Posts
Hello
The fullface helmet I assume gives the batsman a great deal confidence. In baseball over the years hitters have been able to crowd the plate wearing various arm guards. Maybe this might not aply. Just a thought.
PLEASE NOTE The Corridor is moving grounds at the moment. This is the old site, and comments have been disabled. Check back tomorrow and we should be safely ensconced at our new home
Bowling standards - cyclical?
By Will 4 years ago, mid-May Leave a comment on this post
A few people commented (thanks) on my post about bowling standards, brought to my attention by an article by Mike Atherton. In it, he also hinted at a thought that bowling, and bowlers - in terms of quality - could be a cyclical thing. My question is this: if the bowlers of the 70s, 80s and 90s were so excellent - and they were - how hasn’t the trend continued? Even with excellent and improving batting skills and preparation, bowling skills have improved too - as has medical advice and physio treatment which ought to maximise the chances that potentially good bowlers makes it to the highest level.
But it’s no longer happening. A fault of the “previous greats” not passing on their knowledge? (Not the case with Lillee, of course). Batsmen have been allowed to make easier runs, but that’s a poor excuse. Too much cricket? Fred Trueman, himself a great, would scoff at that suggestion. He used to bowl hundreds of overs a season, and was thankful for it.
Let’s open this up a bit and see if we can come to some conclusions. I wish we could invite the opinions of some pro cricketers or journalists - maybe they’re reading our blogs after all. If you are - don’t be afraid to leave a comment!
10 Responses to “Bowling standards - cyclical?”
May 9th, 2005 at 11.08 pm
May 10th, 2005 at 2.08 am
another off the cuff thought, though I might be inaccurate:
In the 70s and 80s, sheer pace was not countered by helmets and other protection, nor by bouncer restrictions as are in place currently. I think these 2 things, along with improved batting training have probably strengthened the batsmen and weakened the bowlers.
In the 90s, possibly the most lethal pair, the 2 Ws, reached their zenith through a different type of skill, spearhedaed by the craft they made their own- reverse swing.
Today, the leading fast bowler- McGrath (Will, calm down!) uses neither searing pace nor devious reverse swing as his main weapon.
Is steady, disciplined, relentless bowling the way to go then?
May 10th, 2005 at 5.23 am
Pitches is the main reason. Most test match pitches today are VERY good for batting. They offer help to the bowlers for at most an hour. After that, the batsmen can just have fun.
The few times that a pitch behaves badly, we have visiting captains complaining. I’m fairly sure the batsmen are being pampered with superb batting wickets. It is about time more dodgy pitches were made.
I remember the Headingley pitch in 2002 when Dravid and Bangar batted out nearly a couple of sessions. The ball was swinging around wildly and the pitch was true for most of the first day. Patience pays.
May 10th, 2005 at 10.27 am
undoubtedly it is the pitches and also the amount of cricket being played. But most of all i think it is this nonsense of doing all this off the field training. I think bowlers are not ready to put in the work to get their bodies into a bowling groove and rhythmn.They do all this gym work and end up being crap.
May 10th, 2005 at 12.49 pm
A few thoughts…
Helmets & protection means less intimidation
Pitch technology improved to give even bounce
Improved bat technology
Size and prominence of the seam reduced
Covered pitches
Fitness of the batsmen less wickets caused by fatigue
Shorter boundaries
TV replays have swung benefit of umpires doubt more to batsmen
Better fielding and more run outs
More matches & short recovery time between matches (Truman had a rest ever Sunday)
Homesickness
Coaching & detailed bowler analysis able to pick deliveries
More tests series mean batsmen face the top bowlers regularly and get used to them
One-day style of restricting runs not as effective in test cricket
It’s a very fine balance and maybe at the moment it is in favour of the batsmen but it wouldn’t take much to give the bowler some assistance. Am I right in thinking that in the history of the game bowlers were originally banned from bowling over arm and it wasn’t until batsmen starting dominating matches because they were never dismissed that the rule was overturned? My point is that thankfully the game consistently evolves and while the batsmen are currently in the ascendancy it will change. It is also easy to look fondly on the past and only remember the best bits.
May 10th, 2005 at 12.53 pm
AKR: excellent point. I think Jagadish is probably right regarding the pitches: I hadn’t thought too much about them. The Antigua pitch in the recent Test was as flat as a (very well tarmacced) road, but then it’s always been a good pitch, certainly in the past 10 years. There needs to be greater pitch-type variety in a series. This is one thing England are traditionally quite good at, although there are rumours abound that flatter pitches are favoured by TV companies due to all the 4s and 6s…
Ram - bowlers do need Gym work, but you’re right in saying they need to bowl. Another commenter (commentator, surely?) highlighted the much-talked-about James Anderson debate. He of “hardly played any cricket” fame…and look what happened to his int. career. (started well this season, which is good)
May 11th, 2005 at 8.31 am
TV companies pay boards an awful lot of money, at least in Australia, India, Pakistan & England, to show the games to the public/subscribers. To ensure that they get their money’s worth, so that they can screen 13 ads during a break to move the sightscreen, they like a lot of breaks in the game. They obviously prefer test matches to last 30 hours and one-dayers to last 8 hours. Hence, by extension, they also ensure that pitches last that long. I’m fairly sure the broadcasting company which paid for the India-Australia series lost a lot of money when the Bombay test got over before you blinked.
May 11th, 2005 at 10.56 pm
So, in short - the decline of bowling standards is all Rupert Murdoch’s fault? 
May 12th, 2005 at 1.47 am
Murdoch!!! Folks we have our suspect.
May 12th, 2005 at 5.52 am
Umm, try Packer as well. Try the various sponsors who pay for advertisement spots. Try the administrators who want to squeeze out every single $ (or £ or Rupee) from the game.
