How about Kumble bowling on a wet track?
Even the sound of it makes me gulp.
How about Kumble bowling on a wet track?
Even the sound of it makes me gulp.
Diuretics are used to look good at TV shows
I played for 20 years in the Lankan team, I did not have any problems as a Tamil - Muralidaran
We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
A cricket supporter forever
Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.
Check out this awesome e-fed:
Hayden actually was someone I was supposed to say as well, good point.
"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."
Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.
I think batsmen of the past, even if they faced better attacks on the whole, it wasn't as if they were always up against 4 ATGs with no respite.. there probably were a few weak links even in those attacks that could be targeted. People sometimes seem to forget that.
But i disagree with this thread. Since as i always say on CW there is large section who subscribes to PEWS theory of:
Which i & others (memembers who no longer are on CW these days) disagree & have argued to the death. While many others as the responses to this thread indicates ATWA PEWS notion. Quite obviously who believe that aren't going to change (at least on this site), nor will people like myself who subcribe to the complete opposite, since a start ideological gridlock has developed with this matter & no middle-ground can be found at least on this site.Originally Posted by quote
This is not true at least for the truly great bowlers. At least not for the truly great bowlers.
For example not because McGrath averaged 20 witht he ball in this FTB era, means his average means more than Imran, Marhsall, Hadlee, Ambrose, Donald, Lillee who played in era of more helpul pitches. All of those bowlers had unique skills to to bowl on flat pitches too & if they had to bowl on the roads of the last 10 years i dont see why they wouldn't have had equal success like McGrath.
But as i said, this has been argued before & it is going around in circles again. I expect the calvary to come in to call this "era bias" or of something of the sort in a few..
What I disagree with though is picking out someone like Sehwag and saying he'd suffer a much larger average drop in another era than someone like Dravid, and using it to make a case for Dravid being better the batsman. Firstly I don't think it's necessarily true, but more importantly, even if it is correct, I just find the whole concept completely and utterly irrelevant to a batsman's quality. Sehwag and Dravid honestly don't give a **** how they'd do in different eras and neither do the bowlers bowling to them, the selectors that pick them or the punters who bet on them. They've both done their best to adapt their techniques to the conditions and the bowlers they face today, not to satisfy the whim and fancy of people like us who want to compare them to Greg Chappell.
It is possible to compare players between eras, but the only way to do it with any real context is to compare players' output relative to their contemporaries. Guessing who'd do well in different eras based on technique is admittedly quite an interesting theoretical conversation but IMO it shouldn't really have a baring on how highly we rate the players in question.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 21-10-2010 at 02:49 PM.
I think the point that people have completely ignored here is not that players are a product of their own generation etc. Yes I am all for players having techniques that suit the style of pitches on which they routinely play during their generation and it is unfair to compare them to previous generations. However, the point about FTBs is a valid one.
To explain this let me use an example from Tennis. Lets say we have 2 hypothetical players and lets call them 'Federer' and 'Nadal'. Federer goes through tournaments beating all inferior opponents 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 etc to reach the final. Nadal on the other hand gets through to the final winning some games in 4 sets and being really tested throughout the tournament. Yet when they get to the final, Nadal wins in 5 sets and maintains an overall favorable win-loss record against Federer. Should we subscribe to the notion that Federer is better simply because he managed to completely obliterate all those inferiors who never had a chance against them while Nadal couldn't do the same? Or should we say that Nadal is superior because in the greatest of adversities and against the very best he usually comes out on top?
I think I would go for Nadal on that one. I think this analogy can be used in cricket. Matthew Hayden for example bullied every single mediocre bowling attack he could find in unprecedented fashion. And yet when he came up against a strong pace bowling outfit in bowler friendly conditions (such as in the 2 Ashes series in England) the guy could barely lay bat on ball. No matter how much we try to ignore them, seamer friendly conditions still exist in cricket and anyone who cant score runs in those conditions needs to have his record looked at under the microscope. When I look at a player like Thorpe, who IMO is one of the most criminally underrated cricketers from the last 2 decades, I will always consider him to be a better player than Hayden. I couldn't care less if Hayden averages 50+, when he was put in unfavorable conditions, he was not even half the batsman as Thorpe was.
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
EXACTLYYYYYYY. TEC this is why you have been by main man of this site for the start. Although Hayden did correct those deficiences post Ashes 05.
People making it sound when defending modern day FTBs of the 2000s era, when the whole "products of their generation" argument. Like if seamer friendly condtions/pitches of the 90s, 70s TOTALLY disappered in the 2000s era, thus you cant compare how they would have done if they played in the past. Which is the crazy part of that logic.
Last edited by aussie; 21-10-2010 at 03:01 PM.
But the not so great bowlers, the merely good ones, like Mitchell Johnson etc I believe would average several runs less in previous eras. Dale Steyn and Shane Bond would be what they are in any era, but if you transplanted say, Richard Collinge to this day and age he wouldn't be averaging 29.
It's not really that I don't think we can make some vague guesses as to how players would go in different eras based on their techniques and how they've gone in certain circumstances during their careers - I just think it means diddly squat. In today's age, a batsman who ruthlessly cashes in moderate to flat pitches with extreme regularity and fails once every three years when a juicy pitch appears is a lot more useful than the batsman who averages 40 everywhere - and that's what it's all about to me: how useful you are in your own time. Batting success in the 21st century so far has been based around clinical efficiency, ruthlessness, concentration and consistency, because while difficult batting conditions do still exist, they're almost so rare as to make them basically irrelevant.
If none of your batsmen can really cash in on moderate to flat pitches, you're going to lose a lot of games on moderate to flat pitches in the 21st century because they're common as muck - piling on mammoth runs with clinical efficiency and consistency is just a more important skill these days than being able to battle it out on a greentop. How players playing today would've gone in the 80s, while an interesting topic, means nothing to me as far as judging their quality goes - it's all about how useful they are now compared to their contemporaries and the so-called "flat track bullies" are more useful than the Thorpes of the world at present.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 21-10-2010 at 03:58 PM.
I do think however, that the case of a juicy pitch showing up is more than every 3 years. We're seeing it with enough frequency to suggest that players need to be at least somewhat competent on them. I dont deny that FTBs are in fashion and that players like Trescothick, Hayden, Gayle etc were/are quite valuable to their team. However, the fact of the matter is that these players also tend to go missing when their team is in troubled waters. Ask me any day of the week and I'd pick a player like Laxman or Thorpe over Hayden despite the trade off for the extra runs on flat pitches. Because the fact that these players are liabilities in certain conditions basically takes the sheen away from their overall record.
Also, lets please not turn this into a Hayden-specific debate, because I think this thread could be really good if we don't. Whether or not his performances in India in adverse batting conditions make up for his failings in England in adverse batting conditions of a different nature really misses the point of the thread completely.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)