Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[CLR James]

The recent exploits of Mohammad Yousuf and the now habitual run making of Ricky Ponting set me thinking. Today even a Mahela Jayavardhane hits a 374 and we are not surprised. Rahul Dravid's exploits in the last five years are there to  be seen. These guys seem all set to ecclipse the exploits of the previous generation, which includes SRT, Aravinda, and Lara. Even better, while Ponting is ruling the roost, a Hussey has already arrived, threatening to dwarf him in time. But is Yousuf really in the league of an Inzamam or a Miandad? Is Ponting really as dangerous as Viv Richards was in his prime? Is Dravid really as good as SRT and Gavaskar? Am I getting too old and upset at the besting of the idols I grew up idolizing?

And then it struck me. Where are the bowlers today? During the nineties, when SRT and Lara ruled, you had to better a field comprising of Akram/Waqar, Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop, Donald/DeVilliers/Pollock (in his prime), or even a Gough/Caddick. Compare the opening bowlers of Pakistan today to the spearheads of the 80s and 90s and you will understand. Compare the present crop of bowlers in the world to what Gavaskar had to face without helmets and turbo bats, for his 34 hundreds. Zimbabwe was no bunny, and Bangladesh was not in the horizon as ocassional average booster. It is true that the great spinners are still there (Warne, Murali, Kumble, except Saqlain), but that is just about it. Old Glen M plays one series and rests for six months before playing another.

I think Ponting, Dravid, Yousuf and Mahela have brought a clinical efficiency to their batting that have suitably exploited these depleted bowling scenario. They have milked runs, but they have not been able to fire the imaginations of legions of fans as their predecessors did. Despite that, one has to give them credit.

But was there a situation like this before? There indeed was! During the thirties, when lead by a certain Bradman, people like Hammond, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Ponsford, or even a lesser star like Leyland or Paynter were hitting double and triple hundreds for breakfast. This is an irreverant question, but it must be asked. Which great bowler did Bradman face? Harold Larwood? Take a look at his figures before you answer that: 78 wickets in 21 tests, at 28 up average. Good, but hardly great. This was the story throughout the thirties. Bradman retired before the next crop of great bowlers like Bedser, Truman, Lindwall, Miller, Hall reached their primes. The Don would have been great at any era, but perhaps this helped just a bit.

[ganavk]

Don would certainly have been great in other eras but certainly not the greatest with that inflated average of 99.94 IMHO. He had lots of things going in favour of him , overall weak bowling being just one of them. Fielding, playing only in two countries are some of the other things. For his real average one has to look at the bodyline series where he average around 55. If he had played in 70s and 80s he might have averaged around 60 and still he would have been one of the greatest.

[TheChowmeinWarrior]

good post CLR James, whats more worrying is the fact that there doesnt seem to be any great "new" bowler coming up in the ranks, in spin or pace. In the early nineties, from what i've read and seen on recordings, the likes of warne, murali,ambrose,walsh, akram, though young, still had the touch of greatness on them, which shone through despite their inexperience. I fail to see that same touch amongst the bowlers of today, is because they're not allowed to mature naturally and are being pushed into international cricket to early? or is there a genuine lack of great bowlers around? look at the current crop of the most promising bowlers in the last few years...pathan?, taylor?, johnson?, asif?, bhajji? lee? ntini? kaneria?...all good bowlers...but none who seem to have that magic spark, that aura that came with the greats of the past....so is it the golden age of batting or is it the dark ages of bowling to come??

[sudzz]

CLR, as usual you get right to the nub of the issue...

You are indeed right in askig is this the era of "Great Batsmen"....

Over the last decade almost now, bowlers have been asked to bowl with the dice loaded against them. What with the shorter boundaries, batsmen friendly pitches as just things that the televisions companies driven, then you have umpiring itself where balls pitched outside off and leg dont constitute LBW's.

Put all the above together with an overall improvement of gear and batsmen get more and more fearless when stepping out to the fastet of them, we have seen even a johnny come lately like MSD step up to the plate and hoick the likes of Akhtar and Lee etc...

But the fact also remains you got to be good enough to make use of these benefits thrown your way. Someone like Ponting, RD, Lara even today, Mahela etc are good enough to utilise the conditions each and everytime they get such opportunities.

Then there are some like Sehwag and Yousuf etc who shine for a year or two and brilliantly at that but are not consistent (Ok about Yousuf Iam biased because I dont like his batting).

Is this making the game boring, well yes and no, Test matches are still interesting and intriguing but ODI's have become very unidimensional and bat invariably dominates the ball (please dont count this series because here both teams are batting really poorly).

