Why are the past players glorified so much?

[Smudger]

It gets really really annoying when bowlers today are called inferior to bowlers of the past. Past bowlers had so many advantages of today's bowlers. Examples include less cameras to catch ball tempering, batsmen not wearing protective gear, defensive batting, bouncer rule. There were so many dibbly dobbly bowler who use to complete their quota more often then not.

Batsmen too were overrated for batting well in a bowling era. Now a days a batters achivements are played down by saying that they play in batting friendly era but infact its probably the best era for bowling and test cricket is as exciting as it has ever been.

In the past the bowlers were never really attacked which was one of the reasons they dominated. Wasim and Waqar could'nt perform against the attacking aussie batters. One more important factor is that keepers were tailenders and tailenders did'nt knew how to hold a bat.

Now keepers are often excellent batters and almost all bowlers can bat a bit. According to me the quality of cricket is the best it has eveer especially when you consider that batsmen and bowlers are scrutinized with the help of analysis so literally a player must pass test of time to come out on top

 

[someone21]

Good post. I think main reason is first mover advantage, and the general belief that old is gold. (Nostalgia?)

Thus, likes of Sachin who was the first global superstar from India, which results in his god-like image. Even when Kohli and many other players today have better technique, numbers than him...

 

[Ab Fan]

Attacking game has improved. Back in the 80s and before, if I bowl three overpitched deliveries, I would get away with a couple of those. In current era, even Azhar Ali will smash each of them for boundaries.

However, at a same time, defense game has weakened. Good bowl will give wickets more often today than it would back in 70s and 80s and before. Bad bowl will get thrashed more often today than it was in previous era. Bowl tampering was definitely a big advantage back in those days with less cameras and CCTVs to spot them. Nowadays, the game has tilted towards batsmen's favour, more so in ODIs.

 

[jaisan]

Good post. I think main reason is first mover advantage, and the general belief that old is gold. (Nostalgia?)

Thus, likes of Sachin who was the first global superstar from India, which results in his god-like image. Even when Kohli and many other players today have better technique, numbers than him...

Kohli does not have better technique than Tendulkar, only better Fitness.

 

[Smudger]

Kohli does not have better technique than Tendulkar, only better Fitness.

How can you prove that? Sachin was Anderson's bunny

 

[jaisan]

How can you prove that? Sachin was Anderson's bunny

According to ppers kohli is amir s bunny who is not even a fifth a bowler than Andersen is.

 

[Smudger]

According to ppers kohli is amir s bunny who is not even a fifth a bowler than Andersen is.

This does'nt prove anything. Sachin was also Hansie's bunny who was part timer

 

[Titan24]

When in doubt how good someone from the past was, a simple thing is to compare him to other players of that time.

When someone is a lot better than his contemporaries in any era he becomes a great. The factors you have talked about were same for their contemporaries as well but not everyone became an ATG in every era because the difference in skillset and thus stats was pretty visible.

 

[Shams123]

Same as the way past is glorified. We humans have tendancy to forget the dull and negative features of the past and only remember the good times. One common thing about the people who glorify the past players, is that career wise they were at their peak and that period was the best of their life.

 

[ammar_merry]

This does'nt prove anything. Sachin was also Hansie's bunny who was part timer

Sachin made warne look like zampa.Kohli makes zampa look like warne.What does that prove?

 

[therealAB]

This thread is going to be fun.

Can you name some players you consider to be glorified so we can discuss them [MENTION=145909]Smudger[/MENTION]. Looking at past footage for me shows how the game today is quite similar to how it is had been in the past, shown by stuff like the speed recordings of the late 70's, which were using proven valid equipment that had the bowlers bowling at a similar pace to todays players.

 

[Shams123]

Based on whatever the footage I have seen of that time, bowling hasnt changed much. But the batting has improved a lot. The techinique have become more robust. The shots have increased. And the batters have become easier on the eye. The old video shows batters playing shots without feet movement, getting stuck on the crease and losing their wickets only because of sheer pace. Although there are exceptions like sir viv.

 

[Robert]

I would say batting standards have collapsed since the nineties, except a few such as Kohli and Smith.

Only the great bowlers of the past such as Lillee and Marshall are lauded, not Madan Lal and Sikhander Bakt.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Nostalgia and looking at the past through rose -tinted specs. A lot of it is also perspective. Eg - the pace of fast bowlers. Johnson bowled pretty much exactly the same pace in the 2013 ODI series vs India as he did in the subsequent Ashes but we tend to remember the Ashes for his hostility and pace because of the effect it had on the English batsmen. //ly, Posters who watched cricket in the 70's and 80's assume the owlers then were the fastest because the batsmen were hurried by the bowlers of the time.

