We are witnessing the greatest era in Test cricket!

[Nikhil_cric]

Those crying about the dinosaurs of yesteryear can jump off a cliff for all I care. NZ tour of UAE, India tour of Australia, SL tour of SA and now the 2019 ashes. What an era to be alive.

 

[big_gamer007]

There is no out and out best team like of yesteryears so from fans perspective this is one of the best era.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

There is no out and out best team like of yesteryears so from fans perspective this is one of the best era.

The thing is all these high quality series have happened one after the other. Great time for test match fans.

 

[topspin]

Those crying about the dinosaurs of yesteryear can jump off a cliff for all I care. NZ tour of UAE, India tour of Australia, SL tour of SA and now the 2019 ashes. What an era to be alive.

Thank you Nikhil.

I joined PakPassion, so I wouldn't be exposed to the delusions from what I call are the "Old Era Hype Brigade".

Unfortunately there are a couple of them on here and one of them (just a few mins ago) claims Fred Trueman is superior to any other English cricketer

Like seriously you cannot compare a player from the inferior amateur era to those who've played within the last 50 years of the professional era.

 

[Markhor]

Shame Pakistan aren't contributing much to it.

Need to sack this incompetent Sarfraz and get us competing again with the best.

 

[Major]

Shame Pakistan aren't contributing much to it.

Need to sack this incompetent Sarfraz and get us competing again with the best.

Pakistan has contributed the most to it.

In the past tests in faisalabad were a joke. Inzi didnt know how to get results.

When we moved to UAE and adopted a 2 full time spinner role, we made matches damn interesting.

Matches looking as if they would draw out in 4 days and then bammm. Day 5 wicket is unplayable, you end up defending scores of 150 or 200 by attacking with 2 spinners.

Pakistan made cricket interesting by spinners. We even opened bowling with a spinner in test aswell.

 

[big_gamer007]

Shame Pakistan aren't contributing much to it.

Need to sack this incompetent Sarfraz and get us competing again with the best.

Pakistan in England last 2 times have been great series to watch for neutrals.

They play in UAE which is one of the most boring places to play test cricket. SL and WI are the only two other countries which are worse.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Thank you Nikhil.

I joined PakPassion, so I wouldn't be exposed to the delusions from what I call are the "Old Era Hype Brigade".

Unfortunately there are a couple of them on here and one of them (just a few mins ago) claims Fred Trueman is superior to any other English cricketer

Like seriously you cannot compare a player from the inferior amateur era to those who've played within the last 50 years of the professional era.

Agree completely bro. Some folks don't appreciate the present enough. They'd rather talk about how Frank Tyson bowled at 190 kph to brave gladiators who faced them sans helmets because of superior batting technique

 

[Robert]

Thank you Nikhil.

I joined PakPassion, so I wouldn't be exposed to the delusions from what I call are the "Old Era Hype Brigade".

Unfortunately there are a couple of them on here and one of them (just a few mins ago) claims Fred Trueman is superior to any other English cricketer

Like seriously you cannot compare a player from the inferior amateur era to those who've played within the last 50 years of the professional era.

Certainly superior to any England fast bowler. Truman was a professional. There were very few amateurs left by the 1950s.

The current England batting line, bar Root and Stokes is certainly the weakest ever.

 

[Robert]

Agree completely bro. Some folks don't appreciate the present enough. They'd rather talk about how Frank Tyson bowled at 190 kph to brave gladiators who faced them sans helmets because of superior batting technique

One can appreciate the present without disrespecting history.

Batters get hit a lot more often these days because helmets give them a false sense of security.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

One can appreciate the present without disrespecting history.

Batters get hit a lot more often these days because helmets give them a false sense of security.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Bowlers, on average, are bowling quicker than they have in test cricket. That's why batsmen are getting hit.

 

[topspin]

Certainly superior to any England fast bowler. Truman was a professional. There were very few amateurs left by the 1950s.

The current England batting line, bar Root and Stokes is certainly the weakest ever.

Bairstow and Buttler are also class.

The problem lies in England’s openers and Joe Denley in this batting line-up, so it’s hardly the “weakest ever”.

 

[Robert]

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Bowlers, on average, are bowling quicker than they have in test cricket. That's why batsmen are getting hit.

Disagree. There have always been bowlers quick enough to cause concussion and detached retinas and broken bones. Modern batsmen get hit more often because they don't know how to bob and weave as well as their grandfathers. They grow up playing on covered wickets with true bounce.

 

[Robert]

Bairstow and Buttler are also class.

The problem lies in England’s openers and Joe Denley in this batting line-up, so it’s hardly the “weakest ever”.

Tell me which one is weaker, then.

