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

[Richard]

The 90s weren't some glory era of cricket. There were just as many annoying things about cricket in the 90s that there are today.

If you're a Kiwi perhaps - not if you have a more balanced, global view. The 1990s was almost beyond dispute the highest calibre decade in cricket history.

 

[Richard]

I thought this was very interesting and highlights the difference today than in the recent past and why basic average isnt the best way to judge bowling.

For Bowlers with an average of under 30

1980s

Median economy rate = 2.69
% of bowlers with econ greater than 3 = 12.5%

1900s

Median economy rate = 2.64
% of bowlers with econ greater than 3 = 12.5%

2000s

Median economy rate = 3.03
% of bowlers with econ greater than 3 = 51.85%

As I have said on a number of occasions, averages are being driven up not because the standard of bowling is declining but because batsmen have realised there are more scoring opportunities than they thought in previous decades. This pushing of the scoring rate without an increased risk of getting out automatically increaces bowling averages.

Using the above figures, if a generic bowler from the 80s who averaged 25 with an economy rate of 2.69 was bowling in the 2000s they would average 28.16 due to the difference in economy rate. Thats a considerable difference and partially illustrates why there are fewer bowlers averaging under 30.

It obviously cannot be applied with scientific accuracy, but is a clear trend that is obvious to see when the bowling population is looked at.

The truth, of course, is that we can never know for certain how much of the increase in economy-rates is due to batsmen deciding to play more shots and how much is down to the plethora of inaccurate bowlers (accuracy being the biggest difference between many of the high-calibre bowlers of the 1990s and the poor ones of the 2001-onwards period).

Nonetheless, I'm quite happy that decrease in accurate bowlers has played the larger part. And until someone produces pitchmap graphics from the two periods, I'll keep that belief, TBH.

 

[Richard]

Sorry but Pollock has taken 400 wickets @ just over 20 in supposedly the most batting friendly era in history - if that's not an all-time great then no-one qualifies

He hasn't, though, as I very clearly showed. Pollock was a great between 1996 and 2001; since 2001 he's been a very middling bowler (despite maintaining an excellent economy-rate).

Kumble's record (Warne and Murali aside) is sensational as well.

It's not, it's a classic record of a spinner who doesn't spin the ball much.

The problem with Richard's "logic" is that he attempts to demean the quality of the batsmen by making reference to bowling records

The reason that such a standpoint makes perfect sense is that the bowler controls the game, not the batsman. The calibre of bowling dictates the amount of success a batsman, however good, can have.

Well, try this on of size, in the 80s every man and his dog averaged under 30 with the ball

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...wling_average.html?class=1;id=198;type=decade

Whilst only 6 (including Taylor who owes his record to feasting on a totally incompetent Eng in '89) averaged over 50

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...wling_average.html?class=1;id=198;type=decade

That being the case, if one were to make the same deduction as Richard has re the 2000s, I could simply say "bowling wasnt great, rather batting was poor" and that is the problem with basing your entire analysis on stats

That makes no sense, however, when one considers that the bowler, not the batsman, controls the game. If the bowler's too good for the batsman, nothing can be done; the batsman cannot be too good for the bowler.

The reality is that the truth lies somewhere in between.

AFAIC, that's just a belief people who don't want to accept the reality that we're currently in a serious rut as far as the calibre of the game can use. The reality, for those willing to shun eternal-optimism.

Obviously, one-eyed Australians would have more reason than most to be unhappy with the notion that the last 6 years have been very poor.

 

[Richard]

All of those reasons are why I don't accept that bowler's themselves are any less skilled or able than in previous periods. The one thing I think you can point at that might have produced a decline in bowling standards is the amount of limited overs cricket, where bowlers play heaps, but never have to bowl more than 10 overs in a day, and have to bowl containment more than in Tests. Then they get put in a situation of needing to take 20 wickets in a match and maybe bowling 25 overs in a day, and unsurprisingly they get injured or drop in their performance.

BTW, do you have similar analyses for other periods, to provide some context for this stat? And when you're doing them, for the sake of consistency, you'll need to stick to your 'weak teams aren't test teams' policy and remove, at various times, SL, NZ, India, Pakistan, South Africa, and yes, even the Windies.