 

[someone21]

If anything, today's cricket, shows how poorly, under-performed were those 90s greats and earlier. They never played to their max potential, and rather looked for their own individual scores. Started with a defense mindset, bad fitness and commitment towards the game.

The past batsman were scared/nervous of the bowlers and that's being weak.

 

[sweep_shot]

Past players were better in terms of quality.

Modern day players (with some exceptions) are mostly T20 mercenaries.

 

[Robert]

Nostalgia and looking at the past through rose -tinted specs. A lot of it is also perspective. Eg - the pace of fast bowlers. Johnson bowled pretty much exactly the same pace in the 2013 ODI series vs India as he did in the subsequent Ashes but we tend to remember the Ashes for his hostility and pace because of the effect it had on the English batsmen. //ly, Posters who watched cricket in the 70's and 80's assume the owlers then were the fastest because the batsmen were hurried by the bowlers of the time.

No. He bowled that quick in 2010 when England piled up huge scores, but was all over the place and got picked off.

I watched the 1984 Lord’s test extended highlights during lockdown - Marshall was electric, as fast as I remember.

 

[King_Kohli]

Sachin made warne look like zampa.Kohli makes zampa look like warne.What does that prove?

Not just Sachin, every other Indian batsmen like Ganguly, Sidhu, Dravid and Lakshman were good against Warne. What does that prove?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

No. He bowled that quick in 2010 when England piled up huge scores, but was all over the place and got picked off.

I watched the 1984 Lord’s test extended highlights during lockdown - Marshall was electric, as fast as I remember.

Weren't you the one who said pace was qualitative and a fast delivery is one that unsettles a set batsman or something along those lines?

 

[Robert]

Weren't you the one who said pace was qualitative and a fast delivery is one that unsettles a set batsman or something along those lines?

That was Trevor Bailey’s definition. What of it?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

That was Trevor Bailey’s definition. What of it?

Because something pace is objective and can be quantified and there's nothing qualitative about it.

 

[shaz619]

The past is overly glorified, from that time has there ever been a fast bowler who made the batsman wet themselves ? I highly doubt it [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

 

[therealAB]

The past is overly glorified, from that time has there ever been a fast bowler who made the batsman wet themselves ? I highly doubt it [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

Heard of Thommo?

 

[jaisan]

This does'nt prove anything. Sachin was also Hansie's bunny who was part timer

Inzi was bigger bunny of you know who.

 

[Robert]

Because something pace is objective and can be quantified and there's nothing qualitative about it.

So what do you call fast? I bet David Gower, who had some idea where the ball was going before it left the bowler’s hand, had a different definition of fast than, say, Phil Tufnell.

Which suggests that pace has a qualific aspect.

 

[Robert]

The past is overly glorified, from that time has there ever been a fast bowler who made the batsman wet themselves ? I highly doubt it [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

Sure there have, certainly since Larwood, certainly since Gregory in 1920, and perhaps even back to Kortright. There have always been bowlers capable of breaking bones.

 

[Junaids]

It’s because 20 and 50 over cricket has destroyed batting techniques.

A player like Kane Williamson has as much skill as Martin Crowe did, but is half the batsman because he is incapable of leaving alone balls outside off-stump. White ball cricket has ruined his judgment.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

So what do you call fast? I bet David Gower, who had some idea where the ball was going before it left the bowler’s hand, had a different definition of fast than, say, Phil Tufnell.

Which suggests that pace has a qualific aspect.

No,it does not. A 138 kph length delivery is exactly what is. Just because gower plays it well and tufnell reacts to it late does not make it any slower or faster.

I would say someone who maintains a career average pace ~138 kph can be considered fast . The most effective bowlers of the 2010's average around that . Steyn for the majority of his career, Starc, Johnson , Cummins, Shannon gabriel , wahab riaz- these are the guys who were genuinely quick the last decade and could maintain it over a decent sample size. Bumrah over a slightly smaller sample. And then guys like hazlewood, shami etc who were a touch slower were quite effective too

 

[Saj]

Batting-wise there are a number of very good batsmen in the current era, as there have been in the past.

I grew up in a golden era where Imran, Botham, Kapil and Hadlee were at their peak. I'm not sure if there will ever be such an era again.

Also there are some good pacers these days, but again growing up watching the great Windies pacers, the 2 Ws, the great Aussie bowling line-up was just something else.

 

[Indiafan]

How can you prove that? Sachin was Anderson's bunny

You cannot judge based on someone career in their last couple of years. Peak sachin never had any problems with swing and was averaging 60s in England

You are comparing peak kohli to Sachins last.tour

 

[angrypathan]

It’s because 20 and 50 over cricket has destroyed batting techniques.

