ExtremeBrainfade Posted August 30, 2019 Posted August 30, 2019 (edited) Case in point below. Two fast bowlers' test stats below are quite comparable. Yet, only the second one is spoken of as a great. He is knighted and all that. He bowled in an era where pitches were more conducive to fast bowling and batsmen had less protection. The first one is a contemporary pacer who slogs it out in more batsman-friendly circumstances, but is not even mentioned as being great in his era, let alone mentioned in conversations of greats across generations. He is unlikely to even have a whiff of knighthood and other such honors. Not a great? A great? Does nostalgia blind our perceptions of greatness? Do writers, who often tend to be in their 40s - 50s, remember fondly the "greats" of their era and keep propping them up? Edited August 30, 2019 by ExtremeBrainfade beetle, velu, vijaydude and 2 others 1 4
putrevus Posted August 30, 2019 Posted August 30, 2019 Just now, ExtremeBrainfade said: Case in point below. Two fast bowlers' test stats below are quite comparable. Yet, only the second one is spoken of as a great. He is knighted and all that. He bowled in an era where pitches were more conducive to fast bowling and batsmen had less protection. The first one is a contemporary pacer who slogs it out in more batsman-friendly circumstances, but is not even mentioned as being great in his era, let alone mentioned in conversations of greats across generations. Not a great? A great? Does nostalgia blind our perceptions of greatness? Do writers, who often tend to be in their 40s - 50s, remember fondly the "greats" of their era and keep propping them up? No one guy played against top test teams and the other one played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.The other guy would have played more tests if not for the talent in that team. Other guy is still regarded as one of the best fast bowlers .
maniac Posted August 30, 2019 Posted August 30, 2019 It’s interesting. As someone who grew up in the 90s I feel quality of cricket was better in that era. Don’t want to generalize but in my personal life and on this forum a lot of people in my age group feel the same way based on what I have seen. However at the same time when someone hypes sobers in the 60s or quality of cricket from the 70s and early 80s or maybe go even further back into the Bradman era, I immediately feel it is ridiculous the amount of hype that era gets. I guess in conclusion- people feel the era during their formative years be it music, movies or sports was the best. May be it is natural to think the next gen is having it too easy or the previous gen was not so intense and competitive beetle, Suhaan, vijaydude and 3 others 1 5
putrevus Posted August 30, 2019 Posted August 30, 2019 (edited) Roach is no where near the class of Andy Roberts.Roach is good but not in the class of Roberts. Edited August 30, 2019 by putrevus
Moochad Posted August 30, 2019 Posted August 30, 2019 Yes, players from the past are glorified because their careers are already over. When a current player is playing their career is in progress, but a past player has a complete resume. That doesn't mean the current player isn't better but it means the longetivity isnt there yet beetle and velu 2
ExtremeBrainfade Posted August 30, 2019 Author Posted August 30, 2019 19 minutes ago, Moochad said: Yes, players from the past are glorified because their careers are already over. When a current player is playing their career is in progress, but a past player has a complete resume. That doesn't mean the current player isn't better but it means the longetivity isnt there yet But in this case, the past player played 47 tests, whereas the current player has 53. If anything, he has played longer.
Moochad Posted August 30, 2019 Posted August 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, ExtremeBrainfade said: But in this case, the past player played 47 tests, whereas the current player has 53. If anything, he has played longer. yes, I was speaking in general. In this case, (I am not sure who the bowlers are), I don't see why we can't compare the two.
ExtremeBrainfade Posted August 30, 2019 Author Posted August 30, 2019 1 hour ago, putrevus said: No one guy played against top test teams and the other one played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.The other guy would have played more tests if not for the talent in that team. Other guy is still regarded as one of the best fast bowlers . You make some good points. Current guy's best stats are against Bang and Zimb. Past guy has a consistent record against all the opposition he faced, but the best was against India who were probably the worst at facing fast bowling (with the exception of Sunny G) from 1974-1983. But I think there's more to the perception: (1) Past guy started off with a bang. His debut year average was 21 and SR was 47. Current guy debut year average was 30 and SR was 54. First impressions matter. (2) Past guy was more consistent. Except for one off-year, he had a heckuva career. (3) Being part of a fearsome foursome and a dominant team contributed to the aura. Winning matters. (4) For sure, the pitches were more bowler-friendly and batsmen had less protection contributing to better avgs and SRs for fast bowlers. Helmets make a difference, especially from a confidence standpoint. He was obviously an extremely good bowler, but possibly a bit over-rated, whereas current guy is also an extremely good but oft-injured and inconsistent bowler and a tad under-rated. BTW, I am an ICF mamu - grew up watching those guys striking fear in everyone, always believing they are the best. Thus seeing the current guys numbers being so close was a a bit of a surprise. Current guy: Past guy vijaydude 1
express bowling Posted August 30, 2019 Posted August 30, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, putrevus said: No one guy played against top test teams and the other one played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. During Roberts' playing days ( 1974 to 1983 ), how many other good batting teams were there apart from his own team ? SA were in exile Half the time, England had pathetic batting lineups. Gooch became good only from 1990. Gower was there from 1978. Boycott was there. Others were pathetic. India had 3 top batters. Pakistan had Miandad. Can't think of any other top names apart from Zaheer Abbas who was not that good against genuine pace. Australia was ok. That was about it. Edited August 31, 2019 by express bowling Vijy 1
beetle Posted August 31, 2019 Posted August 31, 2019 Past players don't have bad days. We only look at their overall stats and get reminded of their good days. No one talks about the time they struggled or had a really bad form. Don't we hear the oldies talk about the good old days in general when the world was do nice. vijaydude, sscomp32, Ankit_sharma03 and 2 others 1 2 2
rkt.india Posted August 31, 2019 Posted August 31, 2019 9 hours ago, putrevus said: No one guy played against top test teams and the other one played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.The other guy would have played more tests if not for the talent in that team. Other guy is still regarded as one of the best fast bowlers . WI was the top team. All others were just average teams in those days. sscomp32 1
rkt.india Posted August 31, 2019 Posted August 31, 2019 8 hours ago, putrevus said: Roach is no where near the class of Andy Roberts.Roach is good but not in the class of Roberts. Roach has lost pace due to injuries. But now he has experience and is doing well despite losing pace. There was a time he used to easily hit 150k.