All in all I think like baseball cricket has gone completely over from being a sport to a television program but I do wish that we have a Barry Bonds kind of disclosure which forces authorities to make some radical changes.

[colonel]

Don would certainly have been great in other eras but certainly not the greatest with that inflated average of 99.94 IMHO. He had lots of things going in favour of him , overall weak bowling being just one of them. Fielding, playing only in two countries are some of the other things. For his real average one has to look at the bodyline series where he average around 55. If he had played in 70s and 80s he might have averaged around 60 and still he would have been one of the greatest.

I think one reason why the 99 average is so amazing is that in those days, cricket was played on uncovered pitches. Neither was the game so biased against bowlers, by all accounts. Frankly, I think the Don might even have done better in the tailored, lifeless pitches of today.

[colonel]

I don't know if the world will see a Don, a Hammond or a Vijay Merchant again. But will we ever see the sheer bravery that accompanied playing on uncovered pitches with minimal protection? Consider C.K. Naidu. This from Berry Sarbadhikary's book on Indian cricket. When Naidu was made part of the MCC committee that was formed to investigate whether the beamer should be banned, his response was (this is, of course, an inexact quote, but CLR can supply the actual words, I'm sure!): 'In my opinion, the beamer is just a full toss and should be treated as any other full toss delivery, by being hit for a six'. What is even more surprising is that this isn't empty posturing. Naidu really thought this way. At the age of 45 plus,Naidu was hit directly in the mouth by a Dattu Phadkar delivery in a domestic match. His response was to scold Phadkar who was understandably concerned and had slowed down in the next few balls. 'Don't slow down Dattu', said the old man and proceeded to destroy Phadkar's analysis, carving out a significant score.

I think we've seen the last of the "heroes"; these days, we see superb sportsmen.

[Blwe_torch]

Great post CLR!...Applause!

[avinashgodkhindi]

CLR good post, applause

[suraj]

Thx for posting the great insight CLR!!! Applause!!

How about we start a CLR column on main page where you can post an article once in a week or two weeks??

[CLR James]

Thanks to all of you guys. What makes me sad is that it has been SRT, of all major contemporary batsmen, who has failed to exploit these merry batting times.


Let us impose 2002 as a cut off year. By then most of the bowling greats of the previous decade were gone: Ambrose (2000), Walsh (2001), Akram (2002), and Donald (2002); Waqar Younis was a fading light, Darren Gough was already limping out of test cricket, altough he played two tests in 2003, 2001 was his last substantial season; our own Srinath was into the play or not to play mode.

Now let us compare the achievements of Ricky Ponting and Rahul Dravid before and after that. I think it is fair, given that both Ponting and Dravid had already played about 6 years of international cricket before that.

Dravid (till January 1st, 2002):

53  4257 200*  51.91   9  23   0   -       -    0  61  0

Dravid (from January 2002 till date)

51  4792 270   66.55  14  23   1  1/18   18.00  0  85  0


Ricky Ponting:

(from his debut in 1995 till January 1st, 2002):

52  3182 197   44.19   9  15   4  1/0    37.25  0  65  0

From January 2002 to the present:

54  5866 257   73.32  23  20   1  1/9    82.00  0  56  0

Hence, in each case, one can see that an almost even split in the career span produces startlingly different results. This is not to deny the talent, the grit, and the determination of RD and RP, but to point out that perhaps the easing up of the bowling perhaps aided their tasks.

On the other hand, Tendulkar:

Till 2002, Jan 1, he did brilliantly, against all the great bowlers mentioned above, at their prime:

89  7419 217   57.96  27  30  25  3/10   39.84  0  60  0

But after that?

43  3050 248*  50.00   8  11  12  2/36   74.75  0  22  0.

Good, but compared to Dravid and Ponting, given that they are almost of the same age, he really missed out did he not?

[Cernunnos]

This is from an old post of mine which I am updating.
=========================================

Here are Dravid's scores when Donald, McGrath, Wasim & Waqar, Ambrose & Walsh, or Shane Bond was in the bowling attack (which we all agree are high-class pace bowlers):

43,51*,57,78,2,37*,92,40,24,34,31,23,7,27*,2,12,148,81,53,10,33,29,24,13,35,6,9,14,29,0,22,37,17,18,9,39,25,180,81,4, 76,7,9,39,0,60,26,21,2,31*,27,0,23

This is 53 innings out of 176 innings (~30% of his test cricket)
Average: 36.67
==========================================

However I suspect a similar analysis on Sachin won't show him in a better light.