 

[Manunited18]

As far as test cricket goes this is the era of mediocrity with a few flash in the pan viewing, batting line ups are all average to bordering on laughable, no real match winning spinners, fast bowlers who hardly last a test match let alone a series, for me this is the weakest era of test cricket I've seen

 

[MMHS]

Won't say about the quality of the cricket, but definitely entertaining - most games are ending in direct results, lots of close games and teams are playing for a direct result rather than trying to bail out a draw. Also, decline in defensive techniques have contributed in that as well - but that probably is normalized for collective decline (That's bowling, batting, keeping & catching quality has declined as a whole making it a balanced situation).

The biggest credit I'll give to ICC big time, that they have tried their best to ensure Test matches are played for 450 overs, which has contributed to this excitement lot. Bringing technology has also helped ensuring the duration of play. In recent times, we have seen 3 exciting Test matches - 2nd & 3rd Ashes Test, and the SRL-NZ 1st Test; the 2nd one also can end in a thriller, even if it ends in draw. Under the conditions these games were completed, I can bet just about 25 years back, all 4 would have been boring draws with 3 innings played - partially for weather intervention and partially for teams (lagging behind after 1st innings), wasting time.

 

[Cricketrenew]

Disagree. There have always been bowlers quick enough to cause concussion and detached retinas and broken bones. Modern batsmen get hit more often because they don't know how to bob and weave as well as their grandfathers. They grow up playing on covered wickets with true bounce.

Agree there is no swaying out of the way with helmets batters have got lazy.
Bowlers are not bowling much faster than in history. Its just poor technique

 

[James]

In terms of quality it’s a debatable one, but purely in terms of entertainment it’s amazing at the moment.

 

[topspin]

Tell me which one is weaker, then.

After Graham Gooch, the 90s was weaker, before they found Atherton and Vaughan.

All the England batting line-ups from the amateur era were weaker as well.

 

[sweep_shot]

Greatest era in Test cricket? I strongly disagree.

Test was much more fun in the 90's and early-2000's.

I wasn't born in the 80's but I read that those days were good too.

 

[Pete Rose]

Shame Pakistan aren't contributing much to it.

Need to sack this incompetent Sarfraz and get us competing again with the best.

We are contributing to it by allowing heists like the last day by NZ vs us in UAE, and by Australia in Melbourne on the last day.

 

[Heisenberg111]

In terms of quality previous decades were better, but a lot of close matches happening these days so thats a plus.

 

[Hasan123]

This is a entertaining era of test cricket. Can’t believe people disagree with this. Also people saying it isn’t high quality are wrong lol. Stokes innings yesterday was not quality? Australia bowling against England wasn’t quality?

Loving test cricket right now.

 

[Robert]

After Graham Gooch, the 90s was weaker, before they found Atherton and Vaughan.

All the England batting line-ups from the amateur era were weaker as well.

Atherton opened with Gooch. They also had Robin Smith, Stewart and Thorpe who would walk into the current side.

When was “the amateur era” ? There have always been professional cricketers, and even the Graces of the nineteenth century found a way to get paid to play cricket despite being of independent wealth.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Atherton opened with Gooch. They also had Robin Smith, Stewart and Thorpe who would walk into the current side.

When was “the amateur era” ? There have always been professional cricketers, and even the Graces of the nineteenth century found a way to get paid to play cricket despite being of independent wealth.

Jack hobbs played his last international test when he was 48 now tell me how can a player play till age of 48 unless the bowling is of very low quality.
And thats not it, there are many other players who played till 40+, the only plausible explanation is that they faced slow pace bowlers. I dontthink anybody in modern test cricket can survive after the age of 45.

 

[James]

Jack hobbs played his last international test when he was 48 now tell me how can a player play till age of 48 unless the bowling is of very low quality.
And thats not it, there are many other players who played till 40+, the only plausible explanation is that they faced slow pace bowlers. I dontthink anybody in modern test cricket can survive after the age of 45.

Most players in the modern game would struggle to get to 40 tbh. Usually retirement comes between 34 and 39.

 

[Robert]

Jack hobbs played his last international test when he was 48 now tell me how can a player play till age of 48 unless the bowling is of very low quality.
And thats not it, there are many other players who played till 40+, the only plausible explanation is that they faced slow pace bowlers. I dontthink anybody in modern test cricket can survive after the age of 45.

Because Sir Jack was a brilliant technician rather than reliant on his eyes, at a guess. He certainly faced plenty of good spinners such as Grimmett and O’Reilly, and was the first to understand how to overcome the challenge of the newly invented swing bowling.

Close faced Roberts and Holding in tests at age 45.

Boycott carried on to age 45 facing Hadlee, Imran, Holding and Marshall for Yorkshire. His output declined but he kept hitting centuries up to his career end.

 

[topspin]

Atherton opened with Gooch. They also had Robin Smith, Stewart and Thorpe who would walk into the current side.

