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

[Richard]

Hahahahhahahaha.

There's really little point responding to posts like that TBH.

Nonetheless, there have been many, many, many better seamers than Kumble. It's not an entirely fair comparison, though, as seam-to-spin never is. You can't, though, for mine make a case that Kumble's presence could turn the game from poor to brilliant.

 

[Pratters]

There's really little point responding to posts like that TBH.

Nonetheless, there have been many, many, many better seamers than Kumble. It's not an entirely fair comparison, though, as seam-to-spin never is. You can't, though, for mine make a case that Kumble's presence could turn the game from poor to brilliant.

Give me the name of 947 seamers better than Kumble given that you have said countless hundreds of spinners better than Kumble. Else, stop the drivel. Also, 573 seamers better than Pollock.

 

[Goughy]

I find it mind-boggling that batsmen would forgo opportunities to score. Yes, I understand that batsmen in the past have been ridiculously self restricted for the sake of preserving their "technique". However I would be very cautious in accepting a hypothesis which essentially makes the assumption that batsmen weren't trying to the best of their abilities. Its almost unheard of for athletes to do such a thing in any competitive sport.

It's more of a case of a mindset. A wide half volley used to be left because it was wide and wasn't a chance of getting you out. Now it is hit because it is a half volley.

I was waiting for someone else to explain before I replied.

There has been a change in attitude in what is possible (ie risk of getting out compared to scoring runs) as well as a change in attitude over what is acceptable.

Players leave less balls now, look to work the ball for singles rather than deadbat the ball defensively, more players hook and pull and more look to go over the top.

Its not that previous generations have turned scoring opportunities down, its that they played more heavily on the side of reducing risk. As the game has progressed it has become apparant that it is possible to be more aggressive without automatically increasing the chance of getting out.

Also, the way players play today would not generally have been looked upon favourably by selectors in previous decades. Getting out in an aggressive manner in a Test was looked down upon as giving the wicket away. Attitudes of those that head the game have now changed and this has allowed batsmen to have a greater range of freedom in their shot selection.

You dont have to have been watching cricket for too long to see that there has been in a general change in the approach to batting.

 

[Richard]

Give me the name of 947 seamers better than Kumble given that you have said countless hundreds of spinners better than Kumble. Else, stop the drivel. Also, 573 seamers better than Pollock.

"Countless hundreds" is nothing more than a catchphrase really. There's unlikely to have been 400 proven top-class bowlers in Test history, there hasn't been enough play for that to happen.

Nonetheless, I could easily name 30 or 40 better seamers than Pollock between 2001\02 and 2005\06 and Kumble for most of his career, and that's without even looking that deep. I'd not like to put an estimate on how many there'd be if I took an exhaustive look at the last 100 years.

 

[Richard]

Pollock has taken over 200 wickets in the mid-twenties either since the begiining of 2001 or from Sep 2001 - take your pick, it's still outstanding and, on this period alone (let alone his career stats) to claim that "there have been countless hundreds of better bowlers than Pollock in history" is utter garbage

Pollock did not taken 200 wickets between September 2001 and May 2006. And his record was not outstanding, it was decidedly middling. And there have been countless hundreds of better bowlers in history than him in that time.

As far as spinners are concerned, you're inferring that there have only been 2 great ones ever, i.e. every spin bowler bar Murali and Warne has either an inferior record to the best pacemen or played in an era where they received an inordinate amount of help from the pitch and their records are tainted - that is plainly ridiculous

The fact is that spinners' perform a variety of roles

a. wickets

b. variety

c. work-horse

d. economy

e. etc

If it was as simple as saying that averages shows a good pacer to be more effective than a spinner, then why are they ever picked if playing away from home and/or you have a couple of half-reasonable seamers?

Good seamers > good spinners since uncovered wickets became a thing of the past and if you're not playing on a spin-friendly surface (which are far, far less common than non-spin-friendly ones). That's really not rocket-science AFAIC. There have been more than 2 top-notch spinners in history, though.

