Better bats, power hitting and shorter boundaries- are they destroying cricket as we know it?

[punjabi_khota]

remember the pitch in mohali when pakis got bowled out for 80 in CT? where did tht pitch come from. also delhi pitch will now be bouncy for domestic matches where will tht pitch come from. making balling pitch is easy, LEAVE GRASS ON IT.

Arre bhai main bhi vahi bol raha hoon..you can leave grass on it to aid seamers, but you cannot make pitches bouncy so easily.

[punjabi_khota]

Are you going to tell the same thing "Baap ka raaj hai ke pitches should be like this and that" to Atkinson also? And no I'm not asking just bouncy pitches, even if it aids spin bowling it is ok. Just have something for the bowlers also. Atkinson today: http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/398957.html

The OP is talking about ODI pitches, and Atkinson is talking about test cricket. Anyways, I don't think making them bouncy is gonna happen. Something tells me that DHoni will not like leaving grass on the pitches either.

[hassan_113]

remember the pitch in mohali when pakis got bowled out for 80 in CT? where did tht pitch come from. also delhi pitch will now be bouncy for domestic matches where will tht pitch come from. making balling pitch is easy, LEAVE GRASS ON IT.

Excellent point. Ok, as a Pakistan fan I was stunned by that SA match where we were hammered but we had them at 42-5 and should have finished them off. The pitches in that tournament were generally excellent and Lara said that the wickets in ODI cricket should be like those in 2006 CT.

[King]

Although the thread has some valid points as in the alarming number of ODIs being played around the world it is silly to suggest there shouldn't be advancement in kit making. What do you blokes expect? You want the batsmen to use 1920s Bradman used Slazengers??? In the same breath the 70s or 80s were tougher to bat as there were no helmets do you guys reckon the batsmen should shun using the helmets? There were no thigh pads or arm guards either in the 1950s so the batsmen should go back to playing without them? It was ICC that started to put in standards such as covered pitches to ensure there is level playing ground. Should that be shunned because some purists don't like some of the batsmen like Sehwag or Hayden are scoring runs in a jiff. There were fast scorers in the past too in test matches such as Viv Richards, Kapil Dev, Ian Botham and the likes. Should they not be considered good enough then because they believed in taking the game head on and producing brilliance. Fast scoring is nothing new and with the advent of time batsmen/bowlers/fielding standards have all gone up. So much for level playing field, were there as many number of top class international players there are now in the 1960s? No bloody chance. Give me Viv Richards any day over the likes of ugly batting of Miandad, Fairbrother, Chris Harris, Bevan, John Wright and the likes. Anyday I'd watch the likes of Ian Botham or Kapil Dev over Mohd Kaif or Michael Hussey. Give me Gilchrist or McCullum over Ian Healy or Allan Knott any day with the bat. Pace doesn't mean anything these days. If the likes of Bret Lee or Shoaib Akthar bowled in the 80s or 90s they would have walked away with heaps of wickets, these days they struggle to compete with the likes of McGrath or Shaun Pollock. Wasim Akram's guile with the ball is way better than Shoaib Akthar's fast bowling crap. McGrath's subtle changes are way more valuable to a team than Bret Lee's easy pickings. Just because you provide a bit more pace in the pitch doesn't mean the batsmen are going to shake in their boots. The batsmen these days don't grind but take the bowlers head on. There is nothing wrong with that. If the current batsmen followed the yardstick set by batsmen from 80s and before there would have been no Haydens, Sehwags, Gilchrists and the likes.

[Pak_Forever]

Excellent points raised by Hassan. Something seriously needs to be done about boundaries and pitches.This game is becoming way too batsmen friendly from every aspect.