Nah, the only teams who were ever non-Test-class since the turn of the 20th-century were New Zealand (1930s and 1950s) and Bangladesh - then Zimbabwe went from Test-class to not-Test-class in 2003.

I don't have similar averages for similar periods, though Kev has kindly given us some for the 1990s and 1980s. It'd be good to get some for the 1970s, 60s, 50s and the 2nd half of the 40s, though. I'd be prepared to bet quite a bit it'd be nothing like 2001-2007.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

That makes no sense, however, when one considers that the bowler, not the batsman, controls the game. If the bowler's too good for the batsman, nothing can be done; the batsman cannot be too good for the bowler.

Yes. That makes...sense.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, it does. Glad you realise.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

If you're a Kiwi perhaps - not if you have a more balanced, global view. The 1990s was almost beyond dispute the highest calibre decade in cricket history.

And that's the reason why you make these posts, because you cling to ideas like that. The cricket you see today is just an extension of what began in the 90s, and the results we've just seen (Australia & South Africa beating Sri Lanka and New Zealand 2-0) would've happened throughout most of the 90s, despite Sri Lanka and NZ having better teams *now* then they did then. It's the same results with different faces and really it's the different faces part that people don't like. If people had an attachment to 80s cricket like 90s cricket, then the sky would've been falling in the 90s too. The 90s had a spectre of match-fixing over it. There were dark days for cricket in the 90s. And even if you can trust what happened on the field, the explosion of one-day cricket in the 90s is the single biggest influence on the shape of the modern game.

 

[Jamee999]

the batsman cannot be too good for the bowler.

Mine.

 

[Richard]

And that's the reason why you make these posts, because you cling to ideas like that. The cricket you see today is just an extension of what began in the 90s, and the results we've just seen (Australia & South Africa beating Sri Lanka and New Zealand 2-0) would've happened throughout most of the 90s, despite Sri Lanka and NZ having better teams *now* then they did then. It's the same results with different faces and really it's the different faces part that people don't like. If people had an attachment to 80s cricket like 90s cricket, then the sky would've been falling in the 90s too. The 90s had a spectre of match-fixing over it. There were dark days for cricket in the 90s. And even if you can trust what happened on the field, the explosion of one-day cricket in the 90s is the single biggest influence on the shape of the modern game.

There was the odd game fixed in the 1990s (there's 10 or so at best that are conclusively proven to have been fixed). This doesn't change the fact that there were many games which weren't fixed of high calibre. A very odd thing to bring-up.

The explosion of one-day cricket has done nothing other than bloat the calender, either - and that only by a bit.

The reason people have an "attachment" to the 1990s having seen the 2000s and there was nothing similar in the 1980s to the 1990s is simple - there has been a considerable drop in the standard. Between 1988 and 1992 things got far better in the cricket World, not worse.

And New Zealand... better currently than for most of the 1990s... now I've heard it all. New Zealand have been as roundly woeful for quite some time as they've been since the 1950s, really.

 

[Eclipse]

That makes no sense, however, when one considers that the bowler, not the batsman, controls the game. If the bowler's too good for the batsman, nothing can be done; the batsman cannot be too good for the bowler.

.

So Tendulkar cant be too good a batsman for Blessing Mahwire?

 

[FRAZ]

Does it all has a relation with "better pitches" of the this era Richard?

 

[ohtani's jacket]

There was the odd game fixed in the 1990s (there's 10 or so at best that are conclusively proven to have been fixed). This doesn't change the fact that there were many games which weren't fixed of high calibre. A very odd thing to bring-up.

The match-fixing scandal was a big deal. People thought it would jeopardise the future of international cricket. Obviously it didn't, just as bowling statistics from this decade will have no bearing on the future of cricket, but it cast a long shadow and was one of the defining aspects of 90s cricket.

The explosion of one-day cricket has done nothing other than bloat the calender, either - and that only by a bit.

Personally I don't think cricket is any better or worse than it was 10 or 15 years ago. It's the same contest with different faces, but if there's more emphasis on batting these days it's because of the commercialisation of the game as a TV product, something which began in the 90s and was driven by ODI cricket. Flat pitches exist to increase scoring. Scoring is what the TV networks want. If bowling was a more attractive TV product than batting, pitches would suit bowlers.