Straight Drive Posted August 31, 2019 Posted August 31, 2019 8 hours ago, maniac said: It’s interesting. As someone who grew up in the 90s I feel quality of cricket was better in that era. Don’t want to generalize but in my personal life and on this forum a lot of people in my age group feel the same way based on what I have seen. However at the same time when someone hypes sobers in the 60s or quality of cricket from the 70s and early 80s or maybe go even further back into the Bradman era, I immediately feel it is ridiculous the amount of hype that era gets. I guess in conclusion- people feel the era during their formative years be it music, movies or sports was the best. May be it is natural to think the next gen is having it too easy or the previous gen was not so intense and competitive Not really all oldies think like that. When I watched Sunny bat, I used to say there would be no Indian batsman like him. Then I saw Sachin and Dravid. Then I thought there would not be next Sachin and Dravid. Kohli then showed he can also match previous best by the time he finishes his test career. What Indian cricket has not produced is next ATG all rounder like Kapil. But the pace bowlers of today are much better than what we had in our times. Even the fielding standards are better now apart from Solkar catching at forward short leg and silly point. The spin attack of Bedi, Prasanna, Chandra and Venkat is not yet surpassed . Indian cricket has blossomed in more aspects and regressed in relatively few aspects. express bowling 1
Nikola Posted August 31, 2019 Posted August 31, 2019 Old WI team is surely hyped. They were great but not many competitive teams played in that era. Most team were avg and others were mediocre. express bowling 1
R!TTER Posted August 31, 2019 Posted August 31, 2019 You could say the same about Oz, WI declined massively & Pak were on the downhill after 1999, SA also was in a rebuilding phase post Cronje & India were just finding a set of bowlers who wouldn't be mediocre overseas, England were England & SL were rubbish outside Asia, NZ were semi competitive at times & the rest were proper minnows. The only time we could've had 2 world dominating forces was the 70's except SA "greatness" was cut short by Apartheid, otherwise we might well have seen a real showdown between the best of SA & WI - that would've an epic event at all levels velu 1
rkt.india Posted August 31, 2019 Posted August 31, 2019 3 hours ago, Straight Drive said: Not really all oldies think like that. When I watched Sunny bat, I used to say there would be no Indian batsman like him. Then I saw Sachin and Dravid. Then I thought there would not be next Sachin and Dravid. Kohli then showed he can also match previous best by the time he finishes his test career. What Indian cricket has not produced is next ATG all rounder like Kapil. But the pace bowlers of today are much better than what we had in our times. Even the fielding standards are better now apart from Solkar catching at forward short leg and silly point. The spin attack of Bedi, Prasanna, Chandra and Venkat is not yet surpassed . Indian cricket has blossomed in more aspects and regressed in relatively few aspects. Likes of Kumble, BHajji, Jaddu and Ashwin have already surpasses those guys.
express bowling Posted August 31, 2019 Posted August 31, 2019 6 minutes ago, rkt.india said: Likes of Kumble, BHajji, Jaddu and Ashwin have already surpasses those guys. Most of them were better outside Asia ... especially compared to Ashwin and Jaddu.
rkt.india Posted August 31, 2019 Posted August 31, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, express bowling said: Most of them were better outside Asia ... especially compared to Ashwin and Jaddu. That is just a perception. Lets compare Jaddu and Bedi. Bedi had oveaseas averaage of 33, jaddu 36 while he has only played 15 tests and is easily going to improve those numbers. There is not a huge difference but if you see home numbers, jaddu averages 19, Bedi 23. now compare Ashwin with Prasanna. Prasanna averages 33 with 94 wickets in 27 games. Ashwin 31 with 108 wickets in 27 games. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/32357.html?class=1;home_or_away=2;template=results;type=allround http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/26421.html?class=1;home_or_away=2;template=results;type=allround Edited August 31, 2019 by rkt.india vijaydude 1
chewy Posted August 31, 2019 Posted August 31, 2019 Roach has been poor managed by WI. And doing same with Gabriel Roach was frightening quick when he started, and can still up pace when needed. It was mind boggling why Roach wasn't automatic choice in WC 2019 in England, when they were too busy trying fit in Carlos Braithwaith
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now