A player like Kane Williamson has as much skill as Martin Crowe did, but is half the batsman because he is incapable of leaving alone balls outside off-stump. White ball cricket has ruined his judgment.

Agree with the overall sentiment, but Kane Williamson is an awful example of it. 1 poor tour of Australia does not demonstrate a destruction of his almost impeccable technique.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

It’s because 20 and 50 over cricket has destroyed batting techniques.

A player like Kane Williamson has as much skill as Martin Crowe did, but is half the batsman because he is incapable of leaving alone balls outside off-stump. White ball cricket has ruined his judgment.

Nah...I would say that even though Martin Crowe dedicated his whole career to test cricket and county he wasn't able to average 50 in test cricket .
Even though kane Williamson plays all formats he still averages better than Crowe in tests,it clearly shows that Crowe was an inferior batsman to willamson and will always live under his shadow as the second greatest NZ batsman.

 

[Robert]

Nah...I would say that even though Martin Crowe dedicated his whole career to test cricket and county he wasn't able to average 50 in test cricket .
Even though kane Williamson plays all formats he still averages better than Crowe in tests,it clearly shows that Crowe was an inferior batsman to willamson and will always live under his shadow as the second greatest NZ batsman.

Williamson didn't face fast bowling of the quality Crowe did.

Moreover NZ wickets are easier that they used to be, since the climate started to change.

 

[Ab Fan]

Pre-70, the quality of cricket was mediocre. Post 70s, it has been good.

 

[Robert]

No,it does not. A 138 kph length delivery is exactly what is. Just because gower plays it well and tufnell reacts to it late does not make it any slower or faster.

I would say someone who maintains a career average pace ~138 kph can be considered fast . The most effective bowlers of the 2010's average around that . Steyn for the majority of his career, Starc, Johnson , Cummins, Shannon gabriel , wahab riaz- these are the guys who were genuinely quick the last decade and could maintain it over a decent sample size. Bumrah over a slightly smaller sample. And then guys like hazlewood, shami etc who were a touch slower were quite effective too

But the perception is it is not. I don't believe that 138 kph would hurry David Gower if he was well set on a good wicket. He would be seeing a football lolloping towards him. So I think I'll stick with the word of Bailey, who after all faced Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Davidson, Trueman, Statham and Tyson.

 

[PakPremi]

When in doubt how good someone from the past was, a simple thing is to compare him to other players of that time.

When someone is a lot better than his contemporaries in any era he becomes a great. The factors you have talked about were same for their contemporaries as well but not everyone became an ATG in every era because the difference in skillset and thus stats was pretty visible.

My views exactly and it very much ends the debate. Also nowdays there is also more video analysis available to workout a batsman or a bowler. Fitness is also superior.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

But the perception is it is not. I don't believe that 138 kph would hurry David Gower if he was well set on a good wicket. He would be seeing a football lolloping towards him. So I think I'll stick with the word of Bailey, who after all faced Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Davidson, Trueman, Statham and Tyson.

You will keep arguing in cricles about this. Bowlers were fast because they hurried the likes of Gower and batsmen were better because they had to face high quality pace bowling. You can take all the obsolete defintions of pace and belive them all you want, but do you have any proof that bowlers actually bowled at a high pace throughout their careers or in all spells the way a mitchell starc has done? Starc averages around 143 kph across his career. do you have any data to back this? If not it would just be a "he said, she said". And you're memories(or any other viewers' memories of that era) are not good enough.

Your perception of a bowlers' pace will always be based on how a batsman reacts to the ball. I have seen a peak Tendulkar drive a 155 kph Shoaib Akhtar length ball for four and a past it Tendulkar get hurried by a 133 kph inswinger by Anderson. If there were no speedgun readings, it is very easy to claim that Anderson is quicker than Akhtar. So, again perception as a viewer is problematic.

You can''t take Trevor bailey's word for it unless he has faced modern bowlers on the same wickets and then done a comparison.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Williamson didn't face fast bowling of the quality Crowe did.

Moreover NZ wickets are easier that they used to be, since the climate started to change.

Another excuse,,,so when we say the same about old batsman like Hobbs,Hutton,Bradman you come up with the logic that a great player in one era would be great in another,why does it not apply to kane Williamson.
Also next time apply the same logic for bowlers too,the current crop takes wkts on flat pitches while those in 70s 80s benefitted highly due to tough conditions,bouncer limits and batsman wearing less protection.

 

[Robert]

Another excuse,,,so when we say the same about old batsman like Hobbs,Hutton,Bradman you come up with the logic that a great player in one era would be great in another,why does it not apply to kane Williamson.
Also next time apply the same logic for bowlers too,the current crop takes wkts on flat pitches while those in 70s 80s benefitted highly due to tough conditions,bouncer limits and batsman wearing less protection.