When was “the amateur era” ? There have always been professional cricketers, and even the Graces of the nineteenth century found a way to get paid to play cricket despite being of independent wealth.

I meant to say Trescothick and Vaughan.

The teams between Gooch's career and the arrival of the above were weaker than the current England batting line-up, as evident by the side's low rankings.

 

[topspin]

Because Sir Jack was a brilliant technician rather than reliant on his eyes, at a guess. He certainly faced plenty of good spinners such as Grimmett and O’Reilly, and was the first to understand how to overcome the challenge of the newly invented swing bowling.

Close faced Roberts and Holding in tests at age 45.

Boycott carried on to age 45 facing Hadlee, Imran, Holding and Marshall for Yorkshire. His output declined but he kept hitting centuries up to his career end.

This is where you've shot yourself in the foot. The technique shown above is clearly amateurish, even worse than a bum like Joe Denley, but somehow he's a "brilliant technician"

 

[Mamoon]

Hobbs with his 1900s technique wouldn’t even be a number 11 today. I have no doubt in my mind that Jack Leach is a vastly superior batsman than him.

However, what Hobbs achieved in his era cannot be undermined. In spite of the obviously low standard of cricket, he must have possessed certain mental and physical abilities that allowed him to tower over most of the other players of his time.

That is something that we must respect and acknowledge. Yes their techniques and bowling speeds look funny from the perspective of modern cricket, but all these players contributed to the evolution of the game.

 

[Robert]

This is where you've shot yourself in the foot. The technique shown above is clearly amateurish, even worse than a bum like Joe Denley, but somehow he's a "brilliant technician"

What you are saying here is that the Bentley V8 than won Le Mans in 1930 was technically rubbish because it is slower than modern F1 cars. Yet modern race car design is built on it. That Spitfires were terrible because the F-22 outperforms them. Yet the learnings about aerodynamics made by Mitchell was fundamental to the knowledge that helped build the F-22. That Newton was rubbish because he didn’t discover quarks and leptons. That Beethoven was rubbish because he didn’t use synthesisers and digital downloads. And so on.

No. It is you who makes a bloomer. Hobbs’ technique was clearly professional as Hobbs was a professional and the best batsman in the world at the time. He was also the first to learn how to play the devastating new googlies. He was the first to start hitting lots of fours to leg as well as off, countering the new googlies and the new inswing. All modern batting stands on his shoulders, and Ranji’s. These guys were massive in the development of how the sport is played.

 

[barah_admi]

This is where you've shot yourself in the foot. The technique shown above is clearly amateurish, even worse than a bum like Joe Denley, but somehow he's a "brilliant technician"

I'm not a fan of the oldies and am often averse to ranking players from the early 20th century too high, or even those from the later decades up till the 60s, where I believe modern cricket started to emerge. Having said that, a single video of one of the games true greats (per era), that is about 3 minutes long and is clearly designed for coaching rather than real time play does not mean that he has a bad technique. To label it amateurish is boorish to say the least.

On top of all that, batsmen with "bad" or "limited" techniques, things that are not in the textbook or pleasing to the idea does not mean that they are bad batsmen. To watch Smith is to look at someone who even struggled to maintain his stance at the crease, or to strike the ball in a text book manner but he is arguably the best test batsman on the planet. The same may be said of Border before him, or of the very limited but successful Samaraweera.

There are countless other examples.

 

[topspin]

What you are saying here is that the Bentley V8 than won Le Mans in 1930 was technically rubbish because it is slower than modern F1 cars. Yet modern race car design is built on it. That Spitfires were terrible because the F-22 outperforms them. Yet the learnings about aerodynamics made by Mitchell was fundamental to the knowledge that helped build the F-22. That Newton was rubbish because he didn’t discover quarks and leptons. That Beethoven was rubbish because he didn’t use synthesisers and digital downloads. And so on.

No. It is you who makes a bloomer. Hobbs’ technique was clearly professional as Hobbs was a professional and the best batsman in the world at the time. He was also the first to learn how to play the devastating new googlies. He was the first to start hitting lots of fours to leg as well as off, countering the new googlies and the new inswing. All modern batting stands on his shoulders, and Ranji’s. These guys were massive in the development of how the sport is played.

Clutching at straws as usual, but I do respect their contributions to cricket which has allowed the game to evolve to what it is today.

You made a claim that England's current test batting line-up is the worst ever, but that is inaccurate because the England teams from the amateur era were far inferior and that is very much is evident from the disparity of their overall technical abilities.

This is why there should be two ATG XIs, one for the amateur era and another for the modern era i.e. for the professional cricketers. However, if that is not feasible then we should disregard the former as they were far less skilled.

In England (and maybe Australia), if you don't vouch for the older era player you're viewed as the anti-establishment of the society. This has obviously been drilled into you from a very young age.