Obviously, people will pick spinners if said spinners are better than their seamers, which happens quite a bit in India and Sri Lanka for starters, and happened loads in the days of uncovered wickets. They'll also pick them, completely wrongly, at times when they'll be no use at all and would be far better being left-out for a seamer. A good seamer can take wickets quicker, conceding less runs and bowling more economically, than a good spinner.

 

[Richard]

I was waitying for someone else to explain before I replied.

There has been a change in attitude in what is possible (ie risk of getting out compared to scoring runs) as well as a change in attitude over what is acceptable.

Players leave less balls now, look to work the ball for singles rather than deadbat the ball defensively, more players hook and pull and more look to go over the top.

Its not that previous generations have turned scoring opportunities down, its that they played more heavily on the side of reducing risk. As the game has progressed it has become apparant that it is possible to be more aggressive without automatically increasing the chance of getting out.

Also, the way players play today would not generally have been looked upon favourably by selectors in previous decades. Getting out in an aggressive manner in a Test was looked down upon as giving the wicket away. Attitudes of those that head the game have now changed and this has allowed batsmen to have a greater range of freedom in their shot selection.

It couldn't be, though, that the bowlers at the current time allow said freedom to look to play aggressively far more than most?

While a ball outside off-stump that doesn't deviate is a ball outside off-stump that doesn't deviate, if the bowler is James Anderson you're not going to have as many second thoughts as you are if he's Michael Holding. While you're almost undoubtedly right that batsmen attempt more strokes now than they did 10 years ago, for mine the deterioration in calibre of bowling has a lot to do with that, not only in that there are less balls in the right area, but the fear is reduced.

 

[Pratters]

"Countless hundreds" is nothing more than a catchphrase really. There's unlikely to have been 400 proven top-class bowlers in Test history, there hasn't been enough play for that to happen.

Nonetheless, I could easily name 30 or 40 better seamers than Pollock between 2001\02 and 2005\06 and Kumble for most of his career, and that's without even looking that deep. I'd not like to put an estimate on how many there'd be if I took an exhaustive look at the last 100 years.

Countless hundreds would be used to refer to stuff which could actually be countless hundreds. For instance, there are countless hundreds of cricket fans in India. It cannot be referred to some thing for which you would have a number as little as say between 30-100.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, OK, it was a bit impulsive of me to use that phrase. There are better ones I could have used. Too late for an edit now though.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah, OK, it was a bit impulsive of me to use that phrase. There are better ones I could have used. Too late for an edit now though.

Cheers.

 

[Goughy]

It couldn't be, though, that the bowlers at the current time allow said freedom to look to play aggressively far more than most?

No. You watch enough cricket you can see there is a complete change of approach and the same balls are being treated differently that even 15 years ago.

 

[Richard]

I hope you read the rest of that post... I said that there's little doubt about that didn't I? I also asked if you didn't find it remotely possible that the reason for this was that there was less fear of this because the bowlers have been poorer of late than 10 years ago.

Personally, I find this very conceivable. It's a question to which there can be no conclusive answer, though.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

What does it matter that there may have been match-fixing allegations in every series New Zealand played? New Zealand aren't the only cricket-playing team.

The reason I brought up NZ was because those were the instances I recall most vividly, such as Chris Lewis and Fleming being approached by Aushim Khetarpal to persuade England to throw the third Test in '99.

God, everyone was under the pump then. Don't you remember the Mark Waugh/Shane Warne scandal, or Akram, Malik and Ahmed being banned for playing for Pakistan during 1999? There were allegations against Lara, Alec Stewart, Dean Jones, Aravinda de Silva, Arjuna Ranatunga and Martin Crowe, not to mention the endless number of players who revealed they were approached by bookmakers from the early 90s onwards.

Allegations of match-fixing at the '99 World Cup were rife.