[Cernunnos]

This is from an old post of mine which I am updating.
=========================================

Here are Dravid's scores when Donald, McGrath, Wasim & Waqar,
Ambrose & Walsh or Shane Bond was in the bowling attack (which we all agree
are high-class pace bowlers):

43,51*,57,78,2,37*,92,40,24,34,31,23,7,27*,2,12,148,81,53,10,33,29,24,13,35,
6,9,14,29,0,22,37,17,18,9,39,25,180,81,4, 76,7,9,39,0,60,26,21,2,31*,27,0,23

This is 53 innings out of 176 innings (~30% of his test cricket)
Average: 36.67
==========================================

However I suspect a similar analysis on Sachin won't show him in a better light.

Ok here is Sachin against Waqar & Wasim, Hadlee, McDermott & Hughes,
Walsh/Ambrose, McGrath, Donald, Bond:

15,59,8,41,35,57,0,24,88,5,16,7,15,40,148*,6,17,114,5,0,11,111,1,6,
0,73,34,85,179,54,40,10,10,0,42,7,18,2,15,4,169,9,35,9,7,15*,88,92,
4,83,0,136,6,29,0,9,61,0,116,52,45,4,97,8,21,20,76,65,10,10,126,17,
8,51,9,32,8,2,5,55

This is 80 innings out of 211 innings (~38% of his test cricket)
Average: 38.34

[Cernunnos]

This is from an old post of mine which I am updating.
=========================================

Here are Dravid's scores when Donald, McGrath, Wasim & Waqar,
Ambrose & Walsh or Shane Bond was in the bowling attack (which we all agree
are high-class pace bowlers):

43,51*,57,78,2,37*,92,40,24,34,31,23,7,27*,2,12,148,81,53,10,33,29,24,13,35,
6,9,14,29,0,22,37,17,18,9,39,25,180,81,4, 76,7,9,39,0,60,26,21,2,31*,27,0,23

This is 53 innings out of 176 innings (~30% of his test cricket)
Average: 36.67
==========================================

However I suspect a similar analysis on Sachin won't show him in a better light.

Ok here is Sachin against Waqar & Wasim, Hadlee, McDermott & Hughes,
Walsh/Ambrose, McGrath, Donald, Bond:

15,59,8,41,35,57,0,24,88,5,16,7,15,40,148*,6,17,114,5,0,11,111,1,6,
0,73,34,85,179,54,40,10,10,0,42,7,18,2,15,4,169,9,35,9,7,15*,88,92,
4,83,0,136,6,29,0,9,61,0,116,52,45,4,97,8,21,20,76,65,10,10,126,17,
8,51,9,32,8,2,5,55

This is 80 innings out of 211 innings (~38% of his test cricket)
Average: 38.34

And these are Gavaskar's scores, against Snow, Old, Hadlee, Holding/Roberts, Thomson, Lilllee, Hadlee, Imran/Sarfraz, Marshall/Garner/Roberts, Botham/Willis, Wasim/Imran:

4,53,6,0,18,2,20,0*,69,24,4,67,101,58,49,5,0,4,14,0,86,8,37,1,156,26,102,66,2,119,
14,66,15,2,43,38,71,0,18,39,24,4,50,108,42,3,113,4,127,0,118,49,7,29,89,8*,5,97,111,
137,61,68,42,59,78,13,221,88,31,21,4,48,2,81,166,29*,44,15,49,24,0,10,23,5,10,70,23,
12,53,5,33,55,14,172,46,42,83*,25,11,52,48,24,2,83,8,42,12,127*,17,60,13,5,67,20,0,1,32,
147*,2,19,18,1,0,7,121,15,90,1,12,3,0,20,236*,91,0,24,63,21,96

This is 139 innings out of 214 innings (~66% of his test cricket)
Average: 45.21

[suraj]

This is turning out to be one of the most interesting threads in a while- lots of good insight

Keep it up CLR and Cern!!!!

[kban1]

Great analysis, Cernunnos --applause

[sudzz]

We need to keep this thread going...these are some real insights into what exactly our super heros were doing all the while we were screaming our heads off.

