Between September 2001 and the day of this post...

[Craig]

Is this the month of comebacks or what? Zinzan with his execellent avatar, Manju will love it tbh. Hingston and Voltman return along with 16tos and so does Fraz.

 

[Son Of Coco]

September 2001 is regardded by Richard as the time that bowling standards began to decline.

It can't be a coincidence...AQ must have something to do with it.

 

[Matt79]

"We'll flatten out their pitches so that the plight of their bowlers will remind them of the plight of the righteous around the world, muwhahaahhahahaa"

 

[Perm]

It can't be a coincidence...AQ must have something to do with it.

AQ?

 

[Perm]

And by universal consensus, 5 rank as amongst the greatest bowlers in history (Murali, McGrath,Warne, Pollock and Kumble).

Obviously a very strong period for cricket when you consider that batsman have managed to prosper in the face of such quality

On the other hand, it could be argued that the 80s was a period of dire batting because virtually no batsman did anything of note

I think you'll find there aren't too many people who would rank Pollock and Kumble as two of the greatest bowlers in history. The other three, definitely, but not those two. Very fine bowlers though.

The bowlers you listed number just five, when there could be 36+ bowlers on the international stage at any stage, and when we've seen the likes of Ian O'Brien and Sajid Mahmood play, it's hardly been a period of great quality bowling.

If you're seriously going to try and argue that there was dire batting in the 1980's then I'd question your intelligence TBH. The 1980's was the era of possibly the finest fast bowling ever, and plenty of good batsmen too.

 

[social]

I think you'll find there aren't too many people who would rank Pollock and Kumble as two of the greatest bowlers in history. The other three, definitely, but not those two. Very fine bowlers though.

The bowlers you listed number just five, when there could be 36+ bowlers on the international stage at any stage, and when we've seen the likes of Ian O'Brien and Sajid Mahmood play, it's hardly been a period of great quality bowling.

If you're seriously going to try and argue that there was dire batting in the 1980's then I'd question your intelligence TBH. The 1980's was the era of possibly the finest fast bowling ever, and plenty of good batsmen too.

Sorry but Pollock has taken 400 wickets @ just over 20 in supposedly the most batting friendly era in history - if that's not an all-time great then no-one qualifies

Kumble's record (Warne and Murali aside) is sensational as well.

The problem with Richard's "logic" is that he attempts to demean the quality of the batsmen by making reference to bowling records

Well, try this on of size, in the 80s every man and his dog averaged under 30 with the ball

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...wling_average.html?class=1;id=198;type=decade

Whilst only 6 (including Taylor who owes his record to feasting on a totally incompetent Eng in '89) averaged over 50

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...wling_average.html?class=1;id=198;type=decade

That being the case, if one were to make the same deduction as Richard has re the 2000s, I could simply say "bowling wasnt great, rather batting was poor" and that is the problem with basing your entire analysis on stats

The reality is that the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

[Ikki]

Gotta agree with Social in whole, and particularly that Kumble and Pollock are all-time great bowlers.

 

[Beleg]

Thirding social. Specially regarding Pollock and Kumble.

 

[Matt79]

Fourthing him tbh. He neatly expressed my thoughts of the possibility of the 80s/90s being the abberration rather than the norm much more neatly than I was able to.

 

[NUFAN]

Well, try this on of size, in the 80s every man and his dog averaged under 30 with the ball

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...wling_average.html?class=1;id=198;type=decade

Whilst only 6 (including Taylor who owes his record to feasting on a totally incompetent Eng in '89) averaged over 50

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...wling_average.html?class=1;id=198;type=decade

Both links are bowling stats.

But yeah I agree with social.

The thing is though with Richard I agree with him too, that batting is stronger then bowling but I don't think it's terrible as he makes it out to be.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

The 90s weren't some glory era of cricket. There were just as many annoying things about cricket in the 90s that there are today.

 

[Son Of Coco]

AQ?

Mr Allan Qaeda

 

[TT Boy]

I think you'll find there aren't too many people who would rank Pollock and Kumble as two of the greatest bowlers in history. The other three, definitely, but not those two. Very fine bowlers though.

The bowlers you listed number just five, when there could be 36+ bowlers on the international stage at any stage, and when we've seen the likes of Ian O'Brien and Sajid Mahmood play, it's hardly been a period of great quality bowling.

If you're seriously going to try and argue that there was dire batting in the 1980's then I'd question your intelligence TBH. The 1980's was the era of possibly the finest fast bowling ever, and plenty of good batsmen too.

 

[Goughy]

I thought this was very interesting and highlights the difference today than in the recent past and why basic average isnt the best way to judge bowling.