 

[Robert]

Clutching at straws as usual, but I do respect their contributions to cricket which has allowed the game to evolve to what it is today.

You made a claim that England's current test batting line-up is the worst ever, but that is inaccurate because the England teams from the amateur era were far inferior and that is very much is evident from the disparity of their overall technical abilities.

This is why there should be two ATG XIs, one for the amateur era and another for the modern era i.e. for the professional cricketers. However, if that is not feasible then we should disregard the former as they were far less skilled.

In England (and maybe Australia), if you don't vouch for the older era player you're viewed as the anti-establishment of the society. This has obviously been drilled into you from a very young age.

Hobbs was a professional.

 

[big_gamer007]

This is a entertaining era of test cricket. Can’t believe people disagree with this. Also people saying it isn’t high quality are wrong lol. Stokes innings yesterday was not quality? Australia bowling against England wasn’t quality?

Loving test cricket right now.

Nope, because it's played in 2019 and not pre 1980. So it lacks quality

 

[Amjid Javed]

Horrific Technics, most test batsmen struggle to play Spin or swing/seam with any sort of real quality.

Current era is exciting due to poor skill level of payers and standard dropping. Certainly not best era in terms of quality.

 

[Manunited18]

Horrific Technics, most test batsmen struggle to play Spin or swing/seam with any sort of real quality.

Current era is exciting due to poor skill level of payers and standard dropping. Certainly not best era in terms of quality.

100% right there

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

I am sure neutral fans would prefer watching Ashes Cricket than Bhel Puri Leagues.

 

[Manunited18]

Yep, cant beat the ashes, I've been glued to it since 87 in Australia, I grew up in north lancashire and witnessed world class test professionals in the lancashire league at our club Burnley cc

 

[Mueez]

I am sure neutral fans would prefer watching Ashes Cricket than Bhel Puri Leagues.

Bhel Puri leagues lmao )

 

[Hasan123]

Nope, because it's played in 2019 and not pre 1980. So it lacks quality

Everyone talks about how good the bowling was in those days , but yet no one talks about how fielding standards and techniques have gone up.

 

[Robert]

Horrific Technics, most test batsmen struggle to play Spin or swing/seam with any sort of real quality.

Current era is exciting due to poor skill level of payers and standard dropping. Certainly not best era in terms of quality.

This. Indians and Aussies can’t play swing. English can’t play spin or pace.

 

[Pakhs]

Only test cricket in England, SA and NZ are fun watching as the wickets and weather in countries make it unpredictable. Asian conditions its boring cricket.

 

[Dead Ball]

Horrific Technics, most test batsmen struggle to play Spin or swing/seam with any sort of real quality.

Current era is exciting due to poor skill level of payers and standard dropping. Certainly not best era in terms of quality.

Current batsmen with their horrible techniques have managed to score two of the greatest test knocks in test history over the last few months.

There is no convincing the nostalgia gang.

 

[James]

Current batsmen with their horrible techniques have managed to score two of the greatest test knocks in test history over the last few months.

There is no convincing the nostalgia gang.

Spot on

 

[tyron_woodley]

This. Indians and Aussies can’t play swing. English can’t play spin or pace.

one Aussie was enough.

 

[Robert]

Current batsmen with their horrible techniques have managed to score two of the greatest test knocks in test history over the last few months.

There is no convincing the nostalgia gang.

Well, if you are going to take a minute sample, I will argue that the last fifteen years have been rubbish because nobody has scored 400.

I presume you refer to Stokes. His technique is pretty correct but he still only averages 36 in an era of flat decks.

To whom else do you refer?

 

[Danyaalr01]

Modern day test cricket is definitely the most exciting, but it is true that technique against the short ball is not as good as it was in the 80s and this is because of helmets and not because of pace of bowlers. The pace of bowlers in the 70s and 80s was the same as now.

Batsmen don't try to get their head out the way of the ball before hitting it these days due to helmets, so if they miss it, it hits them on the head. This technique could not be used in the 80s otherwise everyone would be horribly concussed.

The bowlers of the 80s bowled on wickets which had more assistance, the good bowlers of the modern era have found ways to get wickets on more flat decks.

A cricketer of the 80s wouldn't mind a draw, but a cricketer of the 2010's wants results, that's one of the main differences. Batsmen are more attacking and that opens up opportunities for the bowlers to take wickets.

A modern team has a wider spectrum of batting types. They will always have a defensive save the test match type guy, and also the attacking batsman. Teams of the 80s had a smaller spectrum and the odd batsman would be aggressive, like Sir Viv.

Bowlers of the modern era analyse better, they look for technical flaws, plan to them and bowl accordingly. 80s bowlers would have done the same, but to a lesser extent (of course technology helps with that).

