70,80s cricket

[JBMAC]

Myself I'd take...

(Marshall wasn't any good until 1980, playing just a single series and that only due to the Packer Schism)

Roy Fredericks
Sunil Gavaskar \ Geoffrey Boycott (honestly can't imagine it'd make much difference, IMO there's nothing to divide the two)
Ian Chappell (c)
IVA Richards
Greg Chappell
Clive Lloyd
Ian Terence Botham
Alan Knott (w)
Dennis Lillee (if the Test was anywhere but India) \ Bishen Bedi (if it was in India)
Michael Holding
Joel Garner
First-reserve seam-bowler: Anderson Roberts
Reserve spinner: Bhagwat Chandrasekhar
First-reserve batsman: Javed Miandad

Hell of a lot of Australians and West Indians in there...

There's a major problem if you can not separate Boycott and Gavaskar.If I remember Boycotts average was 47 odd while Gavaskar is over 50.( abt 51.something)

 

[Perm]

There's a major problem if you can not separate Boycott and Gavaskar.If I remember Boycotts average was 47 odd while Gavaskar is over 50.( abt 51.something)

Aside from the fact that averages aren't everything, I think you have a fair point. I would rate Gavaskar over Boycott.

 

[JBMAC]

Aside from the fact that averages aren't everything, I think you have a fair point. I would rate Gavaskar over Boycott.

The highest innings without a hit to the boundary is 77 off 327 balls by Geoff Boycott at Perth in 1978-79. Boycott did hit one four, thanks to overthrows. Boycott hit no boundaries at all on the WACA ground over a span of 575 balls (almost 13 hours batting!) in five innings between 1970 and 1979.

I ran across this little gem from Charles Davis written in 2006 and definitely reinforces The Gavaskar inclusion.

 

[Perm]

The highest innings without a hit to the boundary is 77 off 327 balls by Geoff Boycott at Perth in 1978-79. Boycott did hit one four, thanks to overthrows. Boycott hit no boundaries at all on the WACA ground over a span of 575 balls (almost 13 hours batting!) in five innings between 1970 and 1979.

I ran across this little gem from Charles Davis written in 2006 and definitely reinforces The Gavaskar inclusion.

How? I thought you of all people would appreciate the fact that runs don't have to come in boundaries, the WACA is a big ground and it's quite understandable that Boycott didn't hit any boundaries.

 

[Swervy]

Yea, they might have been. As a purist, I don't mind low scoring rates and in fact I always find it more interesting, provided that the low scoring rate is due to some very good bowling (being a guy who always prefers bowlers to batsman). But when you're not really doing anything, and the bowling is mediocre....it's really not good cricket IMO. There seemed to be a lot more of those back then.

Right now, the bowling is mediocre often, but the batting is more aggressive, so you do get a lot of results. Ideally, I'd have it the other way around where batting was defensive and the bowling was top class, so 70s/80s would be the ideal time for cricket for me, if the current rules were in place then.

This is what gets me a bit, there seems to be a perception that bowling 20 odd years ago was on the money all the time. Reality is it wasnt. If you took away the West Indian bowling attacks, there was in fact not too much great fast bowling going around (Hadlee, Imran thats about it).

In general teams didnt want to lose test matches, in the hope they might win the odd one in a 6 match series due to the error of the opponents. (esp. in the early /mid 80s). Batting was much more defensive, but it wasnt all to do with great bowling. There were plenty of spells of bad bowling that just werent capitalised on, because of the batting mind set back then.

An example is Old Trafford 1981, the day Botham scored his 118. Now I think that day England scored about 25 runs in the first session. Even when Botham came in, he was only on 3 off about 30 balls or something like that. He then raced off to an 87 ball hundred. Was that because the bowling all of a sudden went crap by itself???? No it isnt, the bowling standard remained basically the same. It was Botham himself who turned good tight bowling into bowling which was hit for about 60 by Botham himself in half an hour. All of a sudden the Australian bowling looks ragged because it is hard to bowl to aggressive batting.



Now these days, average run rates in tests are up by probably more than a run an over on back then. That is down to the batting mind set which is shown by all teams these days....not really down to bad bowling, we have had bowling from the day dot in cricket

 

[JBMAC]

How? I thought you of all people would appreciate the fact that runs don't have to come in boundaries, the WACA is a big ground and it's quite understandable that Boycott didn't hit any boundaries.

Boycott was too much of a grafter and compared with his contemporaries was a long way short of being a crowd pleaser.eg Keith Stackpole from Australia.Yes, The WACA is a big ground and was bigger then than it is now without the ropes but it did not stop the scoring of boundaries if the batsman was good enough.

