Who faced easiest bowling attacks and conditions?

[centurymaker]

Not a great deal as in a huge difference, but i would say there is a decent level of difference atleast.

Specially if you include bowlers of Sarfaraz Nawaz's level and better than him.

Wasim, Waqar, Imran, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, Ambrose, Walsh ,Murali, Warne, Mcgrath, Gillespie, Lee, Saqlain, Vaas, Hadlee, Akthar, Morkel, Anderson, Bishop, Bond just from the top off my head.

Caddick, Flintoff, Hoggard, Mcdermott, kasprowicz, Fleming, Heath Streak, Broad (he has the potential to become an ATG imo), Angus Fraser, Merv Hughes, Bruce Reid, Cork, Cairns, Vettori, Paul Reiffel, Nash, Ntini, Harmison, Gough, MacGill...

 

[NasserFan207]

The biggest difference between now and the 90s (and 80s) isn't so much quality of bowler as it is the pitches being used and modern bats. Also ball machines speed up batting training significantly. There isn't anything comparable for a bowler to use.

Imo.

 

[fredfertang]

Fertang's the man to ask on this one; from memory I think he's posted before that when Grace scored his 50th First Class century he'd scored something like 30% of all First Class centuries scored up until that point. IIRC whoever held 2nd position in the number of tons scored only had 10 FC hundreds to his name.

That's all from memory, so could be wrong.

Nowt wrong with your memory mate, that's spot on

 

[Furball]

The biggest difference between now and the 90s (and 80s) isn't so much quality of bowler as it is the pitches being used and modern bats. Also ball machines speed up batting training significantly. There isn't anything comparable for a bowler to use.

Imo.

Nah, quality of bowling definitely plays a major part. Flat pitches didn't stop the likes of Glenn McGrath, Shoaib Akhtar, Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharan and Dale Steyn from posting up awesome figures in the 00s (McGrath and Murali got better in the 00s compared to their 90s selves, Warne average about the same but had a hugely improved SR in the 00s). Flat pitches might be responsible for the likes of Anderson averaging 30 instead of 28, but the main difference in making batting easier was because someone like Tendulkar in the 00s was facing Mohammad Sami and Umar Gul or Tino Best and Corey Collymore rather than Wasim and Waqar or Ambrose and Walsh. Regardless of what the pitch is or isn't doing, facing Pakistan and the West Indies, to use probably the two most obvious examples, was much easier in the 00s.

 

[NasserFan207]

Nah, quality of bowling definitely plays a major part. Flat pitches didn't stop the likes of Glenn McGrath, Shoaib Akhtar, Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharan and Dale Steyn from posting up awesome figures in the 00s (McGrath and Murali got better in the 00s compared to their 90s selves, Warne average about the same but had a hugely improved SR in the 00s). Flat pitches might be responsible for the likes of Anderson averaging 30 instead of 28, but the main difference in making batting easier was because someone like Tendulkar in the 00s was facing Mohammad Sami and Umar Gul or Tino Best and Corey Collymore rather than Wasim and Waqar or Ambrose and Walsh. Regardless of what the pitch is or isn't doing, facing Pakistan and the West Indies, to use probably the two most obvious examples, was much easier in the 00s.

I didn't just mention pitches in that post mate. I do agree that the standard has fallen, but not by as much as some people say.

 

[Sanz]

Nah, quality of bowling definitely plays a major part. Flat pitches didn't stop the likes of Glenn McGrath, Shoaib Akhtar, Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharan and Dale Steyn from posting up awesome figures in the 00s (McGrath and Murali got better in the 00s compared to their 90s selves, Warne average about the same but had a hugely improved SR in the 00s). Flat pitches might be responsible for the likes of Anderson averaging 30 instead of 28, but the main difference in making batting easier was because someone like Tendulkar in the 00s was facing Mohammad Sami and Umar Gul or Tino Best and Corey Collymore rather than Wasim and Waqar or Ambrose and Walsh. Regardless of what the pitch is or isn't doing, facing Pakistan and the West Indies, to use probably the two most obvious examples, was much easier in the 00s.

Well then how does it explain Tendulkar against inferior attacks on seemingly easy wickets in 2000s against Sami/Gul scored @59.90 and on better wickets (for bowlers) against better bowlers Ambrose/Walsh in the 90s scored @ 62.81

Same Tendulkar on seemingly easier wickets in 2000s against inferior bowlers like Cuffy, Dillon and Pedro Collins averaged @32.71 on much easier tracks ?