Either way, make of it what you want - the match-fixing scandal does not and never will change the fact that there were countless excellent games of cricket played by countless excellent cricketers (most of whom never, ever countenanced match-fixing).

There were also countless match-fixing allegations, book making syndicates and ball tampering accusations. Stuff that doesn't show up on a scorecard or youtube clip.

.......... Can't imagine there'd be a hell of a lot of Kiwis who'd be happy to accept the findings though TBH.

Don't see how that proves we're the worst we've been since the 50s.

 

[Goughy]

I hope you read the rest of that post... I said that there's little doubt about that didn't I? I also asked if you didn't find it remotely possible that the reason for this was that there was less fear of this because the bowlers have been poorer of late than 10 years ago.

Personally, I find this very conceivable. It's a question to which there can be no conclusive answer, though.

No I dont. In the 90s there were 24 bowlers with an econ of under 2.5. In the 2000s there have been 11.

Given the 5 bowlers with the lowest econ rates in the 90s were WJ Cronje, SLV Raju, TBA May, CR Matthews and W Watson I dont think fear had much to do with it.

 

[Ikki]

No. You watch enough cricket you can see there is a complete change of approach and the same balls are being treated differently that even 15 years ago.

Yeah, and good on you for the rest of the part. I too think that batting attitudes have changed but I didn't think I could put it across as well as you have.

 

[Richard]

No I dont. In the 90s there were 24 bowlers with an econ of under 2.5. In the 2000s there have been 11.

Given the 5 bowlers with the lowest econ rates in the 90s were WJ Cronje, SLV Raju, TBA May, CR Matthews and W Watson I dont think fear had much to do with it.

Those aren't the sorts of bowlers I'm referring to, though, although Craig Matthews was a fine bowler and I'd imagine you know it with your recent South African experiences.

It doesn't have to be about economy-rates of 2.1-an-over, or suchlike. I'd say it has most impact on the sort of spells which might once have gone for 3.2-an-over; these are now going for 4.2-an-over. Bowlers like Shaun Pollock and Glenn McGrath, and Murali too, maintained their economy-rates accross the divide-line. This suggests to me that it's a problem with newer bowlers not being good enough, and this not-being-good-enough meaning they're treated with far more disdain than they previously would have been.

Then bowlers like Mohammad Asif, Stuart Clark, etc. have emerged in the last year or two; these bowlers have shown it's still quite possible to a) bowl with good accuracy and b) make batsmen realise that you don't take liberties with this sort of bowler.

You see what I'm saying? Mohammad Sami is probably no lesser bowler than Heath Davis (no offence, obviously Heath), but the gap in their records is massive.

On the other hand, I'd still back a bowler like Allan Donald to maintain a good-but-not-oustanding economy-rate. Heck, even Dale Steyn, who lacks Donald's height and is probably not quite as quick, hasn't done too badly there of late.

Part-timers and fingerspinners like Cronje and May get treated differently, that's beyond question. However, these bowlers were never front-line wicket-takers, so again I don't feel the altered approach has made much difference there.

 

[social]

Pollock did not taken 200 wickets between September 2001 and May 2006. And his record was not outstanding, it was decidedly middling. And there have been countless hundreds of better bowlers in history than him in that time.

Good seamers > good spinners since uncovered wickets became a thing of the past and if you're not playing on a spin-friendly surface (which are far, far less common than non-spin-friendly ones). That's really not rocket-science AFAIC. There have been more than 2 top-notch spinners in history, though.

Obviously, people will pick spinners if said spinners are better than their seamers, which happens quite a bit in India and Sri Lanka for starters, and happened loads in the days of uncovered wickets. They'll also pick them, completely wrongly, at times when they'll be no use at all and would be far better being left-out for a seamer. A good seamer can take wickets quicker, conceding less runs and bowling more economically, than a good spinner.

FFS, unless you are using some outlandish "first chance average, no Bangladesh/Zimbabwe, no lucky shots, no poor decision bs crap" Pollock has taken over 200 wickets at around 25 between sep 2001 and the day of your original post - you defined the period, I didnt.

