• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The decline in the standard of test cricket?

Matt79

Global Moderator
One thing I've noticed as a fairly consistent thread through the posts of lots of the more regular posters in this forum is the premise that the standard of test cricket is not as good as it used to be, say 10-20 years ago.

I'm painting with a broad brush here, but lots of people seem to base a lot of arguments about lots of different issues with statements like "with the decline in the standard of batting", "given the lesser quality of bowlers these days", "he wouldn't have done so well in the 1980s" etc, etc. I guess one issue that consistently produces this line of argument has been the extended dominance of Australia, and the success of some players in the last few years.

I'm not saying that this view is necessarily wrong, but I guess I'd be interested to hear peoples' RATIONAL explanations as to why the standard of play around the world should have suffered a prolonged decline. BTW answers with more detailed rationales than: Akram > Akhtar, or Gower > Vaughan would be appreciated :)

I just wonder whether we're accepting this view a little too unquestioningly. I have an alternative argument, but I'd like to see what people think before putting it forward.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Personally, I have only watched cricket since the early 90s as a real regular. But even I think that the standards of bowling have gone down several notches since then. Maybe it is due to covered wickets. Maybe it is due to more and more cricket being played, tiring down and injuring bowlers, and also flattening out tracks. Perth, in the early 90s, was like a graveyard for batters. Now it is the graveyard for bowlers, as is every other track. I definitely think that the quality of bowling since 2000 is pretty poor compared to the quality of bowling in the 90s but since this is all rather relativistic and there is no real way of proving anything, I think we should accept it is all a matter of perception.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
I guess the definition of 'standard' is partially what I'm asking people to explain. Do they mean that they think this entire generation of players is, on average, less talented than previous generations???

Regarding bharani's comment that bowlers are worse, is it contradictory to say that every pitch is now a batmens' paradise, then accuse the current crop of international bowlers of not being as good?
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I didn't say the BOWLERS were worse. What I meant was that nowadays 3 or 4 for 100 seems a good days' job for a bowler, but in the 90s, I don't think it would have been the same. That is what I mean by STANDARDS of bowling. Like what is being categorised as good bowling and what isn't. I think the bar is kinda low on today's bowlers because of various factors like injuries, them being overworked, flat pitches and more aggressive batsmen with better equipment in general.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Matt79 said:
ok, thanks for the clarification. :)
There is no way I can call the bowlers to be worse... If not anything else, we still have the two greatest spin bowlers bowling in test cricket today. (at least statistically)
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
honestbharani said:
There is no way I can call the bowlers to be worse... If not anything else, we still have the two greatest spin bowlers bowling in test cricket today. (at least statistically)
And probably three of the top five-six ever.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
I think bowling is slightly worse, batting is slightly better, and pitches are slightly worse than when I began watching cricket. Cricket is blessed with a significant number of great batsmen right now, particularly guys like Ponting, Dravid and Kallis who are part of the generation after Waugh, Tendulkar and Lara who came before, and of course two of the other three are still around. I also think the second-string batsmen of today are a little better than they were a few years ago.

Similarly, bowling has declined. While there are still some genuinely great bowlers around in Warne, Murali, McGrath and so on, there's a generally lower standard of fast bowling then there was in the 90s. Part of that is simply that we were spoiled with several great attacks, and part of it is that recently (although less so now than a couple of years ago) there simply has been a low point in fast bowling worldwide. It's not unique though. I think batting was generally poorer in the 80s than it is now or even in the 90s, personally, and people then were certainly saying that the 70s was a better time for cricket.

If there has been a decline, I don't think it is anything permanant, it is just the ebb and flow of international cricket. In a few years we might have guys who have been showing great signs recently like Jones, Asif, Flintoff, Lee and Patel (or whoever) dominating, spin might be a minor factor and batsmen might struggle with a backlash of seaming wickets after years of roads. You never know.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Well you can't cant Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as test playing nations (although the latter aren't at the moment anyway)

Which makes, in theory, one in five performances by every cricketer irrelevant (assuming they are involved in one in five matches against those two nations)
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
I only started watching cricket about 3 years ago so i'm not really qualified to say whether the standard has declined.

However, looking at the stats of great bowlers in the past compared to bowlers off today, it seems that the game has defintely become more in favour of the batsmen. Looking into the further past in books, it seems that cricket has been slowly getting more batsmen dominated ever since cricket started.

As technology has improved, batsmen seem to be the ones that have benefited. Bigger bats, flatter pitches, cricket becoming a spectator sport, unless something happens to change this pattern i don't see cricket moving forward as a sport. Tbh, i think i over reacted a bit after the Wanderers match, looking at the scores in the last 10 or so games i've watched, they haven't been that big.