For Bowlers with an average of under 30

1980s

Median economy rate = 2.69
% of bowlers with econ greater than 3 = 12.5%

1900s

Median economy rate = 2.64
% of bowlers with econ greater than 3 = 12.5%

2000s

Median economy rate = 3.03
% of bowlers with econ greater than 3 = 51.85%

As I have said on a number of occasions, averages are being driven up not because the standard of bowling is declining but because batsmen have realised there are more scoring opportunities than they thought in previous decades. This pushing of the scoring rate without an increased risk of getting out automatically increaces bowling averages.

Using the above figures, if a generic bowler from the 80s who averaged 25 with an economy rate of 2.69 was bowling in the 2000s they would average 28.16 due to the difference in economy rate. Thats a considerable difference and partially illustrates why there are fewer bowlers averaging under 30.

It obviously cannot be applied with scientific accuracy, but is a clear trend that is obvious to see when the bowling population is looked at.

 

[sideshowtim]

Sorry but Pollock has taken 400 wickets @ just over 20 in supposedly the most batting friendly era in history - if that's not an all-time great then no-one qualifies

Kumble's record (Warne and Murali aside) is sensational as well.

The problem with Richard's "logic" is that he attempts to demean the quality of the batsmen by making reference to bowling records

Well, try this on of size, in the 80s every man and his dog averaged under 30 with the ball

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...wling_average.html?class=1;id=198;type=decade

Whilst only 6 (including Taylor who owes his record to feasting on a totally incompetent Eng in '89) averaged over 50

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...wling_average.html?class=1;id=198;type=decade

That being the case, if one were to make the same deduction as Richard has re the 2000s, I could simply say "bowling wasnt great, rather batting was poor" and that is the problem with basing your entire analysis on stats

The reality is that the truth lies somewhere in between.

Great post.

 

[Matt79]

I thought this was very interesting and highlights the difference today than in the recent past and why basic average isnt the best way to judge bowling.

For Bowlers with an average of under 30

1980s

Mode economy rate = 2.69
% of bowlers with econ greater than 3 = 12.5%

1900s

Mode economy rate = 2.64
% of bowlers with econ greater than 3 = 12.5%

2000s

Mode economy rate = 3.03
% of bowlers with econ greater than 3 = 51.85%

As I have said on a number of occasions, averages are being driven up not because the standard of bowling is declining but because batsmen have realised there are more scoring opportunities than they thought in previous decades. This pushing of the scoring rate without an increased risk of getting out automatically increaces bowling averages.

Using the above figures, if a generic bowler from the 80s who averaged 25 with an economy rate of 2.69 was bowling in the 2000s they would average 28.16 due to the difference in economy rate. Thats a considerable difference and partially illustrates why there are fewer bowlers averaging under 30.

It obviously cannot be applied with scientific accuracy, but is a clear trend that is obvious to see when the bowling population is looked at.

Also a great post - Goughy, as always, you post some very good stuff when something strokes your enthusiasm sufficiently!

 

[Richard]

FFS, have to start a thread then return to 50 new replies, most of which need something saying too... for starters:

Did something special happen in September 2001 that changed everything in global cricket other than the Americans becoming the first nation on earth to declare war on an emotion, and that just changed everything period

September 2001 is regardded by Richard as the time that bowling standards began to decline.

I wonder why?

TBH I don't have any idea, other than the fact he thinks that way. I'm not sure if that date coincides with the retirements of any great bowlers or anything similar.

Well its just an arbitrary date but it does coincide more or less with the marked decline and retirement of many of the greats of the nineties and the emergence of new, not quite worthy, replacements.

As ss says, there can be no exact point where everything went from brilliant to awful, but September 2001 is the time when there was most obvious sea-change. Several bowlers had already retired (Ambrose, Wasim for all intents and purposes, Walsh); a few would play a few more Tests as mere skeletons of their previous selves (Donald and Waqar being the best examples); and that several bowlers (Pollock being the best example) declined.

More significantly than all, though, that was when flat pitches, everywhere, became, almost overnight, commonplace. And it's alarming how quickly it happened.

 

[Richard]

Hang on Richard, If your going stick to your removing stats involving minnows Zim and Bang, don't you by the same principle you should leave Australian palyers statistics out of any comparisions given their bowlers and batsmen have an unfair contest never facing the best in the world? Alternatively, if you do include them, remove non-australian players stats against Aust in the comparison.

That makes no sense at all; Australia are not in some omniescent class ahead of anyone else: no-one will tell you that Australia should be excluded from Test-cricket for being too good (apart from the odd idiot).

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are patently not Test-class sides. Any fool (no, no apologies for saying it) can see that.

 

[Richard]

Date he stopped actually watching cricket and started memorizing cricinfo's ball by ball coverage for every single Test match.

 

[Richard]

Think a bloke like Hoggy who's 30 and has 240 test scalps might be surprised to be called "promising".

He's always promised a bit more than he's delivered TBH.

What about Harmy Richards?

What is with this thing for putting a "s" on the end of my name from some people BTW?

Harmison's presence does demonstrate better than most how many awful bowlers have played lots of Tests, but he's still just one of many.