[suraj]

Although the thread has some valid points as in the alarming number of ODIs being played around the world it is silly to suggest there shouldn't be advancement in kit making. What do you blokes expect? You want the batsmen to use 1920s Bradman used Slazengers??? In the same breath the 70s or 80s were tougher to bat as there were no helmets do you guys reckon the batsmen should shun using the helmets? There were no thigh pads or arm guards either in the 1950s so the batsmen should go back to playing without them? It was ICC that started to put in standards such as covered pitches to ensure there is level playing ground. Should that be shunned because some purists don't like some of the batsmen like Sehwag or Hayden are scoring runs in a jiff. There were fast scorers in the past too in test matches such as Viv Richards, Kapil Dev, Ian Botham and the likes. Should they not be considered good enough then because they believed in taking the game head on and producing brilliance. Fast scoring is nothing new and with the advent of time batsmen/bowlers/fielding standards have all gone up. So much for level playing field, were there as many number of top class international players there are now in the 1960s? No bloody chance. Give me Viv Richards any day over the likes of ugly batting of Miandad, Fairbrother, Chris Harris, Bevan, John Wright and the likes. Anyday I'd watch the likes of Ian Botham or Kapil Dev over Mohd Kaif or Michael Hussey. Give me Gilchrist or McCullum over Ian Healy or Allan Knott any day with the bat. Pace doesn't mean anything these days. If the likes of Bret Lee or Shoaib Akthar bowled in the 80s or 90s they would have walked away with heaps of wickets, these days they struggle to compete with the likes of McGrath or Shaun Pollock. Wasim Akram's guile with the ball is way better than Shoaib Akthar's fast bowling crap. McGrath's subtle changes are way more valuable to a team than Bret Lee's easy pickings. Just because you provide a bit more pace in the pitch doesn't mean the batsmen are going to shake in their boots. The batsmen these days don't grind but take the bowlers head on. There is nothing wrong with that. If the current batsmen followed the yardstick set by batsmen from 80s and before there would have been no Haydens, Sehwags, Gilchrists and the likes.

Ravi what is the incentive to be a bowler then??

[King]

Ravi what is the incentive to be a bowler then??

Extremely good point. I'll have to say not many but I'll list some below off the head :

• Better Gear as in skins or under armour. In the past players used to use termals to play under cold conditions and just a t-shirt in warm conditions.
• They use way better shoes now. For a bowler a shoe is a very important tool to improve performance and prevent injuries.
• Advent of videos. Bowlers can use laptops, Quintic like software to analyze batsmen and pick up technical flaws. The past bowlers never really had that.
• Field of body mechanics : This is one area that has improved heaps. Faulty bowling actions that lead to injuries are detected early and corrected.

[Mamu]

remember the pitch in mohali when pakis got bowled out for 80 in CT? where did tht pitch come from. also delhi pitch will now be bouncy for domestic matches where will tht pitch come from. making balling pitch is easy, LEAVE GRASS ON IT.

Perth was never a grassy wicket, yet one of the best in the world for fast bowlers. You can have pacy and bouncy wickets without grass on it. Grass in the sub continent is a big mistake -- cuz the grass will dry off after 3 hours and blwlers in those 3 hours will have undue advantage. Unless the weather permits like in England -- you can have grass where it is expecte to stay all 5 days.

[fineleg]

Extremely good point. I'll have to say not many but I'll list some below off the head :

• Better Gear as in skins or under armour. In the past players used to use termals to play under cold conditions and just a t-shirt in warm conditions.
• They use way better shoes now. For a bowler a shoe is a very important tool to improve performance and prevent injuries.
• Advent of videos. Bowlers can use laptops, Quintic like software to analyze batsmen and pick up technical flaws. The past bowlers never really had that.
• Field of body mechanics : This is one area that has improved heaps. Faulty bowling actions that lead to injuries are detected early and corrected.

And that should change ravi. There needs to be more incentives for the bowler too. As it is, Incentives are loaded in favor of the batsmen.

[f.b.m]

[*]Better Gear as in skins or under armour. In the past players used to use termals to play under cold conditions and just a t-shirt in warm conditions.