 

[Perm]

Boycott was too much of a grafter and compared with his contemporaries was a long way short of being a crowd pleaser.eg Keith Stackpole from Australia.Yes, The WACA is a big ground and was bigger then than it is now without the ropes but it did not stop the scoring of boundaries if the batsman was good enough.

You don't have to be a good batsman to hit boundaries and equally, hitting boundaries does not make you a good batsman. The crowd isn't important and I find it absurd that you are trying to prove Boycott wasn't a good Test batsman because the crowds didn't like him.

 

[JBMAC]

You are taking me the wrong way Perm....Justifying selection of Gavaskar over Boycott...Boycott was a stalwart for England and ANY batsman who does have an average over 45 as an opener has to be rated as one of the best...NOTE I said best not greatest..Gavaskar was in a class of his own ( and he did not have trouble scoring boundaries if I recall.)

 

[Perm]

You are taking me the wrong way Perm....Justifying selection of Gavaskar over Boycott...Boycott was a stalwart for England and ANY batsman who does have an average over 45 as an opener has to be rated as one of the best...NOTE I said best not greatest..Gavaskar was in a class of his own ( and he did not have trouble scoring boundaries if I recall.)

I don't imagine Gavaskar did have a great deal of trouble scoring boundaries, but you seem to be using boundary hitting to justify that one player is better than the other. If that was the case then I suppose Shahid Afridi>Mohammad Yousuf is he?

 

[JBMAC]

I don't imagine Gavaskar did have a great deal of trouble scoring boundaries, but you seem to be using boundary hitting to justify that one player is better than the other. If that was the case then I suppose Shahid Afridi>Mohammad Yousuf is he?

 

[Perm]

If you're being serious, which I hope you aren't, then

 

[JBMAC]

If you're being serious, which I hope you aren't, then

 

[Richard]

This is what gets me a bit, there seems to be a perception that bowling 20 odd years ago was on the money all the time. Reality is it wasnt. If you took away the West Indian bowling attacks, there was in fact not too much great fast bowling going around (Hadlee, Imran thats about it).

That's not actually the time in question, this is more late-70s, where there was indeed a wealth of excellent bowling from most teams.

In any case, there's no good bowling around at the moment even without taking away something... at least in the mid-80s you had to take away Marshall-Holding-Garner etc., which didn't happen.

An example is Old Trafford 1981, the day Botham scored his 118. Now I think that day England scored about 25 runs in the first session. Even when Botham came in, he was only on 3 off about 30 balls or something like that. He then raced off to an 87 ball hundred. Was that because the bowling all of a sudden went crap by itself???? No it isnt, the bowling standard remained basically the same. It was Botham himself who turned good tight bowling into bowling which was hit for about 60 by Botham himself in half an hour. All of a sudden the Australian bowling looks ragged because it is hard to bowl to aggressive batting.

Really? Everything I've seen suggests they were bowling very poorly - witness Lillee repeatedly banging it in and repeatedly being whacked into the stands.

Now these days, average run rates in tests are up by probably more than a run an over on back then. That is down to the batting mind set which is shown by all teams these days....not really down to bad bowling, we have had bowling from the day dot in cricket

I disagree, the bowler has the ball in his hand. He, not the batsman, dictates the pace of scoring.

The reason for the fast scoring-rates at the current time are inaccurate bowlers, not batsmen who play more strokes, because if that happened at a time when bowling was better and pitches more friendly, many of these strokeplayers wouldn't last 5 minutes.

 

[Richard]

There's a major problem if you can not separate Boycott and Gavaskar.If I remember Boycotts average was 47 odd while Gavaskar is over 50.( abt 51.something)

So? Gavaskar played in India, Boycott in England. In those days, the notion of England being seam-friendly and India a seamer's graveyard was more than just a stereotype. Both were magnificent batsmen, and had their location of Tests been reversed I'd imagine their records would be roughly reversed, too.

Their careers ran roughly parrallel and they were equals in everything you could wish for in a batsman - technically, judicious shot-selection, the ability to concentrate for long periods and not have either of the aforementioned waver... etc.

And as to the boundary-hitting thing... as Perm has argued in my place, it's crazy to base anything whatsoever on number of boundaries. Runs are all that matter, the denomination of scoring-stroke is completely irrelevant.

 

[silentstriker]

So? Gavaskar played in India, Boycott in England. In those days, the notion of England being seam-friendly and India a seamer's graveyard was more than just a stereotype. Both were magnificent batsmen, and had their location of Tests been reversed I'd imagine their records would be roughly reversed, too.

Their careers ran roughly parrallel and they were equals in everything you could wish for in a batsman - technically, judicious shot-selection, the ability to concentrate for long periods and not have either of the aforementioned waver... etc.

