Sutcliffe. Hutton. Gavaskar.

[Johan]

McGrath + Gillespie + Lee + Warne
Wasim + Imran + Waqar
Steyn + Ntini + Morkel + Harris + Kallis

No, also Warne is not a pacer.

Yes on paper but not in actuality, Imran was a nothing bowler by the time Wasim and Waqar got on, Wasim wasn't much great at that time either.

Not at all, Ntini/Morkel/Harris can't begin to compete with Miller/Johnston/Johnson.

How many pace attacks had 3 legit sub 23 averaging fast bowlers?

 

[kyear2]

Quicks were slower, spinners got less velocity and rip. This is a big difference in quality, especially if you look at the 4/5 bowlers. Players of Hutton's caliber could defend well enough against the better bowlers and wait to feast on them, because they weren't remotely Test standard.

People don't like to hear it, but the game really changed in the 70s with a dominant strategy of bowling based around consistent pace and aggression to really put batsmen in physically more difficult situations more often. The overall approach for the vast majority of Test level bowling attacks hasn't really changed much since then.

Lindwall and Miller were slower? Based on what exactly?

The rest is just nonsense. The pace attack the WI had in the 60's, some of England's in the 50's were better than most of the pace attacks today.

 

[Johan]

West Indies in their first ever Test Series had a better pace attack than Modern Day England.

 

[Bolo.]

Just because people have a weird fetish for Lillee and Viv to bangs their brains out doesn't mean Cricket changed in the 1970s. The Decade is so overrated for Cricket it's straight up comical, there are more tangible developments and differences in last 10 years than between 70s and 50s.

Anyway, when Hayden made his 203, India's 4th/5th bowlers were

1. Nilesh Kulkari (166)
2. Sairaj Bahatule (67)

In 2008 When Hayden made three hundreds against India, their fourth and fifth bowling options were.

1. RP Singh (42)
2. Saurav Ganguly (52)

in 2003 When Hayden made three hundreds against England, England's fourth and fifth bowlers were

1. Ashley Giles (40)
2. Craig White (38)

I'm not even gonna mention Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka's fifth options in 2002 when Hayden made 3 hundreds was

1. Lance Kluesener (38)

Hmmm, so test standard. Now looking at Hutton's big serieses

1950 Ashes, fourth and fifth bowlers were

1. Ian Johnson (29)
2. John Iverson (15) [19 in FC]

1947 ashes last two games

1. Colin McCool (26)
2. Bruce Dooland (46)
3. George Tribe (165) [didn't play much but 20 in FC with 1000+ wkts]
4. Ian Johnson (29)

1953 Ashes

1. Richie Benaud (27)
2. Alan Davidson (20) [Young]
3. Douglas Ring (37)

West Indies 1954-55

1. Denys Atkinson (35)
2. Frank Worrell (38)
3. Frank King (39)

Doesn't look like much of a difference.

I think there was a big shift around the 70s. In the late 60s, half the teams playing test were not not test quality. By the late 70s, everyone was.

 

[Johan]

I think there was a big shift around the 70s. In the late 60s, half the teams playing test were not not test quality. By the late 70s, everyone was.

Our discussion was about quality of Cricket and it's quality at the highest level, fundamental changes among the top teams IE Pace of bowlers, bowling tactics, quality of top Cricketers etc remained almost entirely constant. There being two more test standard sides with the loss of South Africa doesn't really change that.

 

[Agonizingly Awkward]

Sri Lanka's fifth options in 2002 when Hayden made 3 hundreds was

1. Lance Kluesener (38)

When did Kluesener became Sri Lankan?

 

[Johan]

Just because people have a weird fetish for Lillee and Viv to bangs their brains out doesn't mean Cricket changed in the 1970s. The Decade is so overrated for Cricket it's straight up comical, there are more tangible developments and differences in last 10 years than between 70s and 50s.

Anyway, when Hayden made his 203, India's 4th/5th bowlers were

1. Nilesh Kulkari (166)
2. Sairaj Bahatule (67)

In 2008 When Hayden made three hundreds against India, their fourth and fifth bowling options were.

1. RP Singh (42)
2. Saurav Ganguly (52)

in 2003 When Hayden made three hundreds against England, England's fourth and fifth bowlers were

1. Ashley Giles (40)
2. Craig White (38)

I'm not even gonna mention Sri Lanka.

South Africa's fifth options in 2002 when Hayden made 3 hundreds was

1. Lance Kluesener (38)

Hmmm, so test standard. Now looking at Hutton's big serieses

1950 Ashes, fourth and fifth bowlers were

1. Ian Johnson (29)
2. John Iverson (15) [19 in FC]

1947 ashes last two games

1. Colin McCool (26)
2. Bruce Dooland (46)
3. George Tribe (165) [didn't play much but 20 in FC with 1000+ wkts]
4. Ian Johnson (29)

1953 Ashes

1. Richie Benaud (27)
2. Alan Davidson (20) [Young]
3. Douglas Ring (37)

West Indies 1954-55

1. Denys Atkinson (35)
2. Frank Worrell (38)
3. Frank King (39)

Doesn't look like much of a difference.

Definitely didn't edit guys, trust me, my people are known for our trustworthiness.

 

[sayon basak]

Aren't you the one that believes older time bowlers were meaningfully slower (a position I agree with).

No he doesn't. Can't believe you thought he was serious all that time.

