I think the differences in the quality of bowling is overblown as well. I'd say the current England bowling attack (when fit) is better than the attack of the 90s. Similarly Sri Lanka has never been harder to bat against. Kiwis' attack has improved slightly form the 90s IMO. I say lightly as Bond is rarely fit.
Really only Pakistan and West Indies have suffered the greatest setbacks in their respective bowling departments. India weren't really a big force in the 90s and they aren't today. So was the bowling quality of the 90s THAT much greater than the bowling attacks today?
Good point. Let's not forget South Africa, whose attack at the moment I would say is not much worse than the one they had in the 90's when Donald was running around. Ntini is quite a magnificent bowler, and Pollock is an all-time great. Surely the 2 of them together equate Donald at the very least?
No way. SA and England were both way better in the 1990s than they are now.
Donald, de Villiers, Matthews, Schultz (briefly), Pollock, McMillan, Klusener (briefly), Kallis (for a time) > virtually any attack they've had since 2001\02. Ntini is not a quite magnificent bowler, he's just a pretty good one, and Pollock bowled better in 2006\07 than he had for about 6 years before that.
Donald in himself was a better bowler than anyone they've had since the time of his retirement (Pollock at that time was probably roughly equal).
As for England... cripes, we've had
two reliable bowlers in the last 3 years, Hoggard and Flintoff, and neither of them have been World-beaters even. There's been the odd other flash in the pan (Harmison in early 2004, Jones in summer 2005, Kirtley and Bicknell in a couple of games in 2003) which has been over a few games after it started, and there have been some bowlers (Mahmood, Plunkett, Harmison for the most part) who have done what had previously seemed almost unthinkable: made the makeweights of the 1990s (be it Williams, Reeve, Munton, Taylor, Ilott, McCague, Benjamin, Martin, Ealham, Brown, Flintoff or Giddins) look pretty decent.
And if you compare the genuine-article bowlers of the 1990s (Fraser, Gough, Caddick, Cork, Headley, White, Tudor briefly) to those of the 2000s... it's a no-contest. All those bowlers at their best are better than Hoggard, and their best has been seen more regularly than Flintoff (whose is equal if not superior to most of the aforementioned)'s best has been seen.
The Lankans' seamers might have a bit more to offer, in Laaasith Maaalinga, than ever before; and the Kiwis might have (occasionally) in Bond a bowler they've not had for a while, but let's not forget that the pre-injury Simon Doull wasn't too far behind Bond.
And in Doull, Nash and Cairns (when fit in all cases) NZ had a better attack than they've had pretty well any time in the 2000s. Only Bond-Franklin-Oram (in favourable conditions only) would even remotely compare methinks, and I don't even know if that attack has ever got on the park.