[atticus]

While I agree that the bowling standards have gone down and the pitches have become batting beauties, I'm not sure about the utility of splitting the careers of Dravid and Ponting into 2 halves. Especially given the fact that their averages before the cut-off date is itself not bad. One can do it for someone like Mathew Hayden who really struggled before the new era. Seeing that stats presented, Dravid and Ponting played around 50 tests before and 50 tests after. I did this split for the great batsmen of the previous era (first 50 tests vs next 50 tests)

SRT
till March 1997
50   77   8  3438 49.82   11  16
From March 1997 - September 2002
50   83   7  4967 65.35  19  18

Brian Lara
till Feb 1998
50  4205 375   51.28  10  21
From Feb 1998 - Jan 2004
50  4823 221   54.19   14  22

Steve Waugh
Till March 1993
50  2387 177*  36.16   4  14
From March 1993 - Feb 1998
50  3866 200   62.35  10  22

Inzamam
Till Oct 1998
50  3139 177   43.59   6  21   
From Oct 1998 - May 2005
50  4314 329   56.02  15  17 
Since Inzamam played a lot of the second 50 tests in the new era, I split it into 2 halves - before Jan  2002 and after Jan 2002
before 2002 25  2160 200*  55.38   9   9   
after 2002 25  2154 329   56.68   6   8 

Ironically only Lara, considered to be very inconsistent, maintained a similar average. Everybody else increased their averages by a lot over their first 50 tests. I think the difference in the average of Dravid and Ponting is a result of natural progression any great batsman makes (of course aided a little by the poor standards of the new era).

[kban1]

atticus:

I think the difference in the average of Dravid and Ponting is a result of natural progression any great batsman makes (of course aided a little by the poor standards of the new era).

yes absolutely. Although I would rephrase to say "aided quite a bit by the poor standards of the new era"

Applause for a good analysis and pertinent points

[CLR James]

Absolutely. My intention however was not to split careers into halves. It just turned out that way. I chose 2002 as a cut off year because by then all the bowling greats of the previous decade (except Kumble, Warne, Murali, and McGrath) had retired.

The logic of natural progression does hold, just as SRT's lower average in the first 50 tests could be explained by the fact that he made his debut when he was 16! Indeed, one cannot the talent or application of a Ponting or Dravid. What they have achieved, they have had to work for, but perhaps (as you agree) they were helped by the pies that were thrown at them in the name of bowling.

[suraj]

wow

I am witnessing some of the greatest analysis on this thread

[atticus]

Absolutely. My intention however was not to split careers into halves. It just turned out that way. I chose 2002 as a cut off year because by then all the bowling greats of the previous decade (except Kumble, Warne, Murali, and McGrath) had retired.

I did not mean to stress the "half" part. I wanted to stress that the splitting itself is not a useful exercise for these 2 batsmen.

The logic of natural progression does hold, just as SRT's lower average in the first 50 tests could be explained by the fact that he made his debut when he was 16! Indeed, one cannot the talent or application of a Ponting or Dravid. What they have achieved, they have had to work for, but perhaps (as you agree) they were helped by the pies that were thrown at them in the name of bowling.

Of course, there are multiple reasons why SRT had a lower average or Steve Waugh had a lower average (played as an all-rounder, down the order, etc.) at the start of their careers. The fact remains that they made whatever adjustments, grew into their roles to increase their averages substantially. Similarly, I've seen both Dravid and Ponting bat in the old era and the new era and I can (even with my miniscule knowledge of batting) clearly make out the improvements they've made over their careers - both mentally and technically. It would be true that they were substantially aided by the poor bowling, if the way they played remained the same throughout - only with increased averages. But that is just not the case with these 2. Just my opinion.

I will have to accept my real reason to write in this thread - I hate comparing era's and am not a big fan of nostalgia in sports

[dave_dj]

Good stat Cernunnos regarding Gavaskar.

Gavaskar, that little man has opened against some of the ferocious bowlers of all time in pitches all over the world and still was able to consistently deliver.  Hats off to him.

During our childhood days, there used to be some bowlers who used to be like seen as terrors but none of the present lot seem to cast that kind of fear among opposition.  Of course, we Indians have our own demons to fight when it comes to bouncy pitches in alien conditions.

[CLR James]

Absolutely. My intention however was not to split careers into halves. It just turned out that way. I chose 2002 as a cut off year because by then all the bowling greats of the previous decade (except Kumble, Warne, Murali, and McGrath) had retired.

I did not mean to stress the "half" part. I wanted to stress that the splitting itself is not a useful exercise for these 2 batsmen.

The logic of natural progression does hold, just as SRT's lower average in the first 50 tests could be explained by the fact that he made his debut when he was 16! Indeed, one cannot the talent or application of a Ponting or Dravid. What they have achieved, they have had to work for, but perhaps (as you agree) they were helped by the pies that were thrown at them in the name of bowling.

Of course, there are multiple reasons why SRT had a lower average or Steve Waugh had a lower average (played as an all-rounder, down the order, etc.) at the start of their careers. The fact remains that they made whatever adjustments, grew into their roles to increase their averages substantially. Similarly, I've seen both Dravid and Ponting bat in the old era and the new era and I can (even with my miniscule knowledge of batting) clearly make out the improvements they've made over their careers - both mentally and technically. It would be true that they were substantially aided by the poor bowling, if the way they played remained the same throughout - only with increased averages. But that is just not the case with these 2. Just my opinion.