I didn't say Williamson wasn't a great player, I said he wasn't better than Crowe because Crowe faced better bowlers.

NZ used to be a seamer's paradise and now it isn't so Williamson is playing half his matches on easier wichets than Crowe.

The "current crop" take wickets because batsmen's techniques have been ruined by T20.

 

[Robert]

You will keep arguing in cricles about this. Bowlers were fast because they hurried the likes of Gower and batsmen were better because they had to face high quality pace bowling. You can take all the obsolete defintions of pace and belive them all you want, but do you have any proof that bowlers actually bowled at a high pace throughout their careers or in all spells the way a mitchell starc has done? Starc averages around 143 kph across his career. do you have any data to back this? If not it would just be a "he said, she said". And you're memories(or any other viewers' memories of that era) are not good enough.

Your perception of a bowlers' pace will always be based on how a batsman reacts to the ball. I have seen a peak Tendulkar drive a 155 kph Shoaib Akhtar length ball for four and a past it Tendulkar get hurried by a 133 kph inswinger by Anderson.

So you seem to be arguing that pace is based on perception not just velocity. Exactly my point.

If there were no speedgun readings, it is very easy to claim that Anderson is quicker than Akhtar. So, again perception as a viewer is problematic.

You can''t take Trevor bailey's word for it unless he has faced modern bowlers on the same wickets and then done a comparison.

I'm talking about the batsman's perception, not that of people watching on TV.

I find Bailey credible. He was discussing the difference between a sharpish medium pace and a fast bowler. Consider Sir Richard Hadlee. He looked FM from the television but the batters considered him fast because he could hurry them when they were set.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

So you seem to be arguing that pace is based on perception not just velocity. Exactly my point.



I'm talking about the batsman's perception, not that of people watching on TV.

I find Bailey credible. He was discussing the difference between a sharpish medium pace and a fast bowler. Consider Sir Richard Hadlee. He looked FM from the television but the batters considered him fast because he could hurry them when they were set.

No that is not my point at all. My point was Akhtar is quicker regardless.

You claimed that Johnson bowled the same pace in 2010 as he did in 2013 and that he was just wayaward back then. Both series had speedguns for pretty much every ball and Johnson bowled around 7kph higher on average. the fact is, you don't even remember what the difference in speeds were for the 2 series that hapened 7-10 years ago despite video evidence and speed readings for the same. In others, your memory can't be trusted. pray, do tell why anyone should believe yours or anybody's memories from over 35 years ago with no corresponding readings at all?

 

[Robert]

It gets really really annoying when bowlers today are called inferior to bowlers of the past. Past bowlers had so many advantages of today's bowlers. Examples include less cameras to catch ball tempering, batsmen not wearing protective gear, defensive batting, bouncer rule. There were so many dibbly dobbly bowler who use to complete their quota more often then not.

Batsmen too were overrated for batting well in a bowling era. Now a days a batters achivements are played down by saying that they play in batting friendly era but infact its probably the best era for bowling and test cricket is as exciting as it has ever been.

In the past the bowlers were never really attacked which was one of the reasons they dominated. Wasim and Waqar could'nt perform against the attacking aussie batters. One more important factor is that keepers were tailenders and tailenders did'nt knew how to hold a bat.

Now keepers are often excellent batters and almost all bowlers can bat a bit. According to me the quality of cricket is the best it has eveer especially when you consider that batsmen and bowlers are scrutinized with the help of analysis so literally a player must pass test of time to come out on top

Yes, but at the expense of keeping skills. You don't see anyone as good as Alan Knott and Bob Taylor now, the keeping skills have been sacrificed to get more batting stength in. The last excellent keeper IMO was Jack Rchards in the nineties. That guy's hands moved faster than thought when he stood up.

The quality of fielding is certainly the best ever.

Batting techniques are mostly poorer now and a lot of batters do not have the ability to concentrate all day, as it's all about hitting for twenty or fifty overs. They leave huge gates between bat and pad. Looking at Burns I cannot understand how he can score test fifties - he must have a brilliant eye because the defensive technique isn't there.

Bowling speeds are about the same as 25 years ago.

 

[Robert]

No that is not my point at all. My point was Akhtar is quicker regardless.

You claimed that Johnson bowled the same pace in 2010 as he did in 2013 and that he was just wayaward back then. Both series had speedguns for pretty much every ball and Johnson bowled around 7kph higher on average. the fact is, you don't even remember what the difference in speeds were for the 2 series that hapened 7-10 years ago despite video evidence and speed readings for the same. In others, your memory can't be trusted. pray, do tell why anyone should believe yours or anybody's memories from over 35 years ago with no corresponding readings at all?