I admit the batting techniques of the time of Jack Hobbs were inferior and odd looking, but they were the foundation of modern technique, that technique was good enough to counter the bowlers of that time, they didn't need our technique and it wouldn't work on the uncovered pitches of that era.

The players of every era adapt to what is needed in that era. Modern technique wouldn't work in the 80s and the 80s technique wouldn't work now. The bowlers of the 80s would have found it difficult to cope with dead pitches. However, greats of the game have the ability to adapt to every era, every situation and all conditions.

 

[Dead Ball]

Well, if you are going to take a minute sample, I will argue that the last fifteen years have been rubbish because nobody has scored 400.

I presume you refer to Stokes. His technique is pretty correct but he still only averages 36 in an era of flat decks.

To whom else do you refer?

Or I could say pitches in West Indies are not flat enough nowadays for batsmen to score 400* on Antigua airports. That would be true, too if you have followed any tests in West Indies in recent years.

The other innings I was talking about was Kusal Perera's innings. In my opinion, that was the best innings in test history without a shadow of doubt. A chanceless fourth innings masterpiece against one of the best attacks around to win an Asian team their first ever test series in SA. Ben Stokes innings would surely be in the top 5 as well.

But of course, batsmen nowadays cant deal with swing the way batsmen with pedestrian technique of the yesteryear could.

 

[Robert]

Or I could say pitches in West Indies are not flat enough nowadays for batsmen to score 400* on Antigua airports. That would be true, too if you have followed any tests in West Indies in recent years.

The other innings I was talking about was Kusal Perera's innings. In my opinion, that was the best innings in test history without a shadow of doubt. A chanceless fourth innings masterpiece against one of the best attacks around to win an Asian team their first ever test series in SA. Ben Stokes innings would surely be in the top 5 as well.

But of course, batsmen nowadays cant deal with swing the way batsmen with pedestrian technique of the yesteryear could.

Let's stick to the point. You have a vanishingly small statistical sample to base your assertion on. Perera's innings wasn't the best in history, it is simply the best you have watched. Stokes's innings is not even in the top five of test innings I have seen and I can only go back as far as the early eighties. It might not even be in the top five England innings I have seen, though it would be in my top ten.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

India tour of Australia and now West Indies vs Pakistan. This era continues to produce some of the best test cricket ever played.

 

[MenInG]

Cant get a better Test than this

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OnThisDay?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#OnThisDay</a> in 1999. The first Test between Pakistan and India for nine years ended in Chennai. Shahid Afridi smashed 141, Sachin Tendulkar scored 136 and Saqlain Mushtaq finished with ten wickets as Pakistan won a brilliant match by 12 runs <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Cricket</a> <a href="https://t.co/GU3fwdOgxU">pic.twitter.com/GU3fwdOgxU</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@SajSadiqCricket) <a href="https://twitter.com/SajSadiqCricket/status/1488053795431014400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Greatest era of Test cricket continues. A couple of very good test knocks by Bairstow. Obviously nothing compared to Kusal Perera's knock which is the GOAT test knock but still. The quality of test cricket is unbelievable nowadays.

 

[James]

Certainly the fastest scoring era!

 

[TheSultan]

This is why you should never underestimate the skill of skittling the tail.

Modern bowlers are extremely poor at it and we get situations like this.

 

[Manunited18]

Greatest era of Test cricket continues. A couple of very good test knocks by Bairstow. Obviously nothing compared to Kusal Perera's knock which is the GOAT test knock but still. The quality of test cricket is unbelievable nowadays.

Yep. Unbelievably poor

 

[TheSultan]

Yep. Unbelievably poor

I agree - when you get average vs average you generally get a bit of extra excitement.

 

[Saj]

Yes the intent to score runs quicker is there for some teams, but is the quality really that great? I don't think so, particularly when it comes to out and out pacers.

 

[jeetu]

Cricket has been evolving sport and it will evolve further. Someone will always come add something new. Every era has produced great and dud matches. Most people tend to settle on early 70's as start of Modern cricket. But they lacked so many things that we see today like reverse swing , doosra , unorthodox batting shots etc.

The present era can only be judged atleast 10 years after.
By mid 90's people thought 80's were superior because it had 4 AR , Richards , Marshall etc.
Same in mid 2000's , people claimed 90's were best of all time as it had the likes of peak Tendulkar , Lara , W's , Donald etc.
2000's has likes of Akhtar , Lee bowling excess of 95mph.

 

[Robert]

Certainly the fastest scoring era!

The best fielding out fielding era too, though England have the worst catching side I ever saw.

I’d say England’s strongest era was the fifties,

West Indies 1976-94,

Pakistan’s the eighties,

NZ’s the eighties (when Hadlee was their only professional player at one point, until Crowe got his Somerset job)

India’s the nineties,

Australia’s 1993-2006.

 

[Mamoon]

This is why you should never underestimate the skill of skittling the tail.

