a function of inflation & demand-supply.

I give 2 classic examples - EPL pays obnoxiously high to it's players, because of British football economy; that doesn't mean players in Dutch or Serbian league are less professional or comited. They do try to perform well to reach in EPL, so that their 10K/week wage can reach to 60K/week - but that was relatively same in 90s as well - George Weiah converted his €100,000/year wage to €1.5 million at Milan. In that regard, compared to other people around back home, top cricketers in India was earning obnoxiously high even in 60s & 70s - that was one major reason hardly any Indian played in County or went to Packer series.

2nd factor is the economy of the game - Tennis is a first world game while badminton is an East Asian dominated game. Top tennis players earns several times more than the top badminton (or Teble Tennis) players; but that doesn't mean those badminton players are less professional or comited.

Players in 70s were equally comited & professional for their TOYOTA corolla, because many of their team mates that time used to travel with bike or at most Auto .....

Kohli is the shining sun these days, so obviously you'll pick him. 10 years later, you'll write the same for next Sun. Just like, one loss to PAK, Kohli's reputation as Captain has a nose dive - it's the millenia syndrome: "instant gratification" - obsessed with present.

I don't think you responded to my post#49 earlier ... but anyhow I don't see how you can compare football to cricket in the 70s and 80s ... there was no contract . Period ! And this comes straight from Gordon Greenidge. Read my post#49.

Today the BCCI has on a retainer even the FC players that offers decent pay ( and Pension!!) and a heck of a lot of opportunities in the form of playing in IPL. There is simply no comparison to this. And please remember that I am referring to the FC and lower structures. Without that layer being competitive you cannot expect a strong Test/ODI layer.
 
[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] just to be clear ... I don't think you are trying to imply that whatever the pay structure was during the 80s ( as Per Greenidge himself ... he got paid only if he played and obviously no contract what so ever ) resulted in same participation levels at the FC and lower levels ... Right ?

I would post that article but it is on Cricinfo ... but easy to locate through Gordon Greenidge's player page on CI .. scroll down to the link for articles and the first article dated Jan 2017.
 
Eh? How many injuries did McG and Steyn cause in their careers? WI put half the Indian team in hospital in one match!

They averaged 23 in the 2000s and 2010s when the odds were against them.

Which is beyond the "Sir" brigade who are whingeing about today's conditions even without taking the field.

End of story.
 
Back
Top