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

[Lillian Thomson]

What I said was that there have been countless hundreds of better bowlers in history than Pollock between 2001\02 and 2005\06, which is very true, he was generally pretty anodyne in this time.

Re-reading the post, though, it's obvious where a misleading could have happened - naturally, though, some (the LTs of this World for instance) are going to deliberately misread it for obvious reasons.

And what would those obvious reasons be? I didn't read it at all until someone else quoted it. I'd already given up reading your long-winded posts, but a statement that silly deserves recognition.

 

[Richard]

Because some people like to say, regularly, "ha ha ha, doesn't that Richard make some silly statements" - obviously, they'll get the chance to say this far more often by responding to stuff I haven't said as well as stuff I have.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Because some people like to say, regularly, "ha ha ha, doesn't that Richard make some silly statements" - obviously, they'll get the chance to say this far more often by responding to stuff I haven't said as well as stuff I have.

I see. Not sure why I would be singled out as an example as I've never done that, but countless hundreds probably have.

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

I just find it puzzling that such a thing has become apparent so late in a sport's development. You would have thought that such an approach to batting would have been embraced by batsmen the world over much earlier, like lets say the 30's, the first period of relatively flat pitches.

I think to a certain extent the fact that such a mentality had been spurned would have to be due to the external factors. I would wager that it had been more due to the pitces than the bowlers, because bowlers have put in more and more effort throughout the game's development.

Not that I'm discounting your theory on the cause of changes in run scoring trends. I've felt very similarly about the matter for a long time. And I know I'm being vague here, but such an ingraining of incorrect batting mentalities into the batsmen of the past is one of the reasons that I wish the MCC and their ilk didn't have as much influence over the game as they have historically had.

 

[Goughy]

Not that I'm discounting your theory on the cause of changes in run scoring trends. I've felt very similarly about the matter for a long time. And I know I'm being vague here, but such an ingraining of incorrect batting mentalities into the batsmen of the past is one of the reasons that I wish the MCC and their ilk didn't have as much influence over the game as they have historically had.

I dont think the MCC has much to do with it. The change in batting attitude has had much to do with recent developments in bat technolgy, and One Day cricket that has had players exploit fielding restrictions.

Also dont discout the improved protective equipment. Players in the 80s and 90s will not have been brought up using helmets anywhere close to the level they do now in their development. Now players wear the full works when developing their technique and are able to commit to the front foot earlier and attack wide full balls as they dont have to watch the ball as closely and wait to commit as their is little physical danger.

There have been plenty of other progressions over time. This is just the most recent. Just because something like this didnt happen in the 30s (the above reasons would partially explain why) doesnt mean there was not other subtle changes and evolution taking place.

 

[pup11]

Completly agree with Goughy's views on the reasons for change in batting attitude and the introduction of T20 might further change the batting attitudes of batsmen around the world, the game and the players keep on evolving with changing times and circumstances and that's pretty natural.

 

[shortpitched713]

I dont think the MCC has much to do with it. The change in batting attitude has had much to do with recent developments in bat technolgy, and One Day cricket that has had players exploit fielding restrictions.

Also dont discout the improved protective equipment. Players in the 80s and 90s will not have been brought up using helmets anywhere close to the level they do now in their development. Now players wear the full works when developing their technique and are able to commit to the front foot earlier and attack wide full balls as they dont have to watch the ball as closely and wait to commit as their is little physical danger.

There have been plenty of other progressions over time. This is just the most recent. Just because something like this didnt happen in the 30s (the above reasons would partially explain why) doesnt mean there was not other subtle changes and evolution taking place.

Agree with pretty much all of the above. It is interesting though to see that despite cricket having gone through a number of subtle changes over time, that there would be such a huge batting explosion in the period we currently are in.

 

[social]

I dont think the MCC has much to do with it. The change in batting attitude has had much to do with recent developments in bat technolgy, and One Day cricket that has had players exploit fielding restrictions.

Also dont discout the improved protective equipment. Players in the 80s and 90s will not have been brought up using helmets anywhere close to the level they do now in their development. Now players wear the full works when developing their technique and are able to commit to the front foot earlier and attack wide full balls as they dont have to watch the ball as closely and wait to commit as their is little physical danger.

