The post of mine which you quoted and then wrote the above was in reply to the question of what is wrong with batsman's technique today to suggest that they'd have struggled in the 80's or 90's, and the answer is quite clear in that the technique of many of the prolific batsman of today are found out in less than perfect conditions.
I don't particularly disagree that some would have adapted to a different era had they played in it. But that's all conjecture, whereas the flaws in their technique isn't.
Exactly.
Uppercut said:
They aren't flaws, though. They're differences that make them better at scoring runs today but worse at scoring runs should they ever decide to jump in a time machine.
Matt79 said:
This. People progress by demonstrating the skills that are most useful for the circumstances they are normally confronted with. In these days of five day pitches and batsman-weighted conditions, the batsmen that prosper are the formula one cars. When the odd rally stage comes up, of course they look all at sea. The same is true in reverse. You take any of the old-time players who we revere for their perfect techniques and drop them into today's game, they'd get pillorised for being stodgy and hurting the teams scoring rate. Times change, the game changes.
Totally DWTA TBF.
Firslty from you start talking about non-existant things like "time machines" haa to defend modern day FTBs, you are going to far & it is anothe one of the age old defenses used on CW. Although an educated assumption, you can judge whether batsman X of this FTB era would have been able to average Y (whether higher or lower) in the 90s. Based on the few on 90s like scenario's (difficult batting conditions vs top quality pacers) that batsman X would have encountered in this just 2000s era.
If batsman X does well in those 90s like scenario just has well as the amount runs he would smoke of the majority of flat decks & joke attacks that he would have faced in this 2000s. That is very fair guide IMO to how well batsman X would have done average wise in a past difficult batting era's vs quality pace attacks (50s - 80s as well as the 90s).
Plus cricket has been of a very similar style & standard since the 1950s:
- A regular diet of two of quality new-ball bowlers of the 80-90 mph vs openers in most teams
- change in the lbw rule.
- Introduction of helmets
- elimination of timeless tests
- 6 ball pers over in all natiosn except for AUS in the 60s & 70s
- No uncovered wickets, except the last phase of it in England during the 60s.
Has been very consistent in test cricket for more than 60 years now. So i'd say comparing players across era's in the last 60 years can be easily done. I can see no difference between comparing from the 1950s to 90s in terms of standard of cricket.
You can't compare post-war (1900-1939) to (1950s-1990s). Given for example uncovered wickets where present & lack of much quality pace attacks for batsmen. But taking out the uncovered wickets part & timeless test of 1900-1939 to the 2000-2009 its comparable given the lack of quality bowling present & the flat pitches. So there is absolutely no reason to bring up talk of time-machines - just use scenarios players encountered as a guide.
Their is a good chance too that using the evidence of 2010 to date, that this next decade of the 2000s (2010-2019) we could may be seeing a revival in quality pace attacks & testting 90s style conditions.
- AUS have good fast bowling attacks that will be around the majority of this decade.
- Steyn/Morkel just keep getting better & have good back-up potentially
- England have good depth now & teams touring ENG will always be tested by seaming conditons
- PAK have 4 strong seamers that will be around for a while, once something unsually crazy doesn't happen again.
- WI possibly could have Taylor/Roach/Edwards together @ some point.
- Just SRI, NZ, IND look a bit behind in pace depth department. But even in helpul conditions those pace attacks could be dangerous.
But this will be clearly wayyyyy above what batsmen encountered between 2000-2009 without a doubt.
Finally for the myth notion of:
quote said:
In these days of five day pitches and batsman-weighted conditions, the batsmen that prosper are the formula one cars. When the odd rally stage comes up, of course they look all at sea
That isn't true for the few great batsmen of the 2000s era like your Ponting & Dravid. Who as i mentioned earlier:
me said:
This wasn't the case with the likes of Ponting & Dravid for eg during the 2000s era @ their peak. They would dominate good or joke attacks on roads just like other average batsmen for years - but when the bowling & conditons got tough - they adjusted & stepped up accordingly. While other average batsmen (whose records where inflated by runs againts joke attacks on roads) would struggle.
Old timers like a Boycott, Gavaskar, Barrington who would be stodgers in certainly would not be critiqued at least by me for being slow scorers of flat decks oif the 2000s - especially when i know they would still score runs just as easily & better than many other recent players, who would just fail when they end facing tough conditions. Dravid plays like those blokes, has anyone every critqued his style for affecting INDs scoring rate etc?. Not to my knowledge (at least not any legitmate criticism)
There should be seperate thread on CW about this topic i think like the Murali vs Warne theread. Since there is no middle middle ground in this argument anymore. For every 20 posters who criticize FTBs accordingly - their is another 20 that defend using the same argument & every other thread this argument just keeps going around in circles.
) but because it was actually supposed to be about this topic and didn't just descend into it.