Assuming you didn't just make that up in your head, 7 kph isn't much difference, the difference was that Johnson got into a deeper trance, got line and length right in 2013 instead of spraying it and giving the batters a four-ball every over like in 2010.

Because Bailey did it.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Assuming you didn't just make that up in your head, 7 kph isn't much difference, the difference was that Johnson got into a deeper trance, got line and length right in 2013 instead of spraying it and giving the batters a four-ball every over like in 2010.

Because Bailey did it.

I didn't just make that up. you can watch his spell at perth in 2010/11 and Johnson in the ashes 2013/14. & 7 kph average speed is not much of a difference? Lol. Are you serious? It's the difference between someone who bowls at Jimmy anderson pace and Pat Cummins' pace. That is a massive difference

 

[tyron_woodley]

It gets really really annoying when bowlers today are called inferior to bowlers of the past. Past bowlers had so many advantages of today's bowlers. Examples include less cameras to catch ball tempering, batsmen not wearing protective gear, defensive batting, bouncer rule. There were so many dibbly dobbly bowler who use to complete their quota more often then not.

Batsmen too were overrated for batting well in a bowling era. Now a days a batters achivements are played down by saying that they play in batting friendly era but infact its probably the best era for bowling and test cricket is as exciting as it has ever been.

In the past the bowlers were never really attacked which was one of the reasons they dominated. Wasim and Waqar could'nt perform against the attacking aussie batters. One more important factor is that keepers were tailenders and tailenders did'nt knew how to hold a bat.

Now keepers are often excellent batters and almost all bowlers can bat a bit. According to me the quality of cricket is the best it has eveer especially when you consider that batsmen and bowlers are scrutinized with the help of analysis so literally a player must pass test of time to come out on top

nostalgia mainly.

inability to accept the truth
era comparisons are utterly pointless. different rules and regultions.

I have made myself clear on quite a few occasions about how much impact technology, advanced science regarding nutrition and training methods have played in shaping the modern game. Technology always evolves. IT doesn't backtrack.

Some posters would argue and claim that a bowler from 80s like Jeff Thompson bowled a 160 k ball on a supposedly better speed measuring device of 80s which somehow happens to be more accurate than the modern speed guns in the eyes of these nostalgic fans.

 

[Junaids]

You can''t take Trevor bailey's word for it unless he has faced modern bowlers on the same wickets and then done a comparison.

The problem is that youngsters always forget that there have always been - and always will be - players who straddle the generations. Ask [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] .

John Edrich and Brian Close played against Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith in the early 1960's and Lillee, Thomson, Holding and Roberts in the mid-1970's. They can compare their pace and skill.

Martin Crowe and Viv Richards played against Imran Khan in the early 1980's and Waqar Younis in the early 1990's.

Sachin Tendulkar played against Marshall and Imran from the 1980s, Allan Donald, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis in the 1990s and even Dale Steyn and Mitchell Johnson in the late 2000's.

It therefore becomes extremely easy to compare players across neighbouring generations.

And when you listen to these people - as opposed to people who only care for the present - they all say the same things:

1. Modern batsmen are much better at hitting sixes, but much worse at defending their wicket. Even really good batsmen like Williamson, Warner and Smith have major technical difficulties.

2. Modern fast bowlers are much less side-on, and tend to have excessively muscular upper bodies. This means that they can reach the speeds that the likes of Trueman and Hall and Griffith and Roberts reached, but very few can actually bowl outswing because they cannot get side-on without causing damage to their spine.

3. The fitness of specialist batsmen has improved massively and the fielding of almost everyone has improved.

4. The fitness of fast bowlers is significantly worse than in earlier generations. This is because cricket training regimes are generally designed by Australian exercise physiologists who are trained to be familiar with rugby league and rugby union (and to a lesser extent Australian football) fitness paradigms, which target upper body strength and not repetitive actions like bowling.

It is clear that the fitness regime - and diet - of Imran Khan and Andy Roberts in 1980 was more conducive to fast bowling without stress fractures than modern regimes. In fact, the regime of Fred Trueman in the mid-1950's was superior to modern fast bowling "science".

This should surprise nobody.

To be frank, the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic is an action replay of the 1919 Spanish Flu pandemic.

The countries which are doing well - Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, China, Uruguay - are the ones which implement the lessons of 1919: quarantine, isolation, contact tracing and keeping closed borders.

The countries which are doing badly - the UK, USA et al - are the ones which think they can reopen safely without first implementing the lessons learned in 1919. They think that the lessons of the past are obsolete and that they have a century more of wisdom, but they don't!

