Jump to content

Is this the era of boring batsmen?


Recommended Posts

Posted
Steyn-most definitely. Shami-untested. MJ- let him replicate this for another 2 years atleast. Morkel-Needs to find the mongrel within him on a regular basis. It ain't the era where most teams have match winning bowlers. Not only pacers but even spinners. Where are they? In general, most teams and captains are also pretty defensiv barring Clarke.
let's see: Steyn Philander Johnson Harris Pattinson James Anderson Stuard Broad Tim Southee Kemar Roach Trent Boult Rangana Herath Saeed Ajmal looks pretty good to me.
Posted

ABDV , Clarke are very attractive players . Amla & Guptil on the otherhand are not good to watch . The OP got completely worng . Also low SR don't mean boring to watch

Posted

It's an era of boring teams and ultra defensive captains. If it continues for 2 more years test series will be over. Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

Posted
let's see: Steyn Philander Johnson Harris Pattinson James Anderson Stuard Broad Tim Southee Kemar Roach Trent Boult Rangana Herath Saeed Ajmal looks pretty good to me.
Kemar Roach?
Posted
It's an era of boring teams and ultra defensive captains. If it continues for 2 more years test series will be over. Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk
you must not have watched cricket for the past couple of years.
Posted
you must not have watched cricket for the past couple of years.
I have watched a lot of cricket. That's why I am able to say that its an era of boring teams and defensive captains. Having watched the exciting pervious era....this is a dud. Look at NZ vs WI test that is going on. In the previous era...NZ (or other teams also) easily would have enforced the follow on...& gone for the kill. This era...captains (not only NZ)...says that their bowlers are tired...& its better for them to have some rest. WTF. The actual reason is to make sure that NZ (or team not enforcing follow on) don't have any chance to lose & hope that WI team combust, not to mention that NZ if they can bat atleast 70-75 overs today on day 4. Plus WI will fall back on defensive tactics while bowling to make sure that their team have to bat less. That's the story pretty much (sometimes once in a blue moon a Johnson or Steyn changes the script...but most of the times they also follow the same defensive line pretty soon).
Posted
he's been pretty crap in this test but he is a very good bowler.
lmao. I don't think he's of that level at all. Yo are comparing him with Steyn, MJ
Posted

Not enforcing the follow on is not boring. It's the right move. Why on earth would you want to bat last on a slow, turning pitch? That's not aggressive captaincy, that's just lunacy. I'm not comparing roach with Steyn or MJ, I'm just saying he's a good bowler.

Posted

And lol, boring and defensive yet somehow still won in 4 days on a slow pitch... To go along with all the other test wins in the last year that have happened inside 4 days. Shane Warne keeps trotting out the stupid line "you have to be prepared to lose to win". No. You don't. Give the opposition nothing. Be ruthless. That's how you win.

Posted
let's see: Steyn Philander Johnson Harris Pattinson James Anderson Stuard Broad Tim Southee Kemar Roach Trent Boult Rangana Herath Saeed Ajmal looks pretty good to me.
How many of them play even for a full year and perform at an optimal level? I am not talking about just good bowlers which these are. I want the 90's kinda era to come back where most teams had solid bowling attacks. Good bowlers were always around.
Posted

Most of the bowlers on that list have performed for at least a year taking wickets at an average below 25. You simply could not ask for more. Johson taking wickets at 17 over the last 2 years. Southee at 21. Harris, Steyn and Pattinson at 22. Those are Malcolm Marshall type numbers. And there's Ajmal and Herath taking wickets as well as Murali and Warne.

Posted
How many of them play even for a full year and perform at an optimal level? I am not talking about just good bowlers which these are. I want the 90's kinda era to come back where most teams had solid bowling attacks. Good bowlers were always around.
Only Aus, SA, WI, and Pak had good attacks even in 90s. Aus, SA still have good attacks. England has a better attack than 90s. WI and Pak attack have gone down. NZ also has a pretty decent attack these days, not worse if not better than 90s. In 80s, SA wasn't there and only WI, Aus and to some extent Pak had good attacks.
Posted
Only Aus' date=' SA, WI, and Pak had good attacks even in 90s. Aus, SA still have good attacks. England has a better attack than 90s. WI and Pak attack have gone down. NZ also has a pretty decent attack these days, not worse if not better than 90s. In 80s, SA wasn't there and only WI, Aus and to some extent Pak had good attacks.[/quote'] You have inherently written that the attack in 90's was better :cantstop: WI,Pak have gone down, NZ's attack has improved very recently. But, in the 90's they had a few good bowlers like doull, Nash, Morrison and Cairns.
Posted
You have inherently written that the attack in 90's was better :cantstop: WI' date='Pak have gone down, NZ's attack has improved very recently. But, in the 90's they had a few good bowlers like doull, Nash, Morrison and Cairns.[/quote'] Pak has gone down in terms of pace, but there overall attack is pretty competitive. WI has gone down but England has gone better. Even Indian and SL attacks have gone better for pace bowling. NZ is certainly better than the 90s. It all balances out. Difference is the pitches and the difference short forms of the game has brought in mindset (this is the biggest change IMO).

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...