The reason people have an "attachment" to the 1990s having seen the 2000s and there was nothing similar in the 1980s to the 1990s is simple - there has been a considerable drop in the standard. Between 1988 and 1992 things got far better in the cricket World, not worse.

People are always attached to what they grew up on. In the year 2017 (if man is still alive), people will complain that cricket isn't as good as the days of Ponting, Warne, McGrath, the 2001 Australia/India series and the 2005 Ashes. I grew up watching late 80s rugby and rugby league. That was the best era for me. But watching old footage from that time, it's clear that it was a simpler game. The same is true of cricket. Cricket back then was a simpler game than it is now. Great players, great cricket, but a lower standard.

And New Zealand... better currently than for most of the 1990s... now I've heard it all. New Zealand have been as roundly woeful for quite some time as they've been since the 1950s, really.

New Zealand have been relatively successful in Test cricket since 1999-00. Probably the second most successful era after the key Hadlee years.

 

[stephen]

Mine.

Who is that in your avatar? She fine

 

[social]

He hasn't, though, as I very clearly showed. Pollock was a great between 1996 and 2001; since 2001 he's been a very middling bowler (despite maintaining an excellent economy-rate).

It's not, it's a classic record of a spinner who doesn't spin the ball much.

The reason that such a standpoint makes perfect sense is that the bowler controls the game, not the batsman. The calibre of bowling dictates the amount of success a batsman, however good, can have.

That makes no sense, however, when one considers that the bowler, not the batsman, controls the game. If the bowler's too good for the batsman, nothing can be done; the batsman cannot be too good for the bowler.

AFAIC, that's just a belief people who don't want to accept the reality that we're currently in a serious rut as far as the calibre of the game can use. The reality, for those willing to shun eternal-optimism.

Obviously, one-eyed Australians would have more reason than most to be unhappy with the notion that the last 6 years have been very poor.

Richard, the stats from Pollock's "period of decline" (200-odd wickets at 25) compare more than favourably with the career records of greats such as Botham, Gibbs, Bedi, Benaud, Roberts, Snow, Thomson etc etc etc.

Just how you can describe him as "middling" in this period defies belief, particularly when by your own assertion it was achieved in the most batsman-friendly era in history

In relation to Kumble, what the hell does "it's a classic record of a spinner who doesn't spin the ball much" mean? You're obviously making the mistake of comparing him only to Warne and Murali because it compares favourably to every other great spin bowler whether they turned it or not.

"the bowler controls the game, not the batsman" - the opposite is true.

As for the game being in a serious rut, how then do you explain that:

a. 5 of the best bowlers in friggin' history have played during the period in question

b. The best ever wk/batsman is currently trotting his stuff

c. The best Oz batsman since Bradman currently occupies our no. 3 position

d. SL's best ever pacer is still playing

e. A couple of SA best ever (Pollock and Kallis) are still in the frame

Basically,I could go on and on and on talking about the Laras, Dravids,Tendulkars, etcccccccccccccccccccccccccccc but what's the point?

You'd simply come up with some meaningless stat based on a period that holds importance only for you as a flawed example.

 

[Matt79]

If you're a Kiwi perhaps - not if you have a more balanced, global view. The 1990s was almost beyond dispute the highest calibre decade in cricket history.

Undisputably? Don't be a muppet.

 

[Ikki]

Undisputably? Don't be a muppet.

No, he covered his tracks, he said "almost beyond dispute".

 

[Richard]

So Tendulkar cant be too good a batsman for Blessing Mahwire?

No, Blessing Mahwire's just not good enough to give much trouble to Tendulkar.

The bowler has the ball in his hand - it is he who dictates the game. He's either too good for the batsman, or not good enough to "deal" with him (whether that be get him out or bowl at him without going around the park).

 

[Richard]

Undisputably? Don't be a muppet.

No, he covered his tracks, he said "almost beyond dispute".

I did, because no decade can be called the best beyond doubt.

There was a thread a little while ago dedicated to the subject (think it was a cdm one), though, and virtually everyone confessed that the 1990s outdid all.

 

[Richard]

The match-fixing scandal was a big deal. People thought it would jeopardise the future of international cricket. Obviously it didn't, just as bowling statistics from this decade will have no bearing on the future of cricket, but it cast a long shadow and was one of the defining aspects of 90s cricket.

It was only discovered, in true depth, in mid-2000 though, so no-one worried overtly about it during the decade. And the truth, even so, is that a handful of (almost all dead) games were fixed. The fixing, while deplorable, didn't stop much excellent cricket being played.

Personally I don't think cricket is any better or worse than it was 10 or 15 years ago. It's the same contest with different faces, but if there's more emphasis on batting these days it's because of the commercialisation of the game as a TV product, something which began in the 90s and was driven by ODI cricket. Flat pitches exist to increase scoring. Scoring is what the TV networks want. If bowling was a more attractive TV product than batting, pitches would suit bowlers.

Far more than scoring, it's a case of needing games to last the 5 days they're scheduled for. No-one wants to watch run-fest after run-fest, at all, it's a huge turn-off for most people and could easily kill the game if it happened unchecked (which it's unlikely to, of course).

People are always attached to what they grew up on. In the year 2017 (if man is still alive), people will complain that cricket isn't as good as the days of Ponting, Warne, McGrath, the 2001 Australia/India series and the 2005 Ashes. I grew up watching late 80s rugby and rugby league. That was the best era for me. But watching old footage from that time, it's clear that it was a simpler game. The same is true of cricket. Cricket back then was a simpler game than it is now. Great players, great cricket, but a lower standard.

Most recent is best remembered, in equal measure with the misty-eyed look about one's early days of fanship.

Personally, even though I got into cricket in the 1990s, I know many who agree that it trumped any other decade, and with barely a backward glance too.

New Zealand have been relatively successful in Test cricket since 1999-00. Probably the second most successful era after the key Hadlee years.

They haven't, though - and I showed why a little while ago.

New Zealand were a way better team, in Tests and ODIs, in most of the 1990s than they have been at almost any point since about mid-2000.

 

[Richard]

Richard, the stats from Pollock's "period of decline" (200-odd wickets at 25) compare more than favourably with the career records of greats such as Botham, Gibbs, Bedi, Benaud, Roberts, Snow, Thomson etc etc etc.

Just how you can describe him as "middling" in this period defies belief, particularly when by your own assertion it was achieved in the most batsman-friendly era in history

Pollock's figures between 2001\02 and 2006 are in fact 150 wickets at over 28, which is nothing more than a middling record. It's not poor, of course not, but it's certainly not remotely close to being outstanding, and hence he cannot be said to have conquered flat pitches the way Murali et al have.

In relation to Kumble, what the hell does "it's a classic record of a spinner who doesn't spin the ball much" mean? You're obviously making the mistake of comparing him only to Warne and Murali because it compares favourably to every other great spin bowler whether they turned it or not.

There've been very few great spin-bowlers since uncovered wickets ended, for this precise reason. Hardly anyone spins it enough to be effective outside the subcontinent, and almost all those that try to can't do it with enough accuracy (broadly these can be classified as fingerspinners and wristspinners, but as Kumble shows not all wristspinners are the big-spinning-wayward variety).

Ergo, Kumble, like most spin-bowlers, isn't a great, he's merely a great at home and mostly anodyne away (or roughly that anyway, there have been some exceptions).

"the bowler controls the game, not the batsman" - the opposite is true.

Err, no it's not. The bowler has the ball in his hand, how nonsensical to suggest the batsman controls the game.

As for the game being in a serious rut, how then do you explain that:

a. 5 of the best bowlers in friggin' history have played during the period in question

There have been countless hundreds of better bowlers than Pollock in history, and countless hundreds of better seamers than a mere spinner in Kumble.

b. The best ever wk/batsman is currently trotting his stuff

The Gilchrist of the last 4 years would be outstripped by any number of wicketkeeper-batsmen in history.

c. The best Oz batsman since Bradman currently occupies our no. 3 position

That Ponting can be considered such - so unequivocally - is indicative of the low quality of the period.

d. SL's best ever pacer is still playing

Vaas' presence is no gurantee of anything and never has been.

e. A couple of SA best ever (Pollock and Kallis) are still in the frame

Pollock hasn't been one of SA's best ever for a long while though.

In any case, there will be fine players at any time; there were far more in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, etc. than there are now. There are nowhere near enough good bowlers, and hence we cannot know how good the batsmen really are.