Until the 1990s cricket was played in a manner wherein bowlers and batsmen had more or less equal chances to succeed. However of late, especially in the last 15 years, the game has tilted heavily in favour of batsmen.
So many batsmen have averages above 50. But a question to be asked is whether it truly reflects a batsman’s capability.
Particular pitches have always been batting paradises. Helmets have also made it easy for batsmen to succeed even if they have technical flaws.
Earlier batsmen had to use their technical skills to combat bouncers. However today batsmen often get trapped and get hit on the head but are saved by helmets. Had it not been for helmets, how many batsmen would have played confidently on the front foot?
Sachin Tendulkar and Ricky Ponting were hit nastily quite a number of times in their careers. Sachin was hit by Shoaib Akhtar in 2006 and by James Anderson in 2007. Ponting got the same treatment from Javagal Srinath in 1999/00 and in the 2005 Ashes.
What if they did not have helmets on? Now imagine the sight of say a Malcolm Marshall going around the wicket and bowling six consecutive nasty jaw breakers in one over?
This is not to demean anyone, but the helmet is a major factor which is always overlooked when you compare modern greats with guys like Sunil Gavaskar and Viv Richards.
True, batting is not all about facing bouncers, but even on other aspects of fast bowling, how many of the modern greats have played top fast bowlers with authority?
Ponting in his heydays did not have to face a single top fast bowler. Brian Lara and Tendulkar never seemed to dominate Alan Donald or Glen McGrath.
Als,o even though Sachin, Wasim Akram, Courtney Walsh and Curtley Ambrose were contemporaries for over a decade, the Little Master hardly played any Tests against them and when he did, these guys had crossed 30.
(It can also be said these bowlers were lucky not to have faced Sachin in his prime but that is a different issue.)
Even Ponting stuttered while playing Ishant Sharma, the first time he was playing real pace after a long time.
This is not to undermine the efforts of these guys, who have been fantastic throughout the years. The point is to emphasize the amount of runs and tons scored should not be the sole criteria of comparing batsmen from different generations.
When you compare Richards with someone from a previous generation like Frank Worrell, there are hardly any problems.
However when one compares a Sachin or a Ponting with any of these past masters, a second thought needs to be given.
Or else it’s not just cricket.
vikramsinh
Guest
and beware he wasn't alone they were a bunch of good (or great ) bollersssssssssssssssssssssssss .........
vikramsinh
Guest
well ask any batsman from any era they would prefer any bowler from current test teams rather then Malcolm Marshall..............
Stanley Robson
Roar Rookie
Have to agree the "old timers" had a tougher (more dangerous) test without the kind of protective-wear we see in the modern-day game, but to compare the greats of the past to the greats of more recent times would be comparing apples and oranges. For one the modern professional cricketer plays a lot more cricket against other seasoned professionals. The players of yesteryear, pre-1980's in particular, were "part-timers". The modern-day player has to be consistent over a relatively longer career (when counted in terms of the amount of innings played). That is a whole other challenge in itself.
dadiggle
Guest
Not helmets. Restrictions on bouncers as facing 6 nose rippers from Marshall ain't same as him bowling two then relax cause he can't bowl anymore due to restrictions
vikramsinh
Guest
batsman will fear from Malcolm Marshall even with helmet........
vikramsinh
Guest
it works both ways they got hit because they know they got helmet (how they ) that's how human grows ....................................... what about balling quality .................
sheek
Roar Guru
So Cuzza - what's your point actually.....??? (assuming there is one, apart from a cheap shot)
sheek
Roar Guru
So Cuzza - what's your point actually.....???
Cuzza
Guest
Wow, is this about over-rated batsman or your years of watching cricket? Maybe you can change your moniker to Jim Maxwell or Richie Benaud.
sheek
Roar Guru
Jake, You mentioned that I plucked figures out of my head. Unfortunately, I was distracted by other matters to mention this at the time. However, much more learned cricket authorites than me had previously come to the conclusion that pre-1920 batsmen were about 20% better than their averages suggest. Up until the end of the1980s, Victor Trumper & Charlie Macartney often appeared in alltime best Australian XIs. Yet their averages were "only" 39.05 & 41.78 respectively. How could they deserve such lofty admiration? It's felt that averages stabilised from the 1920s (although sticky wickets existed until the end of the 1940s) through to the end of the 1970s when helmets were introduced. The following is a selection of outstanding batsmen (from 1920-79) whose averages fell in the 46-48 range. At some time or other, all were serious contenders for an alltime 1st or 2nd XI. Brown - 46.82, Harvey - 48.41, Hassett - 46.56, Lawry - 47.15, McCabe - 48.21, Morris - 46.49, Ponsford - 48.23, Simpson 48.60 (46.82 after second coming), Walters - 48.26, Woodfull 46.00. Now the oldtimers reasoned that pre-1920s batsmen were entitled to have their averages adjusted upwards by 20%. Thus, Trumper's becomes 46.86 & Macartney's becomes 50.13, putting them right among this august group. Now I have also reduced modern batsmen Hayden's & Hussey's averages by 10%. Hayden comes down from 50.74 to 45.67 & Hussey from 51.73 to 46.56. As someone who has followed cricket for 45 years & studied its history, these adjustments place these players more or less on a level playing field that reflects their true ability. And I would suggest most people with as much experience as me following cricket, from 40 years to say 60 or more, would more or less agree with me. But I wasn't the first to upwardly adjust the pioneer's averages by 20%. Learned cricket experts before me came up with the figures. I've never seen anyone explain the figures like this. But you don't need to be a genius to figure it out. Pre-1920, bowlers dominated heavily over batsmen. Post mid-1990s, the reverse has occured. Reasons for each have been explained enough. Averages are only meant to be a guide. They tell some of the story of a player's career & ability, but not necessarily the whole story.