Get over it, you're wrong about the stats, you're wrong about Pollock, you're wrong about Kumble, you're wrong about bats' influence over ball, etc etc etc etc

Bottom line is you're wrong

 

[Richard]

FFS, unless you are using some outlandish "first chance average, no Bangladesh/Zimbabwe, no lucky shots, no poor decision bs crap" Pollock has taken over 200 wickets at around 25 between sep 2001 and the day of your original post - you defined the period, I didnt.

Get over it, you're wrong about the stats, you're wrong about Pollock, you're wrong about Kumble, you're wrong about bats' influence over ball, etc etc etc etc

Bottom line is you're wrong

Someone's running-out of ideas!

First-chance averages have nothing whatsoever to do with bowlers; I very clearly stated in my opening post that everything is against Test-standard sides only, so therefore you cannot prove what I said wrong by bringing substandard sides into the equation because I never mentioned them; and Pollock between September 2001 and the day of my post had taken 173 wickets at just under 28. However, in 2006\07 he bowled far better (and got rather more helpful surfaces) than in the previous 5 years. So therefore his form is far better categorised into two parts; 2001\02-2005\06 and 2006\07, one in which he was very average, one in which he was pretty damn good (and was promptly dropped).

I've said it before, you often have a very simple, over-traditionalist outlook on the game of cricket. Seamers, just "good" never mind "great" ones, are far better than all but the very, very best spinners. If a bowler is dependent on certain conditions to take his wickets - which all spinners who don't spin the ball greatly are - he cannot be as good as someone who can turn all conditions to his advantage.

Meanwhile, anyone who cannot see that the person who bowls the ball controls the game, well, purely and simply doesn't understand how cricket works. It is the batsman's job to respond to what the bowler sends down; it is the bowler's job to send down as often as he can a delivery that the batsman's chances of responding to in a way that earns him runs are as slim as possible.

Ergo, with good bowling, the batsmen can be as good as you want, there still aren't going to be many who average in the mid to high 50s.

 

[Pratters]

First-chance averages have nothing whatsoever to do with bowlers

How? If a bowler is lucky to get a wicket when it was not out, surely his wickets column should be reduced and his average increases? Also, all the runs the batsman made against him removed if vice versa, a batsman is given not out when he was out?

 

[Richard]

You can do that if you want, sure. For starters, though, I never mentioned this for Pollock in this case (as if you used the same method as to produce a first-chance average for a batsman the bowling equivalent would be almost universally lower than a scorebook-average).

For seconds, I rarely mention such things for bowlers at all - if someone's had lots of dropped catches I might, but often for every drop there's a rubbish shot resulting in a wicket, so it seems almost hypocritical to mention it.

If someone mentions to me how a bowler's average has suffered due to dropped catches and Umpiring decisions, though, I'll listen, certainly. "First" chance wouldn't be an entirely accurate term in that case, though, "all-chance" would be better.

 

[Pratters]

You can do that if you want, sure. For starters, though, I never mentioned this for Pollock in this case (as if you used the same method as to produce a first-chance average for a batsman the bowling equivalent would be almost universally lower than a scorebook-average).

For seconds, I rarely mention such things for bowlers at all - if someone's had lots of dropped catches I might, but often for every drop there's a rubbish shot resulting in a wicket, so it seems almost hypocritical to mention it.

If someone mentions to me how a bowler's average has suffered due to dropped catches and Umpiring decisions, though, I'll listen, certainly. "First" chance wouldn't be an entirely accurate term in that case, though, "all-chance" would be better.

I don't care about the Pollock debate you are having with social and others. Just wanted to talk regarding the first chance average bit.

Okay you think that it balances out for almost every one and so you don't consider it. I am not sure it would tbh but as you say, you would consider players for whom it is shown it is affected considerably. So fair enough...