There have been plenty of other progressions over time. This is just the most recent. Just because something like this didnt happen in the 30s (the above reasons would partially explain why) doesnt mean there was not other subtle changes and evolution taking place.

Shot making and the attitude to running between the wickets has changed markedly in the 30 years that I've been playing watching.

Batsmen are loathe to let the bowler settle and some therefore play more shots, earlier in their innings e.g. Langer went from a relatively stodgy player to a bit of a dasher.

In the 70s and 80s, by far the most common shots attempted when looking for a single were leg-glances and glides through the slip and gully region. Now, the latter, is a rarity when compared to nudges to the leg and off.

Furthermore, smaller boundaries and better bats (although I think the latter is overstated as the top players have always had great bats) have increased the risk/reward profile of lofted shots.

Fitness has also played a role with more players being willing and able to take quick singles or hard run threes than in previous generations

Also, there is not as great a disparity between conditions from one venue to the next. As such, batsmen can be relatively comfortable in the knowledge that a ball will behave in a similar fashion to the last wicket that they played on and hence be more positive.

Finally, by playing so often, batsmen are staying in-form for longer periods whilst bowlers dont get as much time to recover.

 

[Son Of Coco]

"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.

Ok, let's have 'em!

 

[Richard]

CBA. Let me start by saying Angus Fraser, though - you can take it from there.

 

[social]

CBA. Let me start by saying Angus Fraser, though - you can take it from there.

Bzzzt - that answer is incorrect

However, as it was a good attempt to deflect attention from your impossible task by inviting another debate, I shall give you one point for creativity

39 to go

 

[NUFAN]

LOL 39 to go! no chance at all.

I wonder if Harmy will make it?

 

[Richard]

Bzzzt - that answer is incorrect

However, as it was a good attempt to deflect attention from your impossible task by inviting another debate, I shall give you one point for creativity

39 to go

Err, no it's not, Angus Fraser was most certainly a better bowler than Anil Kumble as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not naming 40 bowlers, any fool can go around finding some top-notch seam-bowlers if they want to.

 

[Goughy]

Just to keep this on track, the bolded part of a previous post was that Richard claimed there were 30-40 better bowlers than Pollock over the past 6 years.

Fraser and Kumble are irrelevant to the question posed, which was name them.

Seems a fair question to me. Big statements require good evidence.

I, for one, would be interested in seeing the list.

 

[NUFAN]

Err, no it's not, Angus Fraser was most certainly a better bowler than Anil Kumble as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not naming 40 bowlers, any fool can go around finding some top-notch seam-bowlers if they want to.

Yes, yes they can find some but I doubt anyone can make a good case for 40 bowlers being better then Pollock in the era you suggested.

 

[Richard]

Just to be clear, there are 30 or 40 bowlers, at the very least, in history better than Pollock was in the last 6 years and Kumble has almost ever been.

Angus Fraser, yes, for most of his career was better than either of the two I stipulated above.

Obviously, Fraser was never as good as Pollock was between 1995\96 and 2001.

 

[NUFAN]

Oh the history that makes way more sense.

Nothing wrong with being the 41st best bowler in the history of Cricket though, not that you said there was..

 

[Richard]

Good grief, did anyone actually think I genuinely was saying there were 40 better bowlers in 2001\02-2005\06 than Pollock? No, no, certainly not - he was better than most, but it just goes to show that if someone averaging 28 (with a more than acceptible economy-rate remember) is in the top 5 (or so) of a period, it's a barren one for bowling.

BTW, as I said - 40 at the very least in history better. There could easily be more, plenty more, I'm just not willing to massively overstate and say "200" for instance.

 

[social]

Just to be clear, there are 30 or 40 bowlers, at the very least, in history better than Pollock was in the last 6 years and Kumble has almost ever been.

Angus Fraser, yes, for most of his career was better than either of the two I stipulated above.

Obviously, Fraser was never as good as Pollock was between 1995\96 and 2001.

Even if you want to change the rules:

a. "most of his career" (i.e. not all); and

b. "almost ever been" (i.e. close but no cigar)

just dont quite cut the mustard

As I said, 39 to go

 

[NUFAN]

Good grief, did anyone actually think I genuinely was saying there were 40 better bowlers in 2001\02-2005\06 than Pollock?.

Yeah man I did. I just read the bolded part on the thread on the last page..