Does the skill level in a sport go up with time?

[Ram]

and going by the oft-repeated arguements that the pitches these days are getting flatter et al , doesnt it make the achievements of the pace line-ups of today even more creditable?

[Ram]

and when i said it doesnt get too better than Mc+Shane+Gilles , I didnt mean the last 10 years.. I meant they are the best bowling combination, EVER.

[King]

and going by the oft-repeated arguements that the pitches these days are getting flatter et al ' date=' doesnt it make the achievements of the pace line-ups of today even more creditable?[/quote'] Which great pace lineup Marirs? I don't see any great bowling line up right now.

[Ram]

Well Ravi , not exatly line-ups... The quicks.... all of them.. And one thing is sure obvious --- CC is in a love affair with the west indian quicks:giggle:

[CC1981]

Don't agree. But let's move on.

Ridiculous to think that a batting lineup featuring Crowe, Wight & Hadlee, rated by the Kiwis themselves as their best ever, gets preffered to Fleming-Astle. I suppose that is the power of mindless numbers!

How so? The South African batting lineup was certainly better than Pakistan's of that time and the Sri Lankan one was pretty handy as well specially in Sri Lanka.

Overall vats, overall. RSA's batting lineup better than PAK ?! seriously now..you can argue better depth but better batting lineup ? no way. And even if so, this is about the average field-strength.

Even if you count those 2-3 years they will only count on the bowler's personal stats not as part of particular attacks we are talking about. Irrelevant.

? Roberts- Holding bowled together in WSC. So did Lillee-Thommo. Holding & Roberts were not part of the Rest of the World team- they were the part of West Indians. It is quite literally bowling as the same unit, vs AUS and combined R.O.W .

Yes, the umpiring in that series was p!ss poor, but the WI umpires were no saints. Don't you remember the barrage of beamers aimed at the Indian batsmen allowed to go without rebuke after India had chased down 400+ and were 200/1 in the next test?

Err beamers/bouncers were tolerated a lot more back then. Period. When Holding was softening up the two geriatric English openers, he got a warning AFTER lunch! But it is one thing not to warn a bowler for aggressive bowling- quite another calling noball after stumps are broken, calling wide when you nick to 2nd slip, etc etc ! the kiwi umpiring was daylight robbery!

You are the one who is giving something as fundamental as average zero regard because of romanticism for the WI pace quartet.

And you are someone who by the same 'fundamental as average' rule won't admit that by average, Hayden >> Gavaskar.

And did you watch the 281 Laxman made in an innings of the century. Surely, that one innings makes him comparable to Lara?

Find me a single one-man demolishion job done by McGrath on a pancake-flat pitch then. Holding averaged 22.10 in India and took 30 wickets in 6 tests. Thats all i need to know about how good Holding was bowling on a dead pitch. As per bowling on a lively and fast pitch- Holding is literally the LAST person i'd face.

Some ballpark figure?

around 10 tests.

No Hadlee, Pollock, and Donald!!!!

My bad re: Hadlee- shunt down Davidson & accomodate Hadlee. But no, no Donald-Pollock in the top 10. They are in top 20 though.

Not true. Tests were played in the same cricket seasons of all countries.

But its a fact- look at the # of rain-affected draws in the 70s and 80s and compare then to rain affected draws from mid 90s onwards - there is a heaven & hell difference !

The WI quartet over rate was the most pathetic EVER witnessed in the history of cricket.

but it is irrelevant to the outcome of a match - WI pace bowlers made it a habit to wrap up tests by the 4th morning. And that too with their super-slow over-rate. If they actually bowled 90 overs a match, matches would be done inside of three days. What is relevant is that the many times WI were forced into a draw by super-slow over-rates while chasing a target.

Does the above tell you something?

yes- quality of batting lineups they faced were overall superior.

[CC1981]

CC is in a love affair with the west indian quicks

Because as far as bowling lineups go, WI bowling lineup was the Bradman of bowling lineups ! WI pace quartet vs any attack thats taken the field together for any length of time is a one horse race with the black horse the runaway winner. When you have literally three McGraths operating for you in terms of effectiveness, you are first and second is daylight!

[Ram]

Man.... this is gettin intense guys !!! :haha: I say we call a time-out !

[The Outsider]

Even more staggering : McGrath-Warne-Gillespie have conceded 400+ 9 times out of 126 test matches on flat pancakes with protective gear. 3 out of 4 or all 4 of Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts managed to do that in 82 tests.

[CC1981]

Even more staggering : McGrath-Warne-Gillespie have conceded 400+ 9 times out of 126 test matches on flat pancakes with protective gear. 3 out of 4 or all 4 of Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts managed to do that in 82 tests.

And i've already given you the cause : of the batting lineups they've faced, England, PAK, NZ were easily better batting lineups back then than today & India + Australia back then were easily better than the bottom 5 batting lineups. So overall higher quality opposition faced by the four-prong.

[The Outsider]

Roberts- Holding bowled together in WSC. So did Lillee-Thommo. Holding & Roberts were not part of the Rest of the World team- they were the part of West Indians. It is quite literally bowling as the same unit, vs AUS and combined R.O.W .