Modern bowlers are extremely poor at it and we get situations like this.

Modern tail-enders are better batsmen and ball-tampering is done with caution now.

Wasim and Waqar would get suspended every series in today’s era. What Pakistan did in the 1992 series in England is something no team can get away with today.

Bowlers in the 80s and 90s had it much easier than contemporary bowlers.

 

[TheSultan]

Modern tail-enders are better batsmen and ball-tampering is done with caution now.

Wasim and Waqar would get suspended every series in today’s era. What Pakistan did in the 1992 series in England is something no team can get away with today.

Bowlers in the 80s and 90s had it much easier than contemporary bowlers.

Oh yes I forgot the 1990s were played in black n white with a solitary camera.

 

[Mamoon]

Oh yes I forgot the 1990s were played in black n white with a solitary camera.

Teams got away with a lot more in the 80s and 90s. Waqar made a career out of ball-tampering. His real prime was 89-93, and the type of balls that he bowled with would not last more than one session today because the umpires would have them replaced.

The likes of Wahab, Shaheen and Junaid would also wreak havoc bowling with those balls under Imran’s captaincy to tail-enders who could barely hold a bat.

Unlike Wasim and Imran, Waqar was poor with the new, tampering-free ball and it wasn’t until 2000-2001 that he finally learned how to swing the new ball.

Both Wasim and Imran were huge beneficiaries of tampering the ball with bottle caps but they also had exceptional new ball skills.

Bowling in today’s era is much more difficult - it is funny how people downplay the achievements of modern batsmen because of flatter pitches, shorter boundaries, bigger bats, greater scrutiny on ball conditioning and generally more favorable rules but do not extend the same logic to bowlers of the previous eras who had the luxury of not fighting against these rules and conditions.

 

[Robert]

Modern tail-enders are better batsmen and ball-tampering is done with caution now.

Wasim and Waqar would get suspended every series in today’s era. What Pakistan did in the 1992 series in England is something no team can get away with today.

Bowlers in the 80s and 90s had it much easier than contemporary bowlers.

I broadly agree.

In 1992 we saw a certain Pakistani bowler gouging the ball in close-up. I will never forget Benaud’s squawk of “Corr, steady on!” He was not sanctioned. He would be banned for that today.

Modern tailenders have got good armour. In 1980 nobody wore helmets. Then helmets with no face guards came in. The first grilled helmet I saw was worn by Derek Pringle in 1984.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

India’s the nineties,

Australia’s 1993-2006.

Nineties? India was a terrible side.

 

[TheSultan]

Teams got away with a lot more in the 80s and 90s. Waqar made a career out of ball-tampering. His real prime was 89-93, and the type of balls that he bowled with would not last more than one session today because the umpires would have them replaced.

The likes of Wahab, Shaheen and Junaid would also wreak havoc bowling with those balls under ImranÂ’s captaincy to tail-enders who could barely hold a bat.

Unlike Wasim and Imran, Waqar was poor with the new, tampering-free ball and it wasnÂ’t until 2000-2001 that he finally learned how to swing the new ball.

Both Wasim and Imran were huge beneficiaries of tampering the ball with bottle caps but they also had exceptional new ball skills.

Bowling in todayÂ’s era is much more difficult - it is funny how people downplay the achievements of modern batsmen because of flatter pitches, shorter boundaries, bigger bats, greater scrutiny on ball conditioning and generally more favorable rules but do not extend the same logic to bowlers of the previous eras who had the luxury of not fighting against these rules and conditions.

Let me give you a history lesson son.

1992 5th test second innings - Waqar ripped out alec stewart, atherton, gooch and Gower with a newish ball. There was no reverse swing with those dismissals.

1992 ODI at Lord’s - the ball was changed at the insistence of Allan Lamb because he believed Pakistan were tampering. The match was in the balance. Umpires changed the ball and watched like hawks for the rest of the match. What happened? Waqar cleaned up.

Robin Smith admitted they suspected Pakistan were tampering so they did the same - guess what, no reverse swing.

So this myth that all they required was a tampered ball is a load of rubbish.

The other thing is Pakistan were the most scrutinised team out there. Now the umpires could be blind sided by someone tampering discreetly but they still changed the ball if they felt itÂ’s condition had been sufficiently altered. 99% of the time they didn’t change the ball.

So your allegation that balls would be replaced these days is incorrect. They would have been replaced then too.

Ball tampering has been going on for donkeys years and it still goes on. It might be slightly easier to police these days but it comes to the point that has the ball been tampered with to the extent that it gives an unfair advantage to the bowling side.

Believe me if it had - they would have replaced the ball. It might have been hushed up why (as was the case in the 1992 odi at lord’s) but it would have been replaced.

So in essence whether tampering took place or not is hard to prove. But it is clear to see on the ball if it amounts to an unfair advantage.

