Rahul Dravid vs Kevin Pietersen (talent)

[Johan]

Lol ODI cricket was only taken more seriously by the end of the decade.

Literal Boomer takes here.

 

[subshakerz]

It depends really, for Aus, Ind and Sa batsmen they won't. Eng, Nz, Pak etc batsmen might

Why would Indian bats do better early mid 90s?

 

[Johan]

Why would Indian bats do better early mid 90s?

much spicier home pitches rn, more games with Lol tier Sri Lanka.

 

[subshakerz]

Literal Boomer takes here.

if you don't think batting techniques have been affected by t20 I don't know what to say

 

[subshakerz]

much spicier home pitches rn, more games with Lol tier Sri Lanka.

Literally WI, Aus, Pak, SA sides would be stronger..
Eng and NZ worse.

SL by mid 90s were somewhat formidable.

 

[Johan]

if you don't think batting techniques have been affected by t20 I don't know what to say

If you don't think this is the spiciest wickets era since 1950s idk what to say

 

[Johan]

Literally WI, Aus, Pak, SA sides would be stronger..
Eng and NZ worse.

SL by mid 90s were somewhat formidable.

Nah, Australia until McGrath nowhere near current Australia and even then McGrath didn't tour india in 90s, India didn't play Pakistan back then, England and New Zealand worse, Sri Lanka minnow tier until Murali and Vaas made a partnership and Murali started going ham. South Africa a similar level until Pollock-Donald partnership which was late 90s.

 

[Johan]

if you don't think batting techniques have been affected by t20 I don't know what to say

also, if you don't think batting techniques were affected by ODIs, I don't know what to say

 

[subshakerz]

If you don't think this is the spiciest wickets era since 1950s idk what to say

It is. I agree with that.

 

[subshakerz]

also, if you don't think batting techniques were affected by ODIs, I don't know what to say

They weren't affected to that degree that basic defensive technique was compromised.

 

[subshakerz]

Nah, Australia until McGrath nowhere near current Australia and even then McGrath didn't tour india in 90s, India didn't play Pakistan back then, England and New Zealand worse, Sri Lanka minnow tier until Murali and Vaas made a partnership and Murali started going ham. South Africa a similar level until Pollock-Donald partnership which was late 90s.

I mean you can make it mid to late 90s and my point will still stand. I don't think modern bats would fare better then.

 

[Johan]

I mean you can make it mid to late 90s and my point will still stand. I don't think modern bats would fare better then.

they would because of easier wickets

 

[subshakerz]

they would because of easier wickets

Wickets weren't that much easier

 

[Johan]

Wickets weren't that much easier

the wickets gap is more evidence and relevant than the gaps in bowling units

 

[Agonizingly Awkward]

See now this just comes off as completely contrary to almost everything you’ve said in the thread. People called bats like Trumper and Jackson exceptionally talented and geniuses for their strokeplay, and in fact Bradman was expected to fail in the 1930 Ashes by many pundits due to his technique (spoiler: he didn’t). Naturally talented? Hell no, he trained his ass off. You’ve not heard the origin story of him developing his muscle memory and reflexes by hitting a golf ball with a cricket stump in his youth. Hell, even his army test showed he had worse than 20/20 vision.

So according to you anyone can average 99.94 if they work hard enough. Why are Sachin, Smith and Lara of the world only averaging 50 then do they not work hard enough?

 

[subshakerz]

So according to you anyone can average 99.94 if they work hard enough. Why are Sachin, Smith and Lara of the world only averaging 50 then do they not work hard enough?

Yeah its ridiculous

 

[subshakerz]

the wickets gap is more evidence and relevant than the gaps in bowling units

I say bowling units plus weaker techniques matter more than easier wickets

 

[Johan]

I say bowling units plus weaker techniques matter more than easier wickets

Weaker technique is an innate part of the batsman, for him He'd be presented with easier pitches and a harder bowling attack by a bit on average

 

[Coronis]

So according to you anyone can average 99.94 if they work hard enough. Why are Sachin, Smith and Lara of the world only averaging 50 then do they not work hard enough?

I don’t think Bradman was born with any special advantage over Sachin, Smith or Lara. As to why nobody else can average 99.94, nobody has had his application or mental application, to stay for 27 overs on average themselves at the crease whilst striking at 60. People can strike that fast, but not stay in as long, and people can stay in for a similar amount of time, but not strike as fast. Its not that those guys and others didn’t work hard, Bradman was just a freak able to uniquely combine those two skills.

 

[subshakerz]

Weaker technique is an innate part of the batsman, for him He'd be presented with easier pitches and a harder bowling attack by a bit on average

I don't see how it being innate changes anything.

Mid late 90s you had four worldclass pace bowling duos and at least 2-3 worldclass spinners. Even Zimbabwe had Heath Streak.