It wasn't because the averages drop off quite quickly.
You seem to miss the connection between batting SR and bowling Average. The more runs made (SR for batsman) off 100 balls, the higher a bowler's average will tend to be.
Now, if batsmen are taking more shots to score more runs per ball, as seems to be the necessity these days, then naturally a bowler's average will rise.
The only way a bowler can counter this is to restrict scoring or take wickets - which has it's own relationship; the more you gamble the more likely you are to take wickets but also to get hit off.
Now, in your stats you only take into account average. So you only see if they restrict runs, not if they restrict runs or take wickets or both. Bowlers nowadays not only restrict runs almost to the same extent, but their SR's are superior and this is dependent on taking wickets. So again, those stats actually say nothing about the
quality of bowlers.
It is much more on the emphasis of restricting runs and the unwillingness of previous batsmen to strike at a higher rate. The SR of both the bowlers and batsmen in this era is staring you in the face. It's the most pronounced change in the game and gives way to the other slight changes.
Again, there has been a gradual trend in that direction, which does not make sense with the sharp drop offs in averages. That trend existed in the 90s too, yet the bowlers were actually gaining the upper hand compared to the 80s.
See below post re drop in runs
Err, no. The stats I gave for the entire decade include all years. I've put the last five years because it has been worse in those five years. The decade as a whole still sticks out like a sore thumb as the worst time to be a bowler in history of Test cricket.
It doesn't matter what it sticks out to be, you should include the first 3. And anyway, if we even use that measure, bullies like
Hayden still did just as well then as now.
I mean, the assertion itself does not make any sense. In 2002 there were flat wickets, in 2001 there were flat wickets, all the way through the 90s and before there have been flat wickets. The Sub-continent has had largely dead wickets.
I mean, if your own hero McGrath is better in the 2000s than in the 90s, it should say something? What about Pollock? He does better in the 90s, where all these 'great' batsmen were supposed to have come from. Surely, the pitch isn't that effective? Otherwise, McGrath should have no peer, and difference between decades is mostly because of the pitch, which doesn't have much to do with swing anyway.
This is a different thread, the two are nominally related (and I did not mention Hayden in this thread as far as I can recall) due to the fact that Hayden and Sehwag benefit quite a bit from dead pitches. Swing is also affected by the pitch, many times the ball gets roughed up and loses its shine much faster. Also, the big exponents of swing bowling such as Wasim and people like that all retired this decade....who exactly was left that Hayden and Sehwag faced? Sehwag faced McGrath/Gillespie and couple other Aussie greats. Hayden faced...Pollock, I guess. Who else?
No, the ball gains as much, if not more shine by being hit around - again, with the batting SRs
. Also, it wouldn't explain how guys like Wasim and Imran generated the kind of swing they did on those dead pitches in Pakistan.
Also, I showed you innings where Hayden came out on lively pitches and hit Wasim around. Hit Donald and Pollock around?
There's a great difference between Sehwag and Hayden. When Sehwag hits a huge score, most usually others did too. When Hayden did, it's the norm that he is the only one.
Also, if we're talking about Hayden, then what does it matter what the average of
all bowlers are? What are the averages for all the
great bowlers of the era that played in both? Since the argument is batsmen like him have been the ones taking these advantages to the bank.