The umpires didn’t change the ball for all those bucketful of wickets Waqar took. And you cant do anything about. No amount of moaning, whining and crying is going to change that.

And your comment about bottle tops is tantamount to libel (mods take note) because there is absolutely no footage of Wasim, Waqar or Aqib using a bottle top. And if I was them I would sue anyone that alleged that. You can probably rest in peace because you are a nobody who is a great keyboard warrior but harmless otherwise.

I will address your baby era argument in another post.

 

[TheSultan]

I broadly agree.

In 1992 we saw a certain Pakistani bowler gouging the ball in close-up. I will never forget Benaud’s squawk of “Corr, steady on!” He was not sanctioned. He would be banned for that today.

Modern tailenders have got good armour. In 1980 nobody wore helmets. Then helmets with no face guards came in. The first grilled helmet I saw was worn by Derek Pringle in 1984.

The cor steady on comment was about Aqib - nobody did anything about it, that’s true. However this just proves that in the 90s the footage was good enough to pick these things up. Whether someone did anything about it is another thing.

And the point comes down to the ball. The umpires clearly felt even if Aqib did something that the ball was ok to play with.

 

[TheSultan]

Bowling in today’s era is much more difficult - it is funny how people downplay the achievements of modern batsmen because of flatter pitches, shorter boundaries, bigger bats, greater scrutiny on ball conditioning and generally more favorable rules but do not extend the same logic to bowlers of the previous eras who had the luxury of not fighting against these rules and conditions.

You forgot the biggest problem. The batsmen aren’t as good so it cancels everything out.

Now I can make that comment because I’ve seen both those eras. You cannot because you are a kid.

 

[TheSultan]

About bowling to the tail. It’s a skill and it doesn’t involve reverse swing.

Wasim gave a great explanation of how to bowl to the tail in 2016 on the verdict when Charles colvile or Bob Willis asked him why are England finding it so hard to dislodge the pak tail. Wasim gave his explanation about mixing up the bumpers, Yorkers and generally making the tail feel uncomfortable. If you bowl good corridor line and length, the tailenders aren’t bothered by it because they don’t feel any danger and they are not good enough to nick it.

Next day, Broad removed the tail using exactly the approach that wasim explained the night before. Bob even joked “looks like Stuart broad was fully tuned in to last night’s show”!

 

[Robert]

Nineties? India was a terrible side.

Tendulkar, Sidhu, Dravid, Ganguly, Azhar, Kambli, Manjrekar, Kumble, Hirwani, VVS, Srinath?

 

[Mamoon]

You forgot the biggest problem. The batsmen aren’t as good so it cancels everything out.

Now I can make that comment because I’ve seen both those eras. You cannot because you are a kid.

You could have saved your word salad, this was sufficient. Somehow, batting, bowling, fielding, umpiring, curating as well catering during lunch and tea breaks have gone downhill over the years.

Everything was better in my time, says every old man suffering from dementia, nostalgia and an emotional attachment with his childhood. I don’t blame you though - it is human nature. We are all inclined to be attached to things that we grew up with, they are fond memories.

In 2050s, we will hear a lot about how the standard of cricket was better in the 2020s. Regarding bowling to tail-enders, well Wasim did not provide any groundbreaking insight. It is called common sense - if a nagging line is not working, mix it up. Make them try something else.

Yasir Shah dismissed Shannon Gabriel of the last ball in the 2017 series by enticing him to go for an expansive shot even though there was no need to.

Tail-enders don’t have discipline but they like to score runs, and tempting them is an effective strategy. Wasim has a low percentage of top-order wickets compared to the best bowlers of his time.

Perhaps he focused more on getting proper batsmen out than cleaning up the tail, he would have helped Pakistan cricket to greater heights, perhaps a series win in Australia as well.

Pakistan cricket was strife with ball-tampering and Sarfaraz, Imran, Wasim and Waqar were deeply involved in this practice. If you want to deny all the evidence and call it libel while laboring under the delusions that they squeaky clean, well that is your choice.

Did it happen amongst other teams? Yes of course, but they were less successful and full credit goes to our bowlers for doing better than others but when you are comparing them to modern bowlers who cannot get away with so much, you cannot ignore this factor.

Unfortunately, this is the fallacy that people fall into - they will use so and so reasons to downplay modern batsmen but when you question them why they are not applying so and so reasons to bowlers of the previous era, they start clutching at straws which you have also demonstrated.

They cannot file charges against these claims because they know they are guilty. Imran has admitted to ball-tampering himself and don’t worry about me, I am not a public figure, but Asif publicly stated (not long ago) that Waqar bowled with doctored balls and didn’t know how to ball with a clean ball earlier in his career.

It was a factual statement by a bowler who left an insignificant name compared to Waqar but was a much better Test bowler nonetheless. Waqar never replied to his allegations, and we are talking about an egoistic man who has picked up fights for less. He didn’t reply because he knew Asif was right.