And as to the boundary-hitting thing... as Perm has argued in my place, it's crazy to base anything whatsoever on number of boundaries. Runs are all that matter, the denomination of scoring-stroke is completely irrelevant.

Well, discounting Tests in India, Gavaskar averaged 52 (higher than his career average). Boycott, discounting Tests in England, averaged 46 (lower than his career avergae).

 

[Richard]

So? That's not really important, there are any multitude of reasons why that should be so.

The point is, had Boycott been given to India at 20 and Gavaskar to England at the same age, I reckon their averages would be inverse.

 

[silentstriker]

How do you figure that? Here are country by country averages:

India:
Gavskar: 50.16
Boycott: 47.12

Australia:
Gavaskar: 51.11
Boycott: 45.03

England
Gavaskar: 41.14
Boycott: 48.40

NZ
Gavaskar: 43.55
Boycott: 22.37

Pakistan
Gavaskar: 58.88
Boycott: 82.25

West Indies
Gavaskar: 65.45
Boycott: 51.26

Gavaskar averages more in India, Australia, New Zealand and West Indies. Boycott only averages more in his home country, plus Pakistan.

 

[JBMAC]

How do you figure that? Here are country by country averages:

India:
Gavskar: 50.16
Boycott: 47.12

Australia:
Gavaskar: 51.11
Boycott: 45.03

England
Gavaskar: 41.14
Boycott: 48.40

NZ
Gavaskar: 43.55
Boycott: 22.37

Pakistan
Gavaskar: 58.88
Boycott: 82.25

West Indies
Gavaskar: 65.45
Boycott: 51.26

Gavaskar averages more in India, Australia, New Zealand and West Indies. Boycott only averages more in his home country, plus Pakistan.

I'm more fascinated by the fact Boycott obviously failed in NZ. Any one know why?

 

[Richard]

How do you figure that? Here are country by country averages:

India:
Gavskar: 50.16
Boycott: 47.12

Australia:
Gavaskar: 51.11
Boycott: 45.03

England
Gavaskar: 41.14
Boycott: 48.40

NZ
Gavaskar: 43.55
Boycott: 22.37

Pakistan
Gavaskar: 58.88
Boycott: 82.25

West Indies
Gavaskar: 65.45
Boycott: 51.26

Gavaskar averages more in India, Australia, New Zealand and West Indies. Boycott only averages more in his home country, plus Pakistan.

Exactly - the most difficult and easiest place to open the batting. Which suggests, to me, that Boycott had it in him to match Gavaskar's feats.

Must say I never fail to be amazed at Boycott's poor record in NZ every time I see it, though.

 

[Swervy]

That's not actually the time in question, this is more late-70s, where there was indeed a wealth of excellent bowling from most teams.

In any case, there's no good bowling around at the moment even without taking away something... at least in the mid-80s you had to take away Marshall-Holding-Garner etc., which didn't happen..

ok fair enough, however I dont think the gap in standards is as great as is commonly made out

Really? Everything I've seen suggests they were bowling very poorly - witness Lillee repeatedly banging it in and repeatedly being whacked into the stands.

Lillee was testing Botham out, and it didnt pay off, that doesnt make it bad bowling. What happened though was that as Botham got his eye in and started playing attcaking strokes, the Australian bowlers were being 'forced' to try other things out. They started by bowling as they were which was good enough to take 5 English wickets for a 100 at about 2 an over before Botham came in. He got his eye in and Botham then dictated the preceeding. Granted the Aussies strted to give Botham a bit of width , which he fully exploited, but really there was much wrong with the bowling. It was a classic example of how a batsman can dictate terms. If you watch some of Viv Richards innings (when in his prime), that what he did. It wasnt up to the bowler how tight he kept it, it was up to Richards completely. You couldnt bowl at him, because no matter what you did, it looked like bad bowling. Thats what great batting does. Its something that I can see KP developing further as well. On song, he is a batsman who will make good bowling look bad. disagree, the bowler has the ball in his hand. He, not the batsman, dictates the pace of scoring.

The reason for the fast scoring-rates at the current time are inaccurate bowlers, not batsmen who play more strokes, because if that happened at a time when bowling was better and pitches more friendly, many of these strokeplayers wouldn't last 5 minutes.

There have always been inaccurate bowlers.

There is no doubt whatsoever that batsmen are testing the boundaries of what shot can be played to whatever ball more than has ever happened in test cricket. Test cricket is now about pressing home any advantage you have, or quickly trying to steal away the bowling teams advantage. The best way to do that is to attack. Sure it might not always work, but the Australians have shown that percentage wise, its a good policy. England followed suit, as have other teams.

Now, back in the 80s , you used to see batsmen all over the place not making full use of possible scoring opportunities. Its why 200 for 3 in a day was considered good.