Bayman
Guest
So, Jake, are you suggesting that today's Australian Test line-up is the greatest of all time given it's the most recent? Sometimes the "old-timers" are right - because they get to watch both the old and the new players and can make the comparison. The young guys only see the current crop of pretenders and assume because Olympians now run faster then today's cricketers must be better too. Olympians run against the clock. As far as I know one second a hundred years ago is the same as one second today - so the improvement can be actually measured. Cricket is a skill based sport involving many variables - pitches, protective gear, bats, ground sizes (roped boundaries), variations in actual talent, technique (gained and lost) - so the assumption that modern players are superior cricketers based on better diet, training, fitness is highly flawed. Personally, I have no problem at all thinking Bob Simpson is a better opener than Ed Cowan, that Greg Chappell is a better player than Shane Watson or that Wally Grout was a better keeper than Matthew Wade. Or Ashley Mallett better than Nathan Lyon. Or Neil Harvey a better batsman than anyone currently playing in Australia (including Michael Clarke). However, I suspect my knowledge base is a bit broader than yours - I'm an "old-timer". But I saw these guys - and you did not. That's the problem you see. I have seen every player you have seen but you have not seen every player that I have seen. Those "old favourites" you mention were not just better than the current crop - they were better by a factor. Unless, of course, you really think today's team is the best we've ever had......and I'd be quietly confident you do not believe that. Surely!!!
Nick
Roar Guru
Helmets, batting friendly pitches, tight bowling restrictions, smaller boundaries and bigger cricket bats.
James
Guest
Lets give the Don a helmet, a bat from this century and batter friendly pitches
pope paul v11
Guest
Your right about Waugh average early on Cuzza but he had some good days out against the mighty West Indies in 1988/89. Consecutive 90s on very fast Brissie and Perth, 42 ( I think ) on a dodgy MCG pitch. Also 63 out of 128 in the West Indies 1995 ( Port of Spain ? ) on a shocker against fired up Ambrose. A combo of factors no one likes a fired up fast bowler in any age, even with a helmet.
Cuzza
Guest
Other factors too, Steve Waughs record before they banned bouncers was atrocious, but when limited he was able to flourish, especially against attacks with only nil, one or genuine quicks.
Jake
Guest
So do you just use the sane formula that you would use to ascertain the value of $1 000 000? I'm not doubting your point about averages and their so called value. My point was aimed at you just making up these figures of 5% etc. I'm a big believer in the phrase "absence makes the heart grow fonder". I reckon that it is just natural for "old timers" (so to speak) to spruke up their old favourite players and try to make claims as to them being greater than the current crop.
sheek
Roar Guru
ADG, Indeed, it's quite possible Dale Steyn is the greatest fast bowler in history. Certainly, the stats help him in a batting friendly era.
sheek
Roar Guru
Jake, Funny about that but yes, they were pulled out of my head. ;-) I've been following cricket for about 45 years & have a decent appreciation of the game's history. It's possible to make such educated guesses based on perception & history. A million dollars today doesn't have the same value as a million dollars one hundred years ago. Similarly, a batting average of 50 today does not necessarily have the same value as 50 or 100 years ago. For me, it's a rule of thumb that helps me separate players across 100 years. Feel free to establish your own 'rule of thumb' for similar purposes.
James
Guest
i dont know about the 5-10% advantage but def think there is a certain advantage. my biggest complaint about comparing averages is that they are so insanely subjective to who you are facing. anyone who played against the west indian bowlers of 20-30 odd years ago would probably jump with glee with the thought of facing most of the bowling attacks of every nation for the last 10-15. in the same way that some batsmens averages are really more than they should be, if you dont have to face decent bowling attacks or if you routinely come in with a healthy amount of runs on the board it would be much easier to score runs than if you come in as the sole hope of your team. but i still think the biggest things that has swung stuff in favour of the batsmen is the niceness of the the pitches that are prepared nowadays and that bowlers are not allowed to kill batsmen anymore with bouncers.
James
Guest
yeah def a combination of things but still the point about batsmen having to be much more technically good and have so much less fear is very important. having that 4 prong west indian attack coming in at you bowling probably 3 balls an over that were round the head with nothing on but a cap would have made any batsmen be terrified thereby making the one that isnt bouncing but hitting middle of middle stump more difficult to keep out.