There does seem to be less indimidating bowlers around now and my theory is that bowlers are bowling so much now that they are more injury prone. This forces coaches to make a bowlers action as safe as possible, this in my veiw, does two things.

1) It takes the bowler away from his natural bowling style, this happened to Flintoff when he was a kid, he used to bowl really front on till a meddeling coach told him side on was the way to do it, and the inevitable happened, causing more injuries.

2) This will probably sound stupid, and i can't prove it at all, but i think safer actions are less effective (a lot to do with reason 1) than what a natural talent first bowls like.

When Curtly Ambrose was growing up, he just bowled how he wanted to, and he bowled a lot. Now, young bowlers are only allowed to bowl 4,5 or 6 overs (depending on age) a day by ECB guidlines. This rule was put in place to stop injuries for bowlers with 'mixed actions' which is ironic as a lot of the time it's the coaches who are at fault for making a bowler bowl differently from his natural style.

Bowlers now seem to be more robotic, look at Plunket, his action has been meticulously built up from scratch, sure, it might produce good results, but who's to say he wouldn't have been a lot better bowler bowling how he used to? With the new coaching academies in place, i always get the feeling that all the individuals are being marginalised by coaches with exceptance only for the text book players.
 

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
Langeveldt said:
Well you can't cant Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as test playing nations (although the latter aren't at the moment anyway)

Which makes, in theory, one in five performances by every cricketer irrelevant (assuming they are involved in one in five matches against those two nations)
That's not how it works :ph34r:

You play lots of tests against the better sides and 2 against Bangla and Zim.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
open365 said:
When Curtly Ambrose was growing up, he just bowled how he wanted to, and he bowled a lot. Now, young bowlers are only allowed to bowl 4,5 or 6 overs (depending on age) a day by ECB guidlines. This rule was put in place to stop injuries for bowlers with 'mixed actions' which is ironic as a lot of the time it's the coaches who are at fault for making a bowler bowl differently from his natural style.
The rule is only for pace bowlers. Spinners are allowed to bowl for however long they (or their skip) wants. I do to an extent think that this is wrong, because contrary to popular belief, spinners do tire, especially shoulders, knees and the like.

Personally, I think the rule helps a great deal for pacers. Otherwise you get burn-out.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
open365 said:
I always get the feeling that all the individuals are being marginalised by coaches with exceptance only for the text book players.
Shaun Tait. Fidel Edwards. Muttiah Muralitharan. Lasit Malinga. James Anderson. Paul Adams...

The FBDs (Fast Bowling Directives) are absolutely criticial. They're there to protect kids from bad coaching and bad actions... and it's 4/5/6 overs per SPELL, not per day - the daily limits are 8 (U13), 10 (U15) and 18 (U17) respectively. That's hardly restrictive.

Here's the rationale behind them.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Neil Pickup said:
Shaun Tait. Fidel Edwards. Muttiah Muralitharan. Lasit Malinga. James Anderson. Paul Adams...
A few who got through the net.

I've never got away from people trying to change my action despite the fact that it simply doesn't work (and believe me I've tried).

Agree with the rest of the post though.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Yeah, there are a few too many coaches who seem to have the idea that because they can remodel actions, they must... not a subscriber to that school of thought myself.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
Neil Pickup said:
Shaun Tait. Fidel Edwards. Muttiah Muralitharan. Lasit Malinga. James Anderson. Paul Adams...

The FBDs (Fast Bowling Directives) are absolutely criticial. They're there to protect kids from bad coaching and bad actions... and it's 4/5/6 overs per SPELL, not per day - the daily limits are 8 (U13), 10 (U15) and 18 (U17) respectively. That's hardly restrictive.

Here's the rationale behind them.
I know it's a day, try telling that to all the captains at my club who just bowl the spinners all day long because they can.

These restrictions surve no purpose, the world was fine before them.
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
open365 said:
I know it's a day, try telling that to all the captains at my club who just bowl the spinners all day long because they can.
Damn. I wish I played for your captains.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Agreed, the age restrictions are an absolute farce, I had to come off time after time having taken wickets just because a pen pusher thinks my body isn't up to bowling more than however many overs.. However I could run a half marathon, not to mention join the army by that age..

Then there is the helmet issue, whereby I had to wear one, even against the spinners for some odd reason.. I guess its the ECB's way of covering its backs should anyone try and claim damages, its a shame..

I agree with a restriction and helmets for 12,13 year olds, but by the time you hit seventeen you see people your age in other countries who are playing test cricket..
 

Top