These help the batsmen aswell. Having gloves specifically designed to be warm or cool helpe the batsmen heaps

[*]They use way better shoes now. For a bowler a shoe is a very important tool to improve performance and prevent injuries.

Again, same for the batsmen. The footwork improves a zillion times, especially if the wicket is a dock or is extremely dry and hard.

[*]Advent of videos. Bowlers can use laptops, Quintic like software to analyze batsmen and pick up technical flaws. The past bowlers never really had that.

You can analyze different deliveries from bowlers and guys like Murali would have picked up a lot more wickets. The slo-mo videos help the batsmen a lot more than the bowler because as a bowler even if you spot a weakness in a batsman, the execution is much more difficult than as a batsman if you have a problem in picking a delivery. Also, as a batsman you can analyze your own batting and rectify it. There's no such thing for a bowler.

[*]Field of body mechanics : This is one area that has improved heaps. Faulty bowling actions that lead to injuries are detected early and corrected.

Correct but "coaching" has also made many pace bowlers to trundlers and there's no real reason to believe that bowlers these days are faster (or swing the ball more or hit the deck harder) than they did before when this analyzing wasnt done. Btw, all these are more than offset by the quality of the bats these days. Even last year, a few Australians started using bats that reduced handle vibrations by 50%. A bit of bio-mechanical "expertise" for the bowlers is nothing compared to this.

[f.b.m]

It was ICC that started to put in standards such as covered pitches to ensure there is level playing ground. Should that be shunned because some purists don't like some of the batsmen like Sehwag or Hayden are scoring runs in a jiff. There were fast scorers in the past too in test matches such as Viv Richards, Kapil Dev, Ian Botham and the likes. Should they not be considered good enough then because they believed in taking the game head on and producing brilliance. Fast scoring is nothing new and with the advent of time batsmen/bowlers/fielding standards have all gone up. So much for level playing field, were there as many number of top class international players there are now in the 1960s? No bloody chance.

Good post but I have my disagreements. Fast scoring, audacious players were as exciting as they were rare. I feel that exclusivity is fading with the advent of 20/20 cricket. You know something is wrong when England chose an "aggressive opener", he hit more than 50 and his name is Phil Mustard.

Give me Viv Richards any day over the likes of ugly batting of Miandad, Fairbrother, Chris Harris, Bevan, John Wright and the likes. Anyday I'd watch the likes of Ian Botham or Kapil Dev over Mohd Kaif or Michael Hussey. Give me Gilchrist or McCullum over Ian Healy or Allan Knott any day with the bat.

Good point.

Pace doesn't mean anything these days. If the likes of Bret Lee or Shoaib Akthar bowled in the 80s or 90s they would have walked away with heaps of wickets, these days they struggle to compete with the likes of McGrath or Shaun Pollock. Wasim Akram's guile with the ball is way better than Shoaib Akthar's fast bowling crap. McGrath's subtle changes are way more valuable to a team than Bret Lee's easy pickings. Just because you provide a bit more pace in the pitch doesn't mean the batsmen are going to shake in their boots. The batsmen these days don't grind but take the bowlers head on. There is nothing wrong with that. If the current batsmen followed the yardstick set by batsmen from 80s and before there would have been no Haydens, Sehwags, Gilchrists and the likes.

Again, disagree. Look back at the recent Barbados test where all the bowlers felt their deliveries drown in mud except one guy (Fidel Edwards) who decided to run in and give it everything he had. No surprises as to who troubled the batsmen the most (the whole series). Also look at Jerome Taylor. He bowled at about 82-83 mph for the whole series except for that one spell of nine overs when he revved it up to 89-90 mph and pwned England like few other have. Or look at Mitchell Johson, who bowls with no subtlety (he cant get the seam straight even if he wants to) and he picked up truckloads of wickets and was menacing in both helpful and unhelpful conditions. Even Flintoff caused quite a few problems in India and I doubt that he could have gotten such a response from the wicket without his pace. Hell, even Dammika Prasad caused problems with lively pace on a complete featherbed. And in general, a lot of wickets that we call dead seem to have something in them for the real quicks. On a general note, I think there are a lot more bowlers who have mastered the 'subtleties' of fast bowling and would be a lot more lethal if they added another 5-10 kmph than raw pace bowlers with pace but nothing else. Imagine if Zaheer Khan was constantly bowling at 145 kmph! He'd run through line ups like no other Indian bowler has. There are so many more examples: Ntini, Taylor, Stuart Clark, Gul, Sidebottom etc, etc.

[hassan_113]

f.b.m, Great post full of valid points- backs up what I have said about the game being too much in favour of the batters.

[f.b.m]

Bümp. In line with this thread, a new, multipurpose, long handle bat (to be used by both men and women in need of satisfaction) is created. Apparently with 15% more batspeed and 20% more power. Article

[cowboysfan]

^^in b4 of the BJP of ICF .they know who they are.

[EnterTheVoid]

Guys believe it or not..this hassan fella was arguing with me the other day about how So-Fail is phaster than Ishant!!:giggle:

Was he the clown with the stop start action that got spanked for a century on debut ? :hysterical: What is their obsession with pace ? They keep harping pace bowling as their forte, but in all four world cups, they got their ar5e' handed to them by medium pace swing bowlers each time.

[hassan_113]

92 and 99- did not matter as Pakistan reached final both times 96- granted, India deserved it 03- India deserved it- but coulda been different if at 57-2 Tendulkar was not dropped by Razzaq

[Nash]

92 and 99- did not matter as Pakistan reached final both times 96- granted, India deserved it 03- India deserved it- but coulda been different if at 57-2 Tendulkar was not dropped by Razzaq

Results matter mere bhai.. If Pakistan didnt play with 13 players on field at home ground and Sharjahan. The win lose ration might be different between Ind Pak.

[vvvslaxman]

92 and 99- did not matter as Pakistan reached final both times 96- granted, India deserved it 03- India deserved it- but coulda been different if at 57-2 Tendulkar was not dropped by Razzaq

You sound as if India won the match by 1 wicket lol. If not Tendulkar Yuvi would have thrashed you guys like he always does. You know what is luck.. Getting bowled out for 74 and rain washes out the match. Because of that point finishing 4th and advancing to next round. If that match had gone on Australia would have finished 4th.

[Mamu]

Was he the clown with the stop start action that got spanked for a century on debut ? :hysterical: What is their obsession with pace ? They keep harping pace bowling as their forte, but in all four world cups, they got their ar5e' handed to them by medium pace swing bowlers each time.

They had good pace bowling (I am not going to be like a Paki and argue against it) -- I mean you cannot dispute Wasim and Waqar and Imran -- BUT the biggest question I have always asked -- what have they got -- for all the pace bowlers they have had -- a Downright Pathetic Overseas Record -- And let me summarize it for everybody 1) It has been 13 Years since they have won any Series Abroad against Australia, RSA, West Indies, India and England combined. And I don't forsee them winning definitely in the next 5 years against any of the those countries. 2) Take England out of the equation -- It is getting close to 25 YEARS. Yes Ladies and Gentlemen -- close to a friggin a Quarter of a Century since they have had any Series Win Abroad. Granted they have owned NZ and SL -- but thats just about it -- and even that might change this year when they tour SL where they will dance to Murali and Mendis. 3) It has been 10 YEARS since They have NOT LOST a Test Match against Australia. --> A Record that is absolutely the worst record between ANY TWO countries (excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) in the last 10 years. And here is even worse news -- that record is not about to change in the next 5 years -- if anything they will even lose to SL and -- NZ might be a close call. What has all their great bowling achieved them -- Absolutely Nothing.

[vvvslaxman]

What has all their great bowling achieved them -- Absolutely Nothing.

They have achieved fine things like this :winky: Only team to lose a home series against Zimbabwe apart from Bangladesh. http://content.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63824.html