 

[Bolo.]

Our discussion was about quality of Cricket and it's quality at the highest level, fundamental changes among the top teams IE Pace of bowlers, bowling tactics, quality of top Cricketers etc remained almost entirely constant. There being two more test standard sides with the loss of South Africa doesn't really change that.

Going from half of the sides being test quality to all of them is a huge leap in quality. We haven't seen another period when so many teams were improving this significantly.

 

[Johan]

Going from half of the sides being test quality to all of them is a huge leap in quality. We haven't seen another period when so many teams were improving this significantly.

What does that have to do with the skill level of the top Cricketers? the ones playing in 80s wouldn't become more skilled because 2 extra test class teams joined.

 

[Bolo.]

What does that have to do with the skill level of the top Cricketers? the ones playing in 80s wouldn't become more skilled because 2 extra test class teams joined.

3 teams, not 2.

You improve by playing with and against stronger players. Playing against weaker players masks lack of improvement

 

[Johan]

3 teams, not 2.

You improve by playing with and against stronger players. Playing against weaker players masks lack of improvement

2 in relevance as South Africa ban meant one relevant team was gone, 3-1=2.

Sure, good thing top teams always existed for people to play against and improve, playing weak teams do not diminish your skill, and if you only perform against diminished deams you get dropped anyway. Saying English Cricketers got better because India and Pakistan got better is kind of ludricous.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

So the only pace attack meaningfully above the Invincibles ones is the Mighty Windies attacks, heh.

Procter, Van der Bijl + le Roux / Pollock.

 

[Johan]

Procter, Van der Bijl + le Roux / Pollock.

This attack never played Test Cricket, Piss off.

 

[Bolo.]

2 in relevance as South Africa ban meant one relevant team was gone, 3-1=2.

Sure, good thing top teams always existed for people to play against and improve, playing weak teams do not diminish your skill, and if you only perform against diminished deams you get dropped anyway. Saying English Cricketers got better because India and Pakistan got better is kind of ludricous.

Late 60s on effectively had 6 teams playing. RSA only played 1 more series. 3 of them were very weak. 3/6 is 50%. Late 70s had 6/6 quality teams. There is a big jump in average quality. Possibly more than it appears. Even if a player has a good record vs the stronger teams, the record of those stronger teams is influenced by playing weaker ones.

English players should nominally be getting better from the era. They are playing with and against better players of more styles in tests and CC. And they were facing strong challenges in a greater variety of conditions in tests.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

McGrath + Gillespie + Lee + Warne
Wasim + Imran + Waqar
Steyn + Ntini + Morkel + Harris + Kallis

I think the SA attacks with Philander were better than those without.

 

[Johan]

Late 60s on effectively had 6 teams playing. RSA only played 1 more series. 3 of them were very weak. 3/6 is 50%. Late 70s had 6/6 quality teams. There is a big jump in average quality. Possibly more than it appears. Even if a player has a good record vs the stronger teams, the record of those stronger teams is influenced by playing weaker ones.

English players should nominally be getting better from the era. They are playing with and against better players of more styles in tests and CC. And they were facing strong challenges in a greater variety of conditions in tests.

Just cut it down to record of those stronger teams against the stronger teams themselves, you'd know what team is strong and what isn't.

No, because England always played plenty with the strong teams, 75% of Hutton's games are against Test Standard teams for referece, if you can't learn and improve by that then maybe you just don't belong on the Test level. Also, there were no "more styles" in 70s or 80s, as I said, there was no stylistic or technical gap between 70s and 80s.

As I said, the idea that English, Australian or Windies players got better because India got a few good batsmen or New Zealand got Hadlee is just wishful thinking. Also CC objectively dipped in quality in early 80s, let's not rework history here.

 

[Bolo.]

Just cut it down to record of those stronger teams against the stronger teams themselves, you'd know what team is strong and what isn't.

No, because England always played plenty with the strong teams, 75% of Hutton's games are against Test Standard teams for referece, if you can't learn and improve by that then maybe you just don't belong on the Test level. Also, there were no "more styles" in 70s or 80s, as I said, there was no stylistic or technical gap between 70s and 80s.

As I said, the idea that English, Australian or Windies players got better because India got a few good batsmen or New Zealand got Hadlee is just wishful thinking. Also CC objectively dipped in quality in early 80s, let's not rework history here.

Let me break this down, and you can point out what stage in the process specifically you think the logic or facts are off:

We saw a general rise in standards in the 70, with previously weak countries producing a bunch of good players.
Playing with or against better players should improve standards of a player.

Therefore we should see standards of players from all over improving in the 70s.

 

[Johan]

Let me break this down, and you can point out what stage in the process specifically you think the logic or facts are off:

We saw a general rise in standards in the 70, with previously weak countries producing a bunch of good players.
Playing with or against better players should improve standards of a player.

Therefore we should see standards of players from all over improving in the 70s.

Yeah, I just disagree.

I don't think playing 10 games throughout 10 years against Pakistan or India makes you more skilled, nor do I think there's a general correlation between playing better opposition consistently and developing, if there is, it's exceptionally small, counteracted by the decline in FC cricket and tour matches leading to them playing substantially less Cricket and therefore being inferior.

If players were consistently playing Hadlee or Imran or Gavaskar, then sure, maybe they'd become better...but they weren't, I doubt playing Hadlee for 2 games every 5 years makes you a better player.