How do you explain that ?

 

[Furball]

Well then how does it explain Tendulkar against inferior attacks on seemingly easy wickets in 2000s against Sami/Gul scored @59.90 and on better wickets (for bowlers) against better bowlers Ambrose/Walsh in the 90s scored @ 62.81

Same Tendulkar on seemingly easier wickets in 2000s against inferior bowlers like Cuffy, Dillon and Pedro Collins averaged @32.71 on much easier tracks ?

How do you explain that ?

I was using Tendulkar as an example of a batsman who played extensively in both decades, rather than as a specific example. I haven't a clue what Tendulkar averaged for any individual series and I have no interest in looking it up.

 

[Sanz]

I understand that you are using Tendulkar as an example and so was I. I was merely trying to counter how can one completely negate the points made by NaseerFan207.

I also do not understand why Mcgrath/Murali/Warne averaged better if the wickets became flatter ? All other things staying consistent, shouldn't their records be inferior ? Did they suddenly become better bowlers starting 2000 or may be just feasted on some really weak batting lineups.

I personally think we are putting too much emphasis on batting conditions or quality of bowlers here.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Another point which is missed on CW, perhaps because it is accepted as stupid...

Perhaps once you get to a certain level, scoring runs is merely a 'state of mind' and concentration. What I mean to say is that someone averaging 50 in one generation could be compared to averaging 50 in another generation with more difficult conditions, to some extent. However, I think this discredits the idea of using any and all mathematical analyses to compare across generations. I think this ties in with 'form', too. When out of form, often a top quality batsman will be out of sorts at domestic level too. Therefore, it can be stated that when in form, a batsman could perform in more difficult conditions than he does.

This is actually something I too have been wondering about for a while.
As far as I've bothered to reason so far, once batsmen hone their game technically to an extent that places them in the very top tier, the differentiating factor thereon is their ability to maintain focus, rather than the actual quality of the attacks. This hypothesis is substantiated, IMO, by the apparent fact that the very top batsmen do not seem to average significantly higher at FC level than what they do at Test level; atleast not to the extent that would be commensurate with the gulf in quality between FC and Test level bowling attacks.

 

[zaremba]

Fertang's the man to ask on this one; from memory I think he's posted before that when Grace scored his 50th First Class century he'd scored something like 30% of all First Class centuries scored up until that point. IIRC whoever held 2nd position in the number of tons scored only had 10 FC hundreds to his name.

That's all from memory, so could be wrong.

Those are simply astonishing stats.
He also took getting on for three thousand FC wickets.
Not sure if I rate that above a Test average of 99.94, it's a bloody close run thing.

 

[Manee]

I just don't look at determining quality that way as it creates an unfair advantage as such. It's possible, even if not likely, that Stuart Broad has more refined batting ability than Jack Hobbs, but I just don't think it's relevant to how good they should be regarded. It's not something I've really devoted any time to formulating an opinion on because it wouldn't change my opinion as to Hobbs's stature as a cricketer at all.

Your argument is good. However, would it not logically lead to such an argument where the standout sprinters of the past could be compared to Usain Bolt, despite the fact that he is clearly the superior runner.

 

[fredfertang]

Your argument is good. However, would it not logically lead to such an argument where the standout sprinters of the past could be compared to Usain Bolt, despite the fact that he is clearly the superior runner.

Which gives me an excuse to point out that WG, in his youth of course, ran 100 yards in 10.8 seconds, at a time when the world record was 10.5 which, if my arithmetic is right (which it may not be) is the equivalent of a modern player, based on Bolt's record, doing a sub 10 second 100 metres

 

[Prince EWS]

Your argument is good. However, would it not logically lead to such an argument where the standout sprinters of the past could be compared to Usain Bolt, despite the fact that he is clearly the superior runner.

If I actually followed athletics, that is precisely how I'd see it.

 

[The Sean]

Your argument is good. However, would it not logically lead to such an argument where the standout sprinters of the past could be compared to Usain Bolt, despite the fact that he is clearly the superior runner.

Abso-****ing-lutely.

I take it that you belong to the school of thought that anyone working in an observatory today is a greater astronomer than Copernicus?