The comedy side of this is that Western Samoa and American Samoa went through the same dichotomy in 1919: can you succumb to the lobbying of big business and open up without first controlling an outbreak? And the end result in 1919 was exactly the same as the UK and US are learning to their cost in 2020.

Cricket is just the same as influenza pandemics. The lessons of the past still apply and will always apply. And if you try to reinvent the wheel you tend to end up repeating the errors of the past.

 

[therealAB]

POTW [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION].
Is this how I do it?

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

The problem is that youngsters always forget that there have always been - and always will be - players who straddle the generations. Ask [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] .

John Edrich and Brian Close played against Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith in the early 1960's and Lillee, Thomson, Holding and Roberts in the mid-1970's. They can compare their pace and skill.

Martin Crowe and Viv Richards played against Imran Khan in the early 1980's and Waqar Younis in the early 1990's.

Sachin Tendulkar played against Marshall and Imran from the 1980s, Allan Donald, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis in the 1990s and even Dale Steyn and Mitchell Johnson in the late 2000's.

It therefore becomes extremely easy to compare players across neighbouring generations.

And when you listen to these people - as opposed to people who only care for the present - they all say the same things:

1. Modern batsmen are much better at hitting sixes, but much worse at defending their wicket. Even really good batsmen like Williamson, Warner and Smith have major technical difficulties.

2. Modern fast bowlers are much less side-on, and tend to have excessively muscular upper bodies. This means that they can reach the speeds that the likes of Trueman and Hall and Griffith and Roberts reached, but very few can actually bowl outswing because they cannot get side-on without causing damage to their spine.

3. The fitness of specialist batsmen has improved massively and the fielding of almost everyone has improved.

4. The fitness of fast bowlers is significantly worse than in earlier generations. This is because cricket training regimes are generally designed by Australian exercise physiologists who are trained to be familiar with rugby league and rugby union (and to a lesser extent Australian football) fitness paradigms, which target upper body strength and not repetitive actions like bowling.

It is clear that the fitness regime - and diet - of Imran Khan and Andy Roberts in 1980 was more conducive to fast bowling without stress fractures than modern regimes. In fact, the regime of Fred Trueman in the mid-1950's was superior to modern fast bowling "science".

This should surprise nobody.

To be frank, the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic is an action replay of the 1919 Spanish Flu pandemic.

The countries which are doing well - Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, China, Uruguay - are the ones which implement the lessons of 1919: quarantine, isolation, contact tracing and keeping closed borders.

The countries which are doing badly - the UK, USA et al - are the ones which think they can reopen safely without first implementing the lessons learned in 1919. They think that the lessons of the past are obsolete and that they have a century more of wisdom, but they don't!

The comedy side of this is that Western Samoa and American Samoa went through the same dichotomy in 1919: can you succumb to the lobbying of big business and open up without first controlling an outbreak? And the end result in 1919 was exactly the same as the UK and US are learning to their cost in 2020.

Cricket is just the same as influenza pandemics. The lessons of the past still apply and will always apply. And if you try to reinvent the wheel you tend to end up repeating the errors of the past.

1. The more you attack, the more will there be weaknesses in defence. That's the way batting works.

2. Bowlers of today play 3 formats. They are fitter/stronger. There is just too many games in modern cricket compared to the old times. Bowlers from the old era had it easy as there wasn't any bouncer rule, no protective gear for the batsman & no balls weren't debited to bowlers account. Guys like Michael Holding & Jeff Thompson who relied only on pace to bully the batsman wont cut it in todays era. Even a great Bowler like Wasim would find it difficult & have to adjust in this era as he had a bad habit of bowling no balls.

3. Overall fitness of the game has improved. Fielding was atrocious back in the day.

Imran Khan, Andy Roberts or Fred trueman never played the amount of games modern bowlers play. they never played 3 formats of the game. The amount of game played today is just too much.
It's also naive to dismiss the science behind modern fitness. A modern athlete with better scientific information would always have a better fitness regime compared to an athlete of the 50's

 

[Robert]

Imran Khan, Andy Roberts or Fred trueman never played the amount of games modern bowlers play. they never played 3 formats of the game. The amount of game played today is just too much.

Again, this reveals ignorance of history. Trueman was expected to play a very high number of games for Yorkshire as well as five tests.

Then when he went in tour he would bowl in a series of tour matches against strong local opposition, not a couple of warmup games against makeweights like modern players do.

But because he got fit for bowling by bowling, instead of strength training, and had a superb side-on action so didn’t break down.

It’s true that he was not expected to chase the ball to the boundary and slide to stop it. He would stand at leg slip. But the number of overs he bowled in an English summer or on a tour would flabbergast modern bowlers.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Again, this reveals ignorance of history. Trueman was expected to play a very high number of games for Yorkshire as well as five tests.