Perhaps this is why he has been such a deplorable coach, he cannot figure out what do with proper balls. Give him the type of bowlers that helped bowl those banana yorkers and I’m sure he will be able to teach a lot of things to our fast bowlers.

 

[TheSultan]

You could have saved your word salad, this was sufficient. Somehow, batting, bowling, fielding, umpiring, curating as well catering during lunch and tea breaks have gone downhill over the years.

Everything was better in my time, says every old man suffering from dementia, nostalgia and an emotional attachment with his childhood. I don’t blame you though - it is human nature. We are all inclined to be attached to things that we grew up with, they are fond memories.

In 2050s, we will hear a lot about how the standard of cricket was better in the 2020s. Regarding bowling to tail-enders, well Wasim did not provide any groundbreaking insight. It is called common sense - if a nagging line is not working, mix it up. Make them try something else.

Yasir Shah dismissed Shannon Gabriel of the last ball in the 2017 series by enticing him to go for an expansive shot even though there was no need to.

Tail-enders don’t have discipline but they like to score runs, and tempting them is an effective strategy. Wasim has a low percentage of top-order wickets compared to the best bowlers of his time.

Perhaps he focused more on getting proper batsmen out than cleaning up the tail, he would have helped Pakistan cricket to greater heights, perhaps a series win in Australia as well.

Pakistan cricket was strife with ball-tampering and Sarfaraz, Imran, Wasim and Waqar were deeply involved in this practice. If you want to deny all the evidence and call it libel while laboring under the delusions that they squeaky clean, well that is your choice.

Did it happen amongst other teams? Yes of course, but they were less successful and full credit goes to our bowlers for doing better than others but when you are comparing them to modern bowlers who cannot get away with so much, you cannot ignore this factor.

Unfortunately, this is the fallacy that people fall into - they will use so and so reasons to downplay modern batsmen but when you question them why they are not applying so and so reasons to bowlers of the previous era, they start clutching at straws which you have also demonstrated.

They cannot file charges against these claims because they know they are guilty. Imran has admitted to ball-tampering himself and don’t worry about me, I am not a public figure, but Asif publicly stated (not long ago) that Waqar bowled with doctored balls and didn’t know how to ball with a clean ball earlier in his career.

It was a factual statement by a bowler who left an insignificant name compared to Waqar but was a much better Test bowler nonetheless. Waqar never replied to his allegations, and we are talking about an egoistic man who has picked up fights for less. He didn’t reply because he knew Asif was right.

Perhaps this is why he has been such a deplorable coach, he cannot figure out what do with proper balls. Give him the type of bowlers that helped bowl those banana yorkers and I’m sure he will be able to teach a lot of things to our fast bowlers.

You still have no qualification to comment on past players because you never watched the previous generation live. You didn’t watch the deliveries that are not on highlight reels, you didnt watch the subtlety of batsmen manoeuvring the field, you didn’t watch strategy.

I don’t comment on the Sobers, 3 Ws, Hanif mohammed generation because of the same reasons.

I don’t think it is any secret that bowlers the world over have tampered with the ball and they do. They do whatever they can get away with these days too. As I’ve said over and over again it’s about the condition of the ball. Watch Don Oslear talk about a ball that was cut to pieces which points to an unfair advantage. A normal tampered ball is not much different to a non tampered ball.

The banana swing was down to pace not the condition of the ball. This is exactly what Miandad meant that England were beaten by pace not swing. This is why Imran Khan laughed off Manjrekar talking about Irfan Pathan’s 80mph reverse swing. It is pointless. And the reality is the current bowlers are just not quick enough. Even Wasim as skillfull as he was swinging it both ways never really l got the true banana swing that Waqar or shoaib did even though he bowled with the same ball. Again it’s about pace not the ball.

But you wouldn’t look in to that because for you it’s all about straw man arguments that will get you some attention.

Waqar was a one trick pony early in his career. Yup he was - it was a great trick though because of the skill he had as well as his action and speed. It got the wickets and it was great viewing.

Waqar yes extremely poor coach and captain. Why is a myself. The irony is that he didn’t actually concentrate on his strength which was bowling fast Yorkers. He discouraged bowlers from bowling Yorkers and tried to teach them what he learned late in his career. So you are right about him being a poor coach but your analysis of it is pretty poor too.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

If only the sanctions of consistent ** posting on this forum were as harsh as on ball tempering, a lot of people would think 10 times before going on their verbal diarrhea.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Tendulkar, Sidhu, Dravid, Ganguly, Azhar, Kambli, Manjrekar, Kumble, Hirwani, VVS, Srinath?

Only SRT and Azhar would get into our current side. Dravid and VVS played their best cricket in the 00's.