• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Then and now

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I have only heard you mention your son:-O

Three wifes four kids for me:-O

Not in the class of Bill Edrich
happen not but that's still impressive - inferior protective equipment and a better bat in the old days for you I suppose (don't want to be infracted for going off topic :))
 

hang on

State Vice-Captain
interesting point about the preponderance of tv and the availability of statistical and video assessment techniques allowing bowlers to figure out batsmen. wouldn't that also work the other way? allowing batsmen to understand bowlers as well as their own technical deficiencies? perhaps less so, i suppose. the tv aspect would also play a big role in allowing kids to ape their heroes more effectively, thus allowing for an overall increase in the quality of the game, or at least its evolution. more doosra and reverse swing bowlers out there nowadays for example. different kinds of batting too, in the limited formats, at least.

regarding better protective equipment, no doubt about that one. however, i must really confess that what gets my goat a lot when commentators and writers (yep, including the more cerebral sort such as atherton) go on about how the modern batsmen would have got beaned easily by the fastmen of yesteryear. obviously their understanding of the concept of moral hazard - as applied to cricket, of course! - leaves a lot to be desired.

regarding catching, not sure about that one -- perhaps the better ones ie the chappells and hammonds are as good as any today -- but the worse ones, on average (say those of the subcontinent, for example) have certainly improved. however, the catching quality away from the slips, to my mind, has gone up quite considerably. in any event, this ties into the 'when does one start the modern era'? chestnut. after all the harpers, logies, big cats, richards, bland, randalls, sobers were pretty amazing anywhere they fielded.

taking up cudgels on behalf of them moderns (again, only for the sake of argument, mind), i think the lbw rule change and the willingness of umps to give them far more often (an effect of neutral umps along with the disfavour with which padplay is looked at these days), would perhaps be the most important factor in their favour. after all, it is almost like adding another mode of dismissal (it's a stretch, i know, but for the sake of conceptualising and illustration, i persist with this somewhat hyperbolic description) to the game. that would wipe out all the other advantages they might have over the anicents.

btw, thanks for the compliment about the thread, benchmark.
 

hang on

State Vice-Captain
wonder about the 8 ball over and the effect it had on the batsman and bowler. harder on the bowler i would imagine, especially a fast bowler.

have also wondered about the effect that the back foot noball had on fast bowling or, more appropriately, the speed at which the batsman had to play the ball. i suppose that a good, supple fastman could stretch hsi stride and drag his back foot enough to get a little closer to the batsman. perhaps a yard closer? hence would be a yard quicker....

anybody seen and tried both?
 

cnerd123

likes this
interesting point about the preponderance of tv and the availability of statistical and video assessment techniques allowing bowlers to figure out batsmen. wouldn't that also work the other way? allowing batsmen to understand bowlers as well as their own technical deficiencies? perhaps less so, i suppose. the tv aspect would also play a big role in allowing kids to ape their heroes more effectively, thus allowing for an overall increase in the quality of the game, or at least its evolution. more doosra and reverse swing bowlers out there nowadays for example. different kinds of batting too, in the limited formats, at least.
IMO it doesn't really. As a bowler you're watching the batsman from front on, seeing how he moves his feet and such, and just plot where on the pitch to land the ball to him. So transferring what you learn to the pitch isn't so hard. As a batsman, you can tell from the screen how the ball is gripped or how quick he bowls, but not from the POV you'd have when you're batting. So it doesn't transfer as easily. You don't get the same experience as facing the bowler. I supposed you could study the plans the bowler normally uses to predict what he'll do, or spot out changes in his action when he bowls a variation, but those are rare. Bowlers normally change plans per batsman and at Nat level variations are very, very well hidden.

IMO the difference cancel out, and if anything, give the edge to the past batsmen.

Current Advantages:
- Better pitches
- Better protective equipment
- Better bats
- Faster and shorter outfields
- Restrictions on short bowling (applies to all batsmen post-Bodyline)

Current Disadvantages:
- Bowlers can plan against you with footage
- Better fielding. Within in the ring to save singles or cut off fours, and much better outfielding in taking catches or saving boundaries. I think, as mentioned earlier, that slip/close in catching should be about the same. That's all reflexes and skill, not something that can be coached into someone who doesn't have it naturally.
- Better fitness and coaches; I'd argue there are more consistently fast-medium bowlers than before. Hard to tell if the fastest bowlers of the modern times are faster than those of past eras, but you have to give the modern bowlers the edge here too.
- More cricket than before, so todays players (and batsmen) need to be fitter than they were and able to adapt to more conditions and countries than past ones.