Then when he went in tour he would bowl in a series of tour matches against strong local opposition, not a couple of warmup games against makeweights like modern players do.

But because he got fit for bowling by bowling, instead of strength training, and had a superb side-on action so didn’t break down.

It’s true that he was not expected to chase the ball to the boundary and slide to stop it. He would stand at leg slip. But the number of overs he bowled in an English summer or on a tour would flabbergast modern bowlers.

modern players have to play thei or local domestic first class competitions along with odi, test cricket, t20 and franchise t20s. So yea modern players play more.

 

[Junaids]

modern players have to play thei or local domestic first class competitions along with odi, test cricket, t20 and franchise t20s. So yea modern players play more.

I'm flabbergasted by this claim.

Fred Trueman played 603 First Class matches and took 2304 First Class wickets at 18.29.

Dale Steyn even if you add together every format of the game has played 141 First Class games (including Tests), 180 List A matches (including ODIs) and 220 T20 matches.

That adds up to 541 matches, the majority of them far shorter than the ones that Trueman played in. Which is why Steyn has taken 1158 wickets.

Steyn has had as long a career as Trueman. But he has only taken half as many wickets and bowled half as many overs as Trueman did.

 

[tyron_woodley]

I'm flabbergasted by this claim.

Fred Trueman played 603 First Class matches and took 2304 First Class wickets at 18.29.

Dale Steyn even if you add together every format of the game has played 141 First Class games (including Tests), 180 List A matches (including ODIs) and 220 T20 matches.

That adds up to 541 matches, the majority of them far shorter than the ones that Trueman played in. Which is why Steyn has taken 1158 wickets.

Steyn has had as long a career as Trueman. But he has only taken half as many wickets and bowled half as many overs as Trueman did.

playing different formats is actually much harder to adapt to. So what steyn did is far more impressive.

I don't care about Truman's performances in those seam friendly pitches. Steyn had to kill himself in various types of pitches especially on roads etc.

 

[Robert]

I'm flabbergasted by this claim.

Fred Trueman played 603 First Class matches and took 2304 First Class wickets at 18.29.

Dale Steyn even if you add together every format of the game has played 141 First Class games (including Tests), 180 List A matches (including ODIs) and 220 T20 matches.

That adds up to 541 matches, the majority of them far shorter than the ones that Trueman played in. Which is why Steyn has taken 1158 wickets.

Steyn has had as long a career as Trueman. But he has only taken half as many wickets and bowled half as many overs as Trueman did.

Of course, and if you work out overs bowled I bet Steyn had less than half the career workload that Trueman shouldered.

 

[therealAB]

playing different formats is actually much harder to adapt to. So what steyn did is far more impressive.

I don't care about Truman's performances in those seam friendly pitches. Steyn had to kill himself in various types of pitches especially on roads etc.

So Trueman never bowled on roads?
Te pitches of his era were notoriously flat and slow, being in the era of low strike rates where Trueman was the only exception

 

[therealAB]

playing different formats is actually much harder to adapt to. So what steyn did is far more impressive.

I don't care about Truman's performances in those seam friendly pitches. Steyn had to kill himself in various types of pitches especially on roads etc.

Also, son you agree Trueman had a greater worklad

 

[tyron_woodley]

So Trueman never bowled on roads?
Te pitches of his era were notoriously flat and slow, being in the era of low strike rates where Trueman was the only exception

trueman played first class cricket in county. He dint play as many in I international cricket.

County isn't international cricket and the standard isn't the same.

Besides t20, odi are all international formats. Much harder to excel in all 3 different formats especially when the competition is a lot tougher. Not to mention world cups, champions trophies etc.

 

[Robert]

So Trueman never bowled on roads?
Te pitches of his era were notoriously flat and slow, being in the era of low strike rates where Trueman was the only exception

He bowled on roads, fliers, seamers, stickies and dustbowls and that was just in England.

The level of ignorance of cricket history is sad to read in this place. All you have to do is open a few books to start to become more enlightened.

 

[tyron_woodley]

He bowled on roads, fliers, seamers, stickies and dustbowls and that was just in England.

The level of ignorance of cricket history is sad to read in this place. All you have to do is open a few books to start to become more enlightened.

It's county..... County isn't the benchmark for the international game.
It's just similar to every other first class competition.

 

[therealAB]

He bowled on roads, fliers, seamers, stickies and dustbowls and that was just in England.

The level of ignorance of cricket history is sad to read in this place. All you have to do is open a few books to start to become more enlightened.