I will have to accept my real reason to write in this thread - I hate comparing era's and am not a big fan of nostalgia in sports

Well said Atticus. Applause! However, while I understand your point about not comparing ages, I do believe that certain partial deductions can be made without resorting to nostalgia. For instance, it is good to remember that Bradman's 250 plus scores were made against these bowling attacks:

1. 254   -     -  - 2    W 2nd Test  v Eng in Eng 1930    at Lord's

Bowling: (I am citing the career records of only the major bowlers)

Gubby Allen:

25     4386     2379     81     7/80     10/78     29.37     3.25     54.14     3     5     1


Maurice Tate (perhaps the most accomplished Sir Don played in the first part of his career)

39     12523     4055     155     6/42     11/228     26.16     1.94     80.79     7     7     1

Walter Robbins

19     3318     1758     64     6/32     7/68     27.46     3.17     51.84     2     1     0

Jack White

15     4801     1581     49     8/126     13/256     32.26     1.97     97.97     1     3     1



2. 334   -     -  - 1    D 3rd Test  v Eng in Eng 1930    at Leeds [196]


Here, apart from Tate from the above list, there were

Harold Larwood

21     4969     2212     78     6/32     10/124     28.35     2.67     63.70     3     4     1

George Greary

14     3810     1353     46     7/70     12/130     29.41     2.13     82.82     0     4     1

and Dick Tyldsley:

 7     1615     619     19     3/50     6/102     32.57     2.29     85.00     0     0     0


3. 299*  -     -  - 2    W 4th Test  v SA  in Aus 1931/32 at Adelaide

The bowling situation was worse when the runs were made against SA:

Sandy Bell

16     3342     1567     48     6/99     6/159     32.64     2.81     69.62     1     4     0

Neville Quinn

12     2922     1145     35     6/92     6/88     32.71     2.35     83.48     2     1     0

Quitin Macmillan

13     2021     1243     36     5/66     9/127     34.52     3.69     56.13     2     2     0

Cyril Vincent

25     5851     2631     84     6/51     8/149     31.32     2.69     69.65     5     3     0



4. 304   -     -  - 2    D 4th Test  v Eng in Eng 1934    at Leeds


Bill Bowes

15     3655     1519     68     6/33     9/219     22.33     2.49     53.75     2     6     0

Tommy Mitchell

5     894     498     8     2/49     3/60     62.25     3.34     111.75     0     0     0

Hedley Verity

 40     11173     3510     144     8/43     15/104     24.37     1.88     77.59     9     5     2

and Len Hopwood

 2     462     155     0     -     -     -     2.01     -     0     0     0


4. 270   -     -  - 3 *  W 3rd Test  v Eng in Aus 1936/37

Here, apart from Voce, Allen, and Verity, there was also

Jim Sims

4     887     480     11     5/73     7/168     43.63     3.24     80.63     0     1     0

Given the joint presence of Voce, Allen and Verity, this was perhaps the strongest attack of the five cited!



Conclusion Given that wickets were uncovered in those days and also the LBW and no ball rules were different, these bowlers have surprisingly high averages and strike rates (I am not judging them in terms of number of wickets earned, and am accounting for the fact that spinners usually have to bowl more balls per ball). Only Voce averages more than 4 wickets per test match (which I think is a fair yardstick for very good or great in any age). Larwood comes close, but the infamous body line series contributed heavily to that. Take away his 33 wickets at 19 runs in 5 test matches from there, he is left with a modest 45 wickets in 16 matches for the rest of his career.

Voce, all in all, was perhaps the best pace bowler Bradman faced before the war (Tate was already 33 when Bradman faced him in 1928, and 35 when that 254 came in 1930), and Verity was the best spinner. However none of them qualify as an all time great. Now the question is, were there no great bowlers during Bradman's time? Of course there were. Either Bradman did not play against them (our Amar Singh for instance), or they played for Bradman's side! Consider:

1. Clarrie Grimmett

37     14513     5231     216     7/40     14/199     24.21     2.16     67.18     7     21     7

2. Bill O'Reilly

27     10024     3254     144     7/54     11/129     22.59     1.94     69.61     8     11     3

or even

3. Bert Ironmonger

14     4695     1330     74     7/23     11/24     17.97     1.69     63.44     4     4     2

[kban1]

Excellent analysis CLR -- applause for your 250 (sorry it had to wait for 12 hrs)