Cricket Crap

[Mr Spock!]

The game has changed massively since the ‘just run in and bowl fast’ mantra of players in the 70’s and 80’s.

If anyone thinks that Lille and Thomson or Marshall and Holding would be as successful today if they were suddenly in their 20’s and played like they did in the 70’s, you’re wrong. They would be eaten without salt.

Yeah Nah.....that's ridiculous.

Teams were also stronger in the 70s. Even Pakistan and New Zealand were strong.

Those West Indies and Australian teams would eat all of today's teams alive.

 

[TheParraboy]

The game has changed massively since the ‘just run in and bowl fast’ mantra of players in the 70’s and 80’s.

If anyone thinks that Lille and Thomson or Marshall and Holding would be as successful today if they were suddenly in their 20’s and played like they did in the 70’s, you’re wrong. They would be eaten without salt.

Thing with Marshall and Holding, (throw in Garner and Roberts as well) they all had control. When they use to demolish Australia in the 80s, they rarely did it with bouncers or shit deliveries but rather just controlled pace bowling. They would be guns today along the Steyn mold for mine

Lillee wasn't as fast back end of his career but he was real accurate and smart

Thommo is definitely debateable , Very Tait like, except no helmets back then

Im almost sure back then, there was far less fast bowler injuries than today, plus they played and bowled a lot more overs in FC cricket.

 

[Bazal]

Thing with Marshall and Holding, (throw in Garner and Roberts as well) they all had control. When they use to demolish Australia in the 80s, they rarely did it with bouncers or shit deliveries but rather just controlled pace bowling. They would be guns today along the Steyn mold for mine

Lillee wasn't as fast back end of his career but he was real accurate and smart

Thommo is definitely debateable , Very Tait like, except no helmets back then

Im almost sure back then, there was far less fast bowler injuries than today, plus they played and bowled a lot more overs in FC cricket.

I don't think the argument is that they wouldn't be good if they developed in this generation, I think it's that they wouldn't be anywhere as near as good if they were transplanted into this generation somehow.

Obviously very hypothetical, and it's always tough to compare generations, but the impact of professionalism can't be ignored. Take a good guy from the seventies and he'd certainly get wickets or score runs. But the professionalism would win out almost every time. They'd be middling players, apart from the genuine freaks like a Sobers or someone. Thommo and Lillee, though, were not that. Very good players but modern batsmen don't fear pace or aggression anywhere like a lot of their peers did. There's a discussion in this very thread about how just bowling faster rarely works, but that was half their kit. Lillee less so, but still, he very much relied on pace aggression.

I do agree they'd be injured less though, probably. I really don't like the gym based approach to bowling strength and fitness and I don't understand how we can have so many injuries based on that kind of approach and still insist that it works.

 

[TheParraboy]

Fast bowling today isn't as feared today due to a number of reasons eg helmets, placid decks, can only bowl 2 bouncers per over, 90 overs min per day etc...

You could argue all of today players wouldn't be nowhere near as good if they were transported back either, or would they?

I still reckon the WI quartet would be as good today. They won series in india on placid spin friendly decks. It would be like Steyn, McGrath, Rabada and Cummins in your side. Imagine the WI batsmen???


It is indeed a hypothetical, and tough to compare. ok to have different opinions

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Thommo before he broke his shoulder was one of the most feared bowlers of that era - as declared by many of the opposition batsmen of the time. And this was an Era of some of the great batsmen spread across a number of countries.

While not as fast after his recovery, he was still a damn good bowler.

I reckon if he played today he'd be a huge success. If used like Johnson against England in 4-5 over bursts he could scare the living tripe out of the opposition with furious pace. Thats my view.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

In terms of the overall quality of cricketers then / now.. Id suggest..

In Terms of Fielding;

Modern day fielding teams are far more developed that those of the past. Which does influence batting and bowling. Ie Batsman played against weaker fielders in te past, while Bowlers had to take wickets and/or defend with these fielders.

In terms of Batting..

"Batsmen" are equally as skilled. In the past, no helmets and smaller bats. In effect modern day batting versus the style of batting in the past are lightyears apart for mine. Batting has changed so much although I'd suggest the skill level is the same - just in different areas. Fielding quality has impact here as above.

"Bowlers / Tail Enders" are far better these days that in the past. The days of batting bunnies seem very much a thing of the past. There aren't many bowlers who are ridiculous with the bat these days, but in the past it could be hilarious.

In Terms of Bowling,

Really hard to say.

I'd suggest the "top" bowlers of each era are evenly matched. While batting has changed so much with many influences, the bowler is still using the same ball. In the past he had the advantage of No helmets and smaller bats, but the disadvantage of weaker fielding. Now it's full protection, bigger bats but greater fielding skills.

In the end - who the f&ck really knows!

 

[Bazal]

Thommo before he broke his shoulder was one of the most feared bowlers of that era - as declared by many of the opposition batsmen of the time. And this was an Era of some of the great batsmen spread across a number of countries.

While not as fast after his recovery, he was still a damn good bowler.

I reckon if he played today he'd be a huge success. If used like Johnson against England in 4-5 over bursts he could scare the living tripe out of the opposition with furious pace. Thats my view.

In the end - who the f&ck really knows!

Yeah, it's nothing more than an interesting hypothetical at the end of the day.

I think the biggest successes would be blokes like Hadlee (for eg) rather than a Lillee or a Thompson, personally. I think his ability to move the ball the way he did would translate better than raw aggression.

No doubt a guy like Thommo or Lillee would get wickets. They'd both take the odd bag, as well. But they'd also be less consistent than even a guy like Starc or Johnson IMO. Basically just because of the lack of professional training, fewer matches and overs at the international level back then, and the much more professional approach of the batsmen these days.

I think the more interesting discussion would be what might happen if you put a guy like Border or some of the earlier bats who barely wore a lid in a situation where he had the protection the blokes today do...

 

[TheParraboy]

Yeah, it's nothing more than an interesting hypothetical at the end of the day.

I think the biggest successes would be blokes like Hadlee (for eg) rather than a Lillee or a Thompson, personally. I think his ability to move the ball the way he did would translate better than raw aggression.

No doubt a guy like Thommo or Lillee would get wickets. They'd both take the odd bag, as well. But they'd also be less consistent than even a guy like Starc or Johnson IMO. Basically just because of the lack of professional training, fewer matches and overs at the international level back then, and the much more professional approach of the batsmen these days.

I think the more interesting discussion would be what might happen if you put a guy like Border or some of the earlier bats who barely wore a lid in a situation where he had the protection the blokes today do...

Lillee was damm consistent and accurate, rarely sprayed the ball about like a Johnson or Starc
Not many opposition bowlers in any era average 20.56 in England

In my opinion id take Lillee in any era over Thommo, Starc or Johnson, regardless of professionlism.

 

[Bazal]

Lillee was damm consistent and accurate, rarely sprayed the ball about like a Johnson or Starc
Not many opposition bowlers in any era average 20.56 in England

In my opinion id take Lillee in any era over Thommo, Starc or johnson.

He was very accurate, yeah. But accurate doesn't translate to wickets anywhere near the way it used to. You need more than accuracy and even pace these days. He'd be better than Thommo, but I still think he could be targeted much more easily than he used to, especially in ODI cricket.

 

[TheParraboy]

He was very accurate, yeah. But accurate doesn't translate to wickets anywhere near the way it used to. You need more than accuracy and even pace these days. He'd be better