few months back someone made an interesting argument and no one was able to make a convincing reply
i am not sure but i think it was [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] or [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]
basically if we agree that modern batsmen have boosted averages because of flat pitches and big bats then that means that the impact has been the opposite on the modern bowlers
so if a 50 average batsman would average 35 20 years ago than that means that a 27 average bowler like anderson would be averaging 20-21 in previous era which makes him as good as the best bowlers in history like marshall,wasim,mcgrath,imran etc
similarly considering it is a batsman's era now the great bowlers of the 70s and 80s would have higher bowling averages and strike rates today
imo it is a very solid argument that bridges the gap between modern and past players and shows that the old is gold notion is a myth
[MENTION=139754]New Yorker[/MENTION]
your views?
I have made that argument a few times. It applies also to the common habit of PPers to devalue domestic performance. People are entitled to skepticism, but they should not get away with devalue domestic batsmen *and* bowlers at the same time. If it is ridiculously easy to bat then it should be fiendishly difficult to bowl.
Old is gold is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. There are too many contingencies at play to
make broad generalizations like that. Players like Sobers and Viv were extraordinary, and as of yet unsurpassed
in their skill, but that does not mean that everyone of that era was a great.
What we can observe is that for all the changes that cricket has undergone, standards, in terms of averages i both batting and bowling, have remained remarkably constant, internationally, and domestically across countries. It is incredibly rare to find batsmen who breach the 55-60 limit in any context, or bowlers who go below 20.
I don't think this argument has much to bear on Anderson's case, however. Only late in his career has Anderson
become a truly top notch bowler. He regularly averages 20 something per year these days, which means that as far as he is concerned, it has not become difficult to bowl, on the contrary. He has a high career average because of his middling performances in the years following his debut; a time when other bowlers were outperforming him by a margin of 10 points or more .Thus also giving lie to the notion that his standard was the gold standard of the time.