So from the glorified but implemented over 4 tests Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts we went down to 3 out of the 4 operating together and now we are down to just Holding-Roberts. How much more can you shift goal posts?

Err beamers/bouncers were tolerated a lot more back then. Period.

Beamers were illegal at that point of time.

And you are someone who by the same 'fundamental as average' rule won't admit that by average, Hayden >> Gavaskar.

Did you miss the "zero regard" part. Don't try to be cute.

Find me a single one-man demolishion job done by McGrath on a pancake-flat pitch then.

Fine me one Lara innings in which he scored a double hundred following on and WI won the match or maybe just scored a double hundred following on. BTW, McGrath has better stats in India than Holding. Infact, to make it clear McGrath has better numbers than Holding ANYWHERE, so stick to your romanticism.

around 10 tests.

:cantstop::cantstop: 10 tests are enough to screw up someone's stats from someone of the level of McGrath to the level of Gillespie. Kaun si pi aaj?

But its a fact- look at the # of rain-affected draws in the 70s and 80s and compare then to rain affected draws from mid 90s onwards - there is a heaven & hell difference !

Give me some numbers, Boss. Can't expect me to take everything you say for granted.

but it is irrelevant to the outcome of a match - WI pace bowlers made it a habit to wrap up tests by the 4th morning. And that too with their super-slow over-rate.

:cantstop::cantstop: And that's why they featured in so many non rain affected draws?

yes- quality of batting lineups they faced were overall superior.

If quality of batting AND bowling was superior then, the stats should have equalled out right? Moreover, lack of protective equipment and flatter pitches now, no comments on those still?

[The Outsider]

around 10 tests.

Just checked. Thats only true for Roberts. The rest don't have more than 5 tests in which they carried the attack on their own. There are more tests in which Gillespie was the frontline bowler FFS, so the argument isn't worth the memory space it is stored on.

[CC1981]

10 tests are enough to screw up someone's stats from someone of the level of McGrath to the level of Gillespie. Kaun si pi aaj?

10 test out of a 50-60 test career is a helluva lot of tests ! But obviously, for a number-cruncher, this is not going to be important ! Throw in the fact that 2-3 years of TOP level bowling from Holding gets disregarded because of a technicality. And please, Gillespie like stats ? Clearly, you want to fudge the issue. Gillespie has less than 4 wickets/test despite LESS competition for wickets & he averages 26.13 with 54.9 strike rate. Holding averages 23.68, 4 wickets/match & 50.9 strike rate. That is Wasim-Waqar's average( Wasim = 23.62, Waqar = 23.56), not Gillespie-esque. Unless ofcourse you think that Gillespie has Wasim-Waqar-esque average too ! Holding was a better bowler than Gillespie could ever DREAM of being. That much is evident to all and maybe if you arnt averse in comparing Holding & Gillespie, you arnt averse to comparing Ntini to Walsh.

So from the glorified but implemented over 4 tests Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts we went down to 3 out of the 4 operating together and now we are down to just Holding-Roberts. How much more can you shift goal posts?

Why twist my words ? Why confuse issues ? Marshall & Garner came around in 79. Till then it was Holding & Roberts, thats it. Croft was more out than in ( he also took flight training) and then completely out due to rebel tour to apartheid Africa. You asked why Holding's & Robert's stats are 'comparable' to Gillespie and i've answered that with Holding & Roberts in mind- for one, those two carried the whole attack for brief periods (tarnishing their records). For two, two-three years of their PEAK performance against the best of the best in the world were discarded. Obviously their stats arnt going to be as stellar.

Did you miss the "zero regard" part. Don't try to be cute.

And i am punting it back to you re: Gavaskar & Hayden by exact same standards of average!

BTW, McGrath has better stats in India than Holding. Infact, to make it clear McGrath has better numbers than Holding ANYWHERE, so stick to your romanticism.

McGrath's 2-3 years of best cricket wasnt 'discarded'. And yes, i think McGrath is a better bowler than Holding but it is marginal at best. Both are quite easily top 10 alltime great pacers. As i said, i'd easily undestand someone picking McGrath over Holding as much as Holding over McGrath. But to say they arnt comparable is laughable at best.

Give me some numbers, Boss. Can't expect me to take everything you say for granted.

Go to statsguru and punch in Viv Richards ( i picked Viv because he has 120+matches in that period, thus giving a good consistency) and check out matches drawn. Now check out how many of those were rain affected. I garantee you, its FAR more # of matches than Ponting or McGrath's. The planning of tours was the first thing ICC rectified post 99 world cup.

And that's why they featured in so many non rain affected draws?

barring rain-affected & opposition deliberately bowling at snail speed, there were very few drawn tests involving the WI of that period.

If quality of batting AND bowling was superior then, the stats should have equalled out right?

