Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
It is a combination of factors...mainly the retirement of some great fast bowlers around the same time in the late 90s, early 00s and the pitches overall becoming slightly flatter.
Indian and Pakisani pitches were always roads..they havent changed but what we are seeing now are some flat pitches in places like West Indies, Australia and South Africa which wasn't the case even in the 90s. I mean there was a match in West Indies where 3-4 Bangladeshi batsmen scored centuries..can you imagine that in the 90s?+1
Exactly what I was going to say, so many people like to automatically say pitches, but Mcgrath's average actually improved in the 00's, also Murali, Warne and Steyn hasn't done too poorly either.
Actually the derth of quality fast bowlers has probably made life easier for a Steyn, as batsmen are so spoiled by the nonsense they face normally that there is a shock , and a needed adjustment when they actually face quality bolwers.
If one wants to use the pitches argument, then the Sub-Continent would be the place to look, but even in the 80's, Indian pitches were roads and that hasn't changed, just that Sri Lanka has joined the party as well.
Then why did all the guns still have similar (if not better) performances?I don't really buy that you can just have a decade of crap bowlers across the board, personally. It's far more likely that bowling was just more difficult; probably for a combination of reasons.
One could definitely just argue that they happened to peak then. One could also argue that it was harder to develop good bowling skills in the 2000s for whatever reason; or that the skills that were being developed by bowlers and taught by junior coaches just didn't translate to Test cricket very well. Or the opposite to any of those things with batting.Then why did all the guns still have similar (if not better) performances?
The only one I can think of that genuinely declined in the 2000's that wasn't old was Pollock.
It's definitely got less flat in Australia (probably because of the weather) since the 2000's, but everywhere else...
Agree with most of your post but not the part in bold. Pollock was an effective throttler in the noughties, but severely lacked the penetration that a great bowler ought to have. By and large, Ntini and Steyn and even people like Nel have been greater threats than Shaun Pollock.And those that were great in the 90s generally continued being great (McGrath, Pollock).
Agree with most of your post but not the part in bold. Pollock was an effective throttler in the noughties, but severely lacked the penetration that a great bowler ought to have. By and large, Ntini and Steyn and even people like Nel have been greater threats than Shaun Pollock.
30-8-61-2 are good figures in my book; but that's not exactly my idea of a great fast bowler who can run through sides (seemingly at will). Just like Ambrose from 1996 up to his retirement wasn't a great bowler, IMHO!
Ambrose was great till he retired..but agree about Pollock lacking penetration during the last few years.Agree with most of your post but not the part in bold. Pollock was an effective throttler in the noughties, but severely lacked the penetration that a great bowler ought to have. By and large, Ntini and Steyn and even people like Nel have been greater threats than Shaun Pollock.
30-8-61-2 are good figures in my book; but that's not exactly my idea of a great fast bowler who can run through sides (seemingly at will). Just like Ambrose from 1996 up to his retirement wasn't a great bowler, IMHO!