This was in direct response to Mr Woodley, who seemed to indicate that there were no roads. I was purely disputing this claim

 

[therealAB]

It's county..... County isn't the benchmark for the international game.
It's just similar to every other first class competition.

County cricket was a very high quality, as almost all top international players would play. Imagine the comparison between IPL and Country cricket, except county was of significantly higher standard comparatively to the international forms

 

[Robert]

This was in direct response to Mr Woodley, who seemed to indicate that there were no roads. I was purely disputing this claim

I read you right, I was reinforcing your point.

 

[Robert]

County cricket was a very high quality, as almost all top international players would play. Imagine the comparison between IPL and Country cricket, except county was of significantly higher standard comparatively to the international forms

Sure. There were guys like Maurice Tate who were as good as Anderson and Broad but couldn’t get an England game. The County game was far stronger then, as the feed system was stronger with every school playing instead of a few like today, and furious competition in the Yorks and Lancs Leagues.

 

[Zaz]

There some real ignorance about workloads by some younger posters on here

i grew up in the 90s The best bowlers then were not only expected to play 8-10 tests and 20-25 odis a year but also a couple of dozen county games during the summer and 3-5 warm up games per test series

Bowlers hardly bowl as much as they use to back then

 

[Junaids]

The numbers are out there.

You can combine all three forms of the game, and combine the careers of Dale Steyn - still active at 36 - and Fred Trueman.

Dale Steyn: 40,910 balls bowled, 1,158 wickets.
Fred Trueman: 100,687 balls bowled, 2,332 wickets.

Anybody who claims that modern bowlers have a higher workload than the bowlers of previous generations is simply ignorant and wrong.

 

[Junaids]

A good comparison is John Snow - active from the late 1960's to the late 1970's - and Jimmy Anderson, who is still active at almost 38. Across all formats.

John Snow: 69,840 balls bowled, 1425 wickets.
Jimmy Anderson: 64,193 balls bowled, 1361 wickets.

So even the most active modern bowlers like Steyn and Anderson have still bowled fewer overs than the fast bowlers of yesteryear.

On that topic, let's not forget to compare Imran Khan.....with Waqar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar.

Imran Khan: 84,336 balls bowled, 1,794 wickets.
Waqar Younis: 59,149 balls bowled, 1,635 wickets.
Shoaib Akhtar: 33,937 balls bowled, 849 wickets.

Mitchell Starc (already aged 30): 27,040 balls bowled, 568 wickets.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

The numbers are out there.

You can combine all three forms of the game, and combine the careers of Dale Steyn - still active at 36 - and Fred Trueman.

Dale Steyn: 40,910 balls bowled, 1,158 wickets.
Fred Trueman: 100,687 balls bowled, 2,332 wickets.

Anybody who claims that modern bowlers have a higher workload than the bowlers of previous generations is simply ignorant and wrong.

Conveniently did not include the balls steyn has bowled in international and domestic 50 over and T20 matches

 

[Junaids]

Conveniently did not include the balls steyn has bowled in international and domestic 50 over and T20 matches

Yes I did - those numbers were for all forms of the game combined.

Trueman:
First Class including Tests - 99,701 deliveries
Limited Overs - 986 deliveries
TOTAL 100,687 balls delivered in cricket matches by Fred Trueman

Steyn:
First Class including Tests - 27,183 deliveries
50 overs including ODI - 8,844 deliveries
T20 including T20i - 5,499 deliveries
TOTAL 40,910 balls delivered in cricket matches by Dale Steyn.

Dale Steyn is 36 years old, and has only had 40% of the workload in his career compared with Trueman.

 

[Junaids]

In fact, Steyn has only

1. Bowled 49% of the balls that Imran Khan bowled,
2. Bowled 69% of what Waqar Younis bowled and
3. Bowled 20% more balls than even the meagre amount of deliveries that Shoaib Akhtar bowled!

I wouldn't mind, but Steyn wasn't as quick as Waqar or even Imran, and after the age of 31 he could barely last a couple of Tests without breaking down.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Yes I did - those numbers were for all forms of the game combined.

Trueman:
First Class including Tests - 99,701 deliveries
Limited Overs - 986 deliveries
TOTAL 100,687 balls delivered in cricket matches by Fred Trueman

Steyn:
First Class including Tests - 27,183 deliveries
50 overs including ODI - 8,844 deliveries
T20 including T20i - 5,499 deliveries
TOTAL 40,910 balls delivered in cricket matches by Dale Steyn.

Dale Steyn is 36 years old, and has only had 40% of the workload in his career compared with Trueman.

My apologies you were right. But then we will have to agree that Dennis Lillee was overrated as well considering thst the likes of Walsh and Wasim had much higher workloads compared to Lillee.