No tried bowling with back-foot noballs, but I'd figure it gives the bowler a bit of advantage. You're reducing the pitch by about a yard in length, as you said.
 

archie mac

International Coach
wonder about the 8 ball over and the effect it had on the batsman and bowler. harder on the bowler i would imagine, especially a fast bowler.

have also wondered about the effect that the back foot noball had on fast bowling or, more appropriately, the speed at which the batsman had to play the ball. i suppose that a good, supple fastman could stretch hsi stride and drag his back foot enough to get a little closer to the batsman. perhaps a yard closer? hence would be a yard quicker....

anybody seen and tried both?
Miller who played with both the 8 and six ball overs, thought 7 was a good idea:)

Good to see some new quality posters such as ***** and Hang on:cool:
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
As earlier alluded to, I don't think that the video works as much the other way. Take Mendis as an example, players still need to face him a bit before they can get their head around him, watching him on TV isn't enough.
 

bagapath

International Captain
back in those days, fielding meant running after the ball and fetching it back from the boundary. all this diving and stopping has certainly made modern day cricket more athletic.

also, i am comfortable with the two bouncers per over restriction. while hostile fast bowling always makes the game more exciting to watch, too many unreachable balls flying 10 feet above the batter make the game slower and boring beyond a point.

and, yes, i am happy batsmen wear protective gear these days. there is no point in spilling blood for a sport. however, it is sad to see the demise of the hook shot which was a necessity in the pre-helmet era to counter dangerous bouncers. i saw a lot of those in the 80s when the batters from the pre-helmet years were still playing it frequently whenever the ball was within five inches of their skulls.

now, can i please post some spreadsheet and **** up this thread?
 

hang on

State Vice-Captain
thanks, archiemac.

bagapath,

completely agree about the fielding bit.

here's my take on stats and their use on these sorts of fora: while apercus and impressions might be all very well and dandy, especially when recounted by a hoary locked cardusian figure (preferably with a dram of speyside's finest at one's side!), the use of comprehensively analysed statistics can add an immeasurable amount to a discussion about the loveliest of all - non procreation related, that is - activities. the incompetent use of statistics (ie not asking the right questions and sometimes even the purposefully obtuse use of 'filters', generally construed) is what causes threads and riffs to become completely puerile in their almost swordfight-level bravado.

i invite anyone stataway inclined to let the numbers fly in this thread. after all, i wouldn't even have known about the interesting lbw tidbit that i refer to a couple of times in this thread if it hadn't been for a couple of propeller-heads taking it upon themselves to look into the incidence of lbw pre and post neutral umps! no offence to propeller heads, was one myself in a previous avatar.

anyway, enough pomposity for now.

must see what the sobers and imran chappies have managed to come up with!
 
Last edited:

archie mac

International Coach
thanks, archiemac.

bagapath,

completely agree about the fielding bit.

here's my take on stats and their use on these sorts of fora: while apercus and impressions might be all very well and dandy, especially when recounted by a hoary locked cardusian figure (preferably with a dram of speyside's finest at one's side!), the use of comprehensively analysed statistics can add an immeasurable amount to a discussion about the loveliest of all - non procreation related, that is - activities. the incompetent use of statistics (ie not asking the right questions and sometimes even the purposefully obtuse use of 'filters', generally construed) is what causes threads and riffs to become completely puerile in their almost swordfight-level bravado.

i invite anyone stataway inclined to let the numbers fly in this thread. after all, i wouldn't even have known about the interesting lbw tidbit that i refer to a couple of times in this thread if it hadn't been for a couple of propeller-heads taking it upon themselves to look into the incidence of lbw pre and post neutral umps! no offence to propeller heads, was one myself in a previous avatar.

anyway, enough pomposity for now.

must see what the sobers and imran chappies have managed to come up with!
back in those days, fielding meant running after the ball and fetching it back from the boundary. all this diving and stopping has certainly made modern day cricket more athletic.

also, i am comfortable with the two bouncers per over restriction. while hostile fast bowling always makes the game more exciting to watch, too many unreachable balls flying 10 feet above the batter make the game slower and boring beyond a point.

and, yes, i am happy batsmen wear protective gear these days. there is no point in spilling blood for a sport. however, it is sad to see the demise of the hook shot which was a necessity in the pre-helmet era to counter dangerous bouncers. i saw a lot of those in the 80s when the batters from the pre-helmet years were still playing it frequently whenever the ball was within five inches of their skulls.

now, can i please post some spreadsheet and **** up this thread?
:laugh:

I quite like reading an interesting stat such as The Corpse with Pads was never given out LBW in Australia. It is just when people start using them to prove A was clearly better than B because his S/R was better on Sub Cont. wickets when his side won the toss during the wet season8-) sort of stuff
 

bagapath

International Captain
please dont think i was being dishonest. i have used all - i repeat, all, meaning, ALL - the filters in statsguru and posted a **** load of spreadsheets on these pages. it is just that depsite all the number crunching, at the end of the day, i still go by what i think of these players not what the spreadsheets say. because cricket is a sport, not an accounting exercise.

now.......... i dont want to continue anymore with the the theme of the month: "stats vs expert opinion".

getting back to the thread topic...

i would love to see each test playing country compelled keep one or two of their test wickets uncovered. just like the grandslams in tennis mean a lot more when they are played on different surfaces, test cricket will be more interesting if uncovered wickets are used once in every series. spin bowling will become more lethal; batsmen will have to improve their techniques. will be awesome.
 

hang on

State Vice-Captain
wasn't, at all, insinuating that u were dishonest or hypocritical!
i just wanted to clarrify my own stance on the matter and allay anyone's fears that stats related arguments were unwelcome.


(btw, i was using filters to mean the statistical analog of the operator in physics, not exactly the statsguru ones, but i understand what u mean)

the uncovering of pitches is a good idea. allowing for ball changes a little more often. say, after 60 overs might be another useful tactic.
 

Top