Err..no ? Thats like saying stats should equal out between FC cricket & Test cricket because quality of batting AND bowling is superior. We clearly know that is not the case. Anyways, i've had enough- i dont want to debate this anymore.Someone who thinks that Gillespie is Holding's equal obviously has no clue how good Holding was. Simple mindless stats without any extrapolation or information. Just blind stats based conclusions such as 'holding pooh-poohed in Kiwiland..he sux' without the knowledge that WI pacers were robbed blatantly in that series - the umpires calling noballs after the batsman has been bowled, snick to 2nd slip is called a wide, etc. Yet you claim to've 'seen' Holding in action. I call bullsheet.

[CC1981]

This is the bowler that is being compared to Gillespie - who's never bowled like this in his dreams! What more can be said apart from 'delusions and short term memory effect and a pre-meditated entrenched position' ?? Look vats, when you combine Shoaib Akhtar's speed with an accuracy level only slightly below McGrath's, you get Holding. Holding might've not done the 'metronome consistency' of McGrath as well but McGrath didnt make batsmen p!ss their pants like Holding did. And before you put another anime-laugh icon in response to the comparison between Holding & McGrath's accuracy, go watch Holding bowl really. And then try bowling perfume-balls like Holding did ( ones that'd kick up from fullish length & fly past a batsman's nose while he is on the front foot- thats a perfume ball- the batsman literally 'smells' the leather, hence the name) to get an idea of how ludicrously hard it is and how McGrath-ish you have to be to bowl perfume balls over after over like Holding did at his pomp. Blind stats would never capture the greatness of the caribbean team- they didnt juts play to win, they also played to humiliate their opposition. That was the manifestation of the black pride in the WI society of that era, the kids who grew up in subjugated colonies 'sticking it' to the rest. They wernt merely happy winning vs you- they needed to DEMOLISH you. Viv, Gordon, Kalli would bat like mad even when they could easily and sedately play themselves to a victory and often they got out scoring a few runs with a very tiny victory margin. Because merely winning wasnt enough - hell, they'd gone beyond winning & losing : when you go your entire playing career without tasting defeat - almost 15 years without a test series loss- its more than just playing for the numbers and playing for the victory. Holding , Marshall, etc. could easily have cut out the short-pitched ones since it is a known fact that short-pitched bowling in pre-helmet days could get you murdered by a happyhooker. Its a thing about attitude i guess you will never understand. Sorry swets but you've fallen a lot in my esteem when it comes to cricketing knowledge. You'r still a topclass OT poster though.

[Predator_05]

I thought BCCI wanted faster/bouncier pitches in India.. or this is what they have been saying publically atleast..

They have been saying that for years, ever since the NZ pitch "experts" came in. Their words are cheap. Have you seen any improvement in the pitches all across India ? I sure as hell haven't. Have you ever wondered WHY the situation is like this ?

[CC1981]

Have you ever wondered WHY the situation is like this ?

Soil/weather = bigger maii baaap than dude with a roller.

[King]

They have been saying that for years' date=' ever since the NZ pitch "experts" came in. Their words are cheap. Have you seen any improvement in the pitches all across India ? I sure as hell haven't. Have you ever wondered WHY the situation is like this ?[/quote'] Simply because our batter bar one or two cannot survive in tough conditions. The curators are swayed by the players and the board to make useless pitches on which the batters can score big hundreds and swell their averages while the fast bowlers toil all day with no result to show.

[Ram]

Just wanted to re-kindle this discussion. Almost every event in the olympics have seen the current world record shattered. Even till 5-6 years ago, when a sprinter breaks the 10 sec barrier in the 100 m dash, that would create world headlines. In this olympics, Usain Bolt was cruising/celebrating the last 20 m and yet he clocked 9.69. In the qualifiers, he cruised, even came to a standstill, as he crossed the line and yet did 9.92. The commentator at the time said 'I would like to apologize on behalf of all sprinters who havent broken the 10 s mark, but thats the most easiest sub-10 sec performance I have ever seen'. If this isnt proof of how sporting standards continuously improve over time, nothing is. And thats precisely why calling Bradman as the greatest batsman of all time is an inherently flawed statement.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[MundaPakistani]

Just wanted to re-kindle this discussion. Almost every event in the olympics have seen the current world record shattered. Even till 5-6 years ago, when a sprinter breaks the 10 sec barrier in the 100 m dash, that would create world headlines. In this olympics, Usain Bolt was cruising/celebrating the last 20 m and yet he clocked 9.69. In the qualifiers, he cruised, even came to a standstill, as he crossed the line and yet did 9.92. The commentator at the time said 'I would like to apologize on behalf of all sprinters who havent broken the 10 s mark, but thats the most easiest sub-10 sec performance I have ever seen'. If this isnt proof of how sporting standards continuously improve over time, nothing is. And thats precisely why calling Bradman as the greatest batsman of all time is an inherently flawed statement.

Not an expert here but i don't think its not that simple MM. You have to look at a LOT of factors like the speed of the track, the wind direction, speed of the wind etc I remember during the 2000 Sydeny Olympics hardly ANY track and field athlete broke the World OR the Olympic record. This does NOT automatically mean that the athletes of 00 games were inferior than their predecessors.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --