70,80s cricket

[silentstriker]

Which suggests, to me, that Boycott had it in him to match Gavaskar's feats.

But he didn't as the record shows. Darren Ganga has it in him to be a chart-topping batsman, but that is irrelevant unless he does.

 

[Richard]

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.

Everyone is not Vivian Richards. Yes, he could indeed do such things, so can one or two others. But that's one in several thousand. It's no excuse for the failings of bowlers of recent times.

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.

Or maybe the bowlers just weren't giving as many opportunities. Unless you have HawkEyes of everything (and we don't, and never will, unless someone can manage to do the thing retrospectively, which I think is impossible) we'll never know for certain.

It makes far more sense to me, however, that bowlers do less with the ball at the current time (due in part to lack of skill, due in part to less seam- and spin-friendly wickets, but due more than anything to poor balls that swing less) than they did, so attacking strokes are more viable. That, and there are more inaccurate bowlers than there have been for most of Test history.

Attack isn't all about attack, you can use something which is useful for defence as a means of attack too, and all the best bowlers can and do.

 

[Richard]

But he didn't as the record shows. Darren Ganga has it in him to be a chart-topping batsman, but that is irrelevant unless he does.

I don't think so, he lacks something (presumably in temperament, as his domestic record is superb). Gavaskar and Boycott didn't.

 

[Swervy]

Or maybe the bowlers just weren't giving as many opportunities. Unless you have HawkEyes of everything (and we don't, and never will, unless someone can manage to do the thing retrospectively, which I think is impossible) we'll never know for certain.

It makes far more sense to me, however, that bowlers do less with the ball at the current time (due in part to lack of skill, due in part to less seam- and spin-friendly wickets, but due more than anything to poor balls that swing less) than they did, so attacking strokes are more viable. That, and there are more inaccurate bowlers than there have been for most of Test history.

Just wait, first you say there is not real way of us knowing how accurate bowlers were back then, and then you say 'there are more inaccurate bowlers than there have been for most of Test history.' Which one is it? You can't say we cannot establish the facts, and then make a comment on the same topic as if it is a dead set fact.

 

[Richard]

It's my opinion, fairly obviously, that there are. There's no way of knowing beyond a doubt.

 

[Swervy]

It's my opinion, fairly obviously, that there are. There's no way of knowing beyond a doubt.

the problem is, your opinion is flawed, given you watched NO live cricket back then. You have read stuff, heard stuff, watched some hightlights packages, and yet you think you can make that judgement?? Odd really, because I was watching back then, and I struggle to make the judgement myself.

 

[Swervy]

There's no way of knowing beyond a doubt.

So don't try to communicate it as if it is fact, coz it isn't

 

[Richard]

FFS, I do try, all the time. Can't expect my phraseology to be perfect every single time.

 

[Richard]

the problem is, your opinion is flawed, given you watched NO live cricket back then. You have read stuff, heard stuff, watched some hightlights packages, and yet you think you can make that judgement?? Odd really, because I was watching back then, and I struggle to make the judgement myself.

It's not. It's almost impossible to log deliveries in the mind, regardless of how much live stuff you watch, with the accuracy to say what you say. Your opinion is every bit as likely as mine to be flawed.

 

[Swervy]

It's not. It's almost impossible to log deliveries in the mind, regardless of how much live stuff you watch, with the accuracy to say what you say. Your opinion is every bit as likely as mine to be flawed.

so your opinion is based on what sorry?

 

[Richard]

Watching play of the last 6 years, reading about bowlers of the 1970s and 80s, watching bowlers of the 1990s, looking at how pitches and cricket-balls have changed, and using the basic cricketing principle that the bowler controls the game.

 

[Swervy]

Watching play of the last 6 years, reading about bowlers of the 1970s and 80s, watching bowlers of the 1990s, looking at how pitches and cricket-balls have changed, and using the basic cricketing principle that the bowler controls the game.

so I have that, and watched a lot of cricket in both Australia and England as it happened in 80s, so quite a bit more on you and you think my opinion is as flawed as yours!!! Interesting!!

 

[Richard]

So how much cricket in the 1970s did you really watch then? Aged 8 at the end of 1980...

The reason I think yours is as potentially flawed as mine is that you seem to me to ignore that last thing I mentioned, which I feel is the most important. You seem to me to overrate the batsman's ability to dictate the pace of scoring.

I've seen times of quick and slightly less quick general scoring (1992-2000, 2001-current-day) and I'm well qualified to judge the difference. I don't neccessarily need to have seen more days of slightly less quick scoring to say why the change happened.

 

[Engle]

There are 2 things that will stand out in this era :

1. The battery of WIndian fast bowlers who cud have arguably defeated any team in history.

2. The 4 ace ARs from Eng, Ind, Pak, NZ who were the best produced by their country.

 

[cover drive man]

The introduction of one day internationals play a big role in this. Also the continuing advances in equipment play another big role.

 

[Swervy]

So how much cricket in the 1970s did you really watch then? Aged 8 at the end of 1980....

well not much, thats why I said I watch a lot of cricket in the 80s, and I didnt mention the 70s. And I certainly watch enough to know who was good and who wasnt

The reason I think yours is as potentially flawed as mine is that you seem to me to ignore that last thing I mentioned, which I feel is the most important. You seem to me to overrate the batsman's ability to dictate the pace of scoring.

I've seen times of quick and slightly less quick general scoring (1992-2000, 2001-current-day) and I'm well qualified to judge the difference. I don't neccessarily need to have seen more days of slightly less quick scoring to say why the change happened.

OK, anything to back up the notion that I am over rating the batsmans ability to dictate the pace of scoring????

 

[Richard]

The fact that you mention it... lots. It suggests to me that you think the batsman has more of a role to play than the bowler, and as I say - I wildly disagree.

 

[Swervy]

The fact that you mention it... lots. It suggests to me that you think the batsman has more of a role to play than the bowler, and as I say - I wildly disagree.

Its strange though that the general feeling is that this is a batsmans game, and has been for years.

The thing is you don't really have much evidence that backs up what you say

 

[Richard]

Of course I do, pitches in England and New Zealand rarely offer anywhere near as much seam as they once did; cricket-balls barely swing anywhere, conventionally or reverse-wise, as much as they once did; and there's far less spin-friendly tracks in India than there once were.

That and the inaccuratacies we see almost as a matter of course.