Have modern day fast bowlers become pansies or are they just not good enough?

[The Outsider]

What batting was lacking in those days was after top order' date=' it used to be easy to get the rest, but not anymore that is why lot of 7-8 wicket hauls. Pitches have turned flat. Even tailenders can handle the bat nowadays, most teams bat deep. #11 is not really #11 in some teams like it used to be before.[/quote'] Yeah Imran and Kapil used to bat at number 7-8 during "those" days. We saw a flat pitch on which Kapil bowled 31 overs on the trot or Imran bowled 62 overs at Port of Spain in one of the best fast bowling displays ever?

[saneindian]

A cramped schedule are the biggest reasons IMO. Just looked at the schedule for the 83 series vs WI, we played 6 tests in nearly 70 days with adequate gaps between two tests (though we played some ODIs between two tests). Compare that to our upcoming series vs England where we play 4 back to back tests in just 32 days. No wonder captains are reluctant to give their pacers longer spells.

[The Outsider]

A cramped schedule are the biggest reasons IMO. Just looked at the schedule for the 83 series vs WI, we played 6 tests in nearly 70 days with adequate gaps between two tests (though we played some ODIs between two tests). Compare that to our upcoming series vs England where we play 4 back to back tests in just 32 days. No wonder captains are reluctant to give their pacers longer spells.

You're comparing a one off with a one off - non Indians, specially Pakistan (read Imran) and WI used to play full county seasons, which is more than the workload an average international pace bowler does in a year, because at that time county cricket wasn't tiered.

[Vijay.Sharma]

I think a few factors need to come together in order for a bowler (immaterial of pace or spin) to be able to pick more than 6 wickets in an innings. I don't think the correlation between lack of 7-fers among pace bowlers today and supposed pansy-ness is valid. Key factors that bear an influence on 7-fers happening are - a. Ability of bowler to pick wickets (no doubt and here I don't think there is any great pansy-ness as the modern bowlers compare well with 80s and 90s bowlers on SR, number of wickets, etc) b. How many other wicket-taking bowlers are there in the team. Hadlee, Kapil, and Imran in the 80s were primarily the sole wicket takers of their teams. Obviously they will have many 6-fers compared to Wasim (who had Waqar and sundry others), Donald (who had Pollock, Ntini, DeVilliers, etc), Ambrose and Walsh (who had each other and the occasional Bishop, Rose, Dillon, etc), Steyn and Morkel (who have each other and the occasional Philander, Ntini, etc), the current English bowlers, the recent Paki bowlers, the recent-current Aussie bowlers. c. Length of spells I don't think bowlers have become greatly pansy. If you notice in most (not all) of those 7-fers usually the bowler taking the 7-fer multiple times did not have other bowlers who could pick 5-fers as often (or even in the ballpark) as he could. If you look at the list of fast bowlers who have taken the maximum 7-fers since the 70s it consists of the following 5 times Kapil, Imran 4 times McGrath 3 times Hadlee, Botham, Hoggard, Marshall, Waqar McGrath, Marshall, Waqar and to a certain extent Hoggard had other bowlers who were capable of taking 7-fers themselves. But Kapil, Imran, Hadlee, Botham (to a certain extent) were lone warriors Pansy-ness is not the cause of less 7-fers from fast bowlers of late. While it may be a correlation it is definitely not causation

[Ultimate_Game]

You're comparing a one off with a one off - non Indians' date=' specially Pakistan (read Imran) and WI used to play full county seasons, which is more than the workload an average international pace bowler does in a year, because at that time county cricket wasn't tiered.[/quote'] One of the main reason is getting sated coz the players attain financial freedom once they make it to the national team, especially a team like India. In the old days there hardly used to be any money in the game so the palyers had no choice but to keep at it and improve their game throughout the year. Even county cricket idn't provide enough means for cricketers to retire at the time. Fast forward today when a player probably makes more in a 6 week IPL than most of the cricketers made during their entire careers in 70s & 80s. It's a human falling that we tend to get sated once we make it big (financially speaking). Only a few of us have the drive to keep on going and that's what separates truly great from the average or merely good ones. When a fast bowler can bowl just 64 overs over a span of 6 weeks and earn millions of dollars, what are the chances the person would give it his all, train for hours and slog through Tests when there's scant reward for the effort? I don't really blame today's cricketers for the same as even most of us, including me, would probably have done the same. Dynamics of cricket are changed forever and you will only see cricketers/bowlers give it all on a few select occasions and rest of the time they will be just going through the motions for longevity and keep the cash cow going.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[saket123]

I agree with others who say flat pitches are to be blamed for this.. and that is directly related to the number of matches/tournaments being held in India. A sharp spike since the 90s.

[carnish]

My believe is that the Modern Day Good bowlers are at par if not better than most old ATG and I'm not talking about Indian bowlers. I'm talking about likes of McGrath, Murali, Warne, Akhtar, Gul, Lee, Steyn, Morkel, Malinga, Kumble and some others who have played after 2000 because these guys have a lot of workload, play on variety of pitches, pitches worldwide helping batters more off late, Various formats, etc. Arguments can be extensive and exhausting but we can never reach a conclusion as we dont know and can never know because we will never see them playing together.

[jairamesh]

Today's fast bowlers are crap only to those still wrapped in nostalgia who are unable fathom how changes to the game over the years has shifted the balance in favour of the batsmen.

[saket123]

Today's fast bowlers are crap only to those still wrapped in nostalgia who are unable fathom how changes to the game over the years has shifted the balance in favour of the batsmen.

true to an extent.. but Indian fast bowlers ARE crap because of their inability to develop their skills over the past 2 decades (collectively, and pass it down).. Even Pakistani Bowlers are miles ahead in terms of the development in their fast bowling.. they've had pioneers in reverse swing and yorkers.. we've had nothing in the bowling department. Zak is a very clever bowler and effective... but he is hardly a fast bowler anymore.

[goggi]

true to an extent.. but Indian fast bowlers ARE crap because of their inability to develop their skills over the past 2 decades (collectively, and pass it down).. Even Pakistani Bowlers are miles ahead in terms of the development in their fast bowling.. they've had pioneers in reverse swing and yorkers.. we've had nothing in the bowling department. Zak is a very clever bowler and effective... but he is hardly a fast bowler anymore.

:hysterical: Forget the past two decades, when have India remotely produced a "good" bowler!? This is country of 1 billion that is unable to churn out a single bowler in over 60 years of playing cricket a bowler who can sustain an average less than 30!. India never had an "all-time great" in the past and still don't have one. It's rather embarrassing Indian bowlers (especially quicks) never come up for discussion in World XI selections.

[Number]

:hysterical: Forget the past two decades, when have India remotely produced a "good" bowler!? This is country of 1 billion that is unable to churn out a single bowler in over 60 years of playing cricket a bowler who can sustain an average less than 30!. India never had an "all-time great" in the past and still don't have one. It's rather embarrassing Indian bowlers (especially quicks) never come up for discussion in World XI selections.

You write this thing again and again. I see the same sentence in your post probably everyday. Either you believe teens of India will be inspired to bowl fast after reading your posts on ICF or you think people can't get you until you repeat the same sentence 20 times.

[Vijay.Sharma]

I don't understand how the OP has equated lack of 7-fers with pansy-ness. I just looked at the different meanings of the word pansy (noun) - 1. Large-flowered garden*plant derived chiefly from the wild*pansy of Europe and having velvety petals of various colours 2. A timid man or boy considered childish or unassertive 3. [offensive] A homosexual man I guess the OP most likely referred to the second one. Shwetabh, care to elaborate why you think there is a causal link? You have presented some stats and from those I can see a correlation but I am not sure how you have established causation. Of course stats by themselves cannot establish causation - it is always established by human judgment. So if I may ask, what compelled you to establish causation in this case?

[goggi]

You write this thing again and again. I see the same sentence in your post probably everyday. Either you believe teens of India will be inspired to bowl fast after reading your posts on ICF or you think people can't get you until you repeat the same sentence 20 times.

Hopeful! Let's try fixing literacy rates and internet connections before teens of India get inspired by reading my comments. I only write this because it's my opinion which I stick to it and bring it up in relevant threads. But nice to know I have fan. :icflove:

[Vijay.Sharma]

Today's fast bowlers are crap only to those still wrapped in nostalgia who are unable fathom how changes to the game over the years has shifted the balance in favour of the batsmen.

I am not sure it has shifted the balance very heavily in the favor of batsmen otherwise what explains the increase in results in Tests. The last time I checked a team needs to take 20 wickets to win a Test. It is a very rare occurrence that a team has won a Test without taking 20 wickets. I think the notion of pitches becoming flat is also not entirely true. I think the more influencing factor is the style of play...people are scoring more runs and that too faster. Even with the supposed flat wickets we are having an unprecedented amount of results since the turn of the century. If wickets were all great and extremely helpful to bowlers earlier then why were there so many draws?

[Vijay.Sharma]

:hysterical: Forget the past two decades, when have India remotely produced a "good" bowler!? This is country of 1 billion that is unable to churn out a single bowler in over 60 years of playing cricket a bowler who can sustain an average less than 30!. India never had an "all-time great" in the past and still don't have one. It's rather embarrassing Indian bowlers (especially quicks) never come up for discussion in World XI selections.