 

[The Sean]

Which gives me an excuse to point out that WG, in his youth of course, ran 100 yards in 10.8 seconds, at a time when the world record was 10.5 which, if my arithmetic is right (which it may not be) is the equivalent of a modern player, based on Bolt's record, doing a sub 10 second 100 metres

I'd read that before, but still - WAG.

Amidst some recent discussions as to the challenge made by Sobers or Imran to The Don's tag of Greatest Of All Time, the good Doctor has been conspicuous by his absence.

 

[kyear2]

Nah, quality of bowling definitely plays a major part. Flat pitches didn't stop the likes of Glenn McGrath, Shoaib Akhtar, Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharan and Dale Steyn from posting up awesome figures in the 00s (McGrath and Murali got better in the 00s compared to their 90s selves, Warne average about the same but had a hugely improved SR in the 00s). Flat pitches might be responsible for the likes of Anderson averaging 30 instead of 28, but the main difference in making batting easier was because someone like Tendulkar in the 00s was facing Mohammad Sami and Umar Gul or Tino Best and Corey Collymore rather than Wasim and Waqar or Ambrose and Walsh. Regardless of what the pitch is or isn't doing, facing Pakistan and the West Indies, to use probably the two most obvious examples, was much easier in the 00s.

+1
The pitches didn't become dead overnight in 2002. The quality of bowling just got worse. The 2000's was the worse era of bowlers in a very long time.
Sachin faced some gun attacks in the 90's, but in the 2000's he feasted on some poor bowling (5 100's in 5 matches vs. Ban and 3 more vs Zim for eg.), but he definately earned his runs in the 90's and he also performed well vs the remaining big boys in the 2000's.

 

[kyear2]

Hobbs probably faced the weakest competition, but among the most difficult conditions. The rules though also heavily favoured batsmen, but those sticky wickets (if they could be called that) could not have been easy.
Richards faced off againts some of the finest bowlers of all time, Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Botham ect, and especially proved his worth in WSC and he played on the "lively" pitches of the 80's.
Sobers era was up and down but he did face some good attacks.
The Great Sir Don though faced only one good attack in his day and only played in two contries. The rules also heavily favoured batsmen to the extent that during/after his career many were changed. Some of these were the LBW rule, stumps were made wider, the advent of the second new ball and the increased prominance of the seams on the balls. In terms of sticky wickets, Hobbs, Hutton, Hutton and Headley were seen as his superior on such services. He also faced some of the worse fielding sides in history, for example in one series againts the West Indies he scored 2 hundreds and in both Innings he was droped once in single figures and the other I belive in his 40's (could be wrong on that number).
The modern era is much more difficult for players with the travelling and foreign conditions and different pitches and environments, professional sides with fielding and bowling coaches and tape to study the opposition.
Don Bradman was unquestionbly the Greatest Batsman who ever lived, but he did play in the easiest era for batting.

 

[BlazeDragon]

+1
The pitches didn't become dead overnight in 2002. The quality of bowling just got worse. The 2000's was the worse era of bowlers in a very long time.
Sachin faced some gun attacks in the 90's, but in the 2000's he feasted on some poor bowling (5 100's in 5 matches vs. Ban and 3 more vs Zim for eg.), but he definately earned his runs in the 90's and he also performed well vs the remaining big boys in the 2000's.

No, according to historians the flat track era started after 1991.
Cricket's Turning Points: The bouncer rule | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

These are the bowling stats post-91 compared to the 70's and 80's before that. I took out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for the first one and Sri Lanka for the second. South Africa shouldn't count since they played insufficient amount of matches otherwise they were even better than WI.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

As you can see they are quite close so it would mean that 70's and 80's had their share of crap bowling as well. I bet you if you looked at the batting stats however it won't be so close.

Thinking the quality of bowling just decreased naturally over time is ridiculous. There is a reason why people call it the era of flat tracks and the sooner you accept that the better. The game really is getting harder as time goes by.

 

[kyear2]

Apart from Steyn, name the GREAT bowlers playing today. Steyn is great, as such he transcends generations and "conditions", so dont telll me it cant be done. The quality is falling.
In one game in the England, India series the pitch looked rediculously dead, the England bowled and it looked a different surface. Great players perform regarless of conditions or opponents.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

The only one who has come close to Steyn has been the druggie fixer.