Except "giving bowling averages" doesn't prove anything about the quality of the bowling, which is the point. Comparing the bowling averages of two bowlers who faced the same opposition in the same conditions can be a useful way of measuring their value, but comparing players across eras based on their averages is futile, given that the value of a bowling average is naturally balanced against the ease of taking wickets. Bowling averages could be higher because bowling is worse, or batting is better, of fielding is worse, or pitches are flatter, or whatever other reason.
For what it's worth, I agree that bowling in the current era isn't as strong as it was in the 90s, and that batting conditions the world over in the first few years of this decade were as easy as they have ever been, at least for more than half a century. The last few seasons have been much more normal in terms of the variation in pitches available though, since around 05/06. There was a period where almost all test wickets around the world were very flat, and that along with the retirement of many good bowlers served to inflate averages. I think the issue is massively overblown today, though. I think there's quite a number of very good bowlers in world cricket today, and also a new generation of bowlers who would be considered highly promising in any era.