Ani Kumble is India's greatest match winner and I think he is rated very highly as a bowler. You don't get 600 wickets by being a mediocre bowler. He is an ATG. Kapil Dev was a great bowler but he screwed his legacy by dragging his career on. If he had retired after the 91-92 Aus tour I think he would be considered as a tier 2 ATG pace bowler (right now he is in tier 3 along with people like Sirinath, Gough, Ntini, Garner, Gillespie, Willis, Hall, Snow, McDermott, Lee, Akthar, etc among the fast bowlers) We've also had some great spinners like Bedi, Chandra, Gupte, Prasanna, and Bhajji,

[jairamesh]

I am not sure it has shifted the balance very heavily in the favor of batsmen otherwise what explains the increase in results in Tests. The last time I checked a team needs to take 20 wickets to win a Test. It is a very rare occurrence that a team has won a Test without taking 20 wickets. I think the notion of pitches becoming flat is also not entirely true. I think the more influencing factor is the style of play...people are scoring more runs and that too faster. Even with the supposed flat wickets we are having an unprecedented amount of results since the turn of the century. If wickets were all great and extremely helpful to bowlers earlier then why were there so many draws?

Good point. I just checked the stats for draws in 80s compared to 2000-09 and I was surprised to see nearly 50% of the matches ended in draws in the 80s:omg: compared to only 25% during the 1st decade of this millennium! But the run rates have progressively got higher despite higher chances for a result! Which means time to move the bar to measure good bowlers with respect to average? Is the bowl aver. of 30 now the new 25? Hence are we looking at the wrong angle dismissing today's bowlers who average around 30 not great despite winning more games than their predecessors?

[Vijay.Sharma]

A relevant info snippet about the categorization of pitches through the different decades of Test cricket. Test cricket when it comes to pitches has been generally considered to have gone thru three different phases as follows: a. Pre WW1 i.e. 1877 to 1914 - Bowler friendly wickets (110 results out of 134 Tests i.e. 81%) b. Between the Wars and a decade after that i.e. 1920s thru to 1960s ( 321 results of 525 matches i.e. 60%) - Batsmen friendly wickets reaching its peak during the 1930s. c. Post 1970s - Balanced wickets (906 results out of 1381 i.e 65%) Period-wise break-up 1877 - 1899: 54 results out of 64 i.e. 84% 1900 - 1920: 56 results out of 70 i.e. 80% 1920s: 35 from 51 i.e. 69% 1930s: 53 from 89 i.e. 60% 1940s: 23 from 45 i.e. 51% 1950s: 113 from 164 i.e. 69% 1960s: 97 from 186 i.e. 52% 1970s: 114 from 198 i.e. 58% 1980s: 143 from 266 i.e. 54% 1990s: 223 from 347 i.e. 64% 2000s: 350 from 464 i.e. 75% 2010s: 76 from 106 ie 72% So the worst decades for results were 30s. 40s. 60s. 70s. and 80s. Despite the non-pansy-ness of the great bowlers of the 70s and 80s, they could not force results. Great!

[jairamesh]

A relevant info snippet about the categorization of pitches through the different decades of Test cricket. Test cricket when it comes to pitches has been generally considered to have gone thru three different phases as follows: a. Pre WW1 i.e. 1877 to 1914 - Bowler friendly wickets (110 results out of 134 Tests i.e. 81%) b. Between the Wars and a decade after that i.e. 1920s thru to 1960s ( 321 results of 525 matches i.e. 60%) - Batsmen friendly wickets reaching its peak during the 1930s. c. Post 1970s - Balanced wickets (906 results out of 1381 i.e 65%) Period-wise break-up 1877 - 1899: 54 results out of 64 i.e. 84% 1900 - 1920: 56 results out of 70 i.e. 80% 1920s: 35 from 51 i.e. 69% 1930s: 53 from 89 i.e. 60% 1940s: 23 from 45 i.e. 51% 1950s: 113 from 164 i.e. 69% 1960s: 97 from 186 i.e. 52% 1970s: 114 from 198 i.e. 58% 1980s: 143 from 266 i.e. 54% 1990s: 223 from 347 i.e. 64% 2000s: 350 from 464 i.e. 75% 2010s: 76 from 106 ie 72% So the worst decades for results were 30s. 40s. 60s. 70s. and 80s. Despite the non-pansy-ness of the great bowlers of the 70s and 80s, they could not force results. Great!

The golden era :hysterical:, Seriously if Tests cricket followed those percentage ratios for results of 60s, 70s, & 80s, then Test cricket would be dead by now.

[saket123]

all things aside.. I don't think fast bowling is the all in all of bowling. I know Pakistanis as obsessed with pace bowling.. I don't think we should be the same. The best bowlers the game has ever produced are spin bowlers (Mutthaiah and Warne). While there is some merit to fast bowling.. let's not give it too much credit. It is also a well known fact that good batsmen are very good at playing fast bowlers than they are with spin bowling. Pace is over estimated. Lack of pace and spin with variation is any day superior.