Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
Yep, Very.
Even if you go one decade back to the 90s, You had four batsman who averaged in the 50s:-Gooch, Lara, Tendulkar, Waugh. Gooch played only the initial four years. So It's basically three batsman through the decade
The exceptional bowlers of that period were:- Warne, Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Donald, Waqar, McGrath and Pollock.
3 vs 8. You decide.
Spofforth, Lohmann, Barnes, Larwood, Bedser, Lindwall, Davidson, Trueman, Statham, Miller, Adcock, Hall, Mahmood, Snow, Voce, Tate, Peter Pollock to name a few (excluding the spinners, and those who 'also' played in the 80s)...
Yes, 90s was the best era for fast bowlers, followed by the 80s and the 70s...but saying that there were not many great fast bowlers before that will not be right. In fact, I would say every decade of the twentieth century produced at least as many great fast bowlers as the 2000s. Every decade has had its Steyn, if not more.
Agreed.
This whole bowlers being more rare thing or them winning matches while batsmen don't doesn't cut it for me at all.
Add to the fact that bowlers have a shorter careerspan too and i don't see any reason to beleive that they ought to have a advantage.
And the 90's example shows it and that is why the likes of Waugh ,Lara and Tendulkar were so great in that decade and Tendulkar has carried it into the next two decades too plus having a decent advantage in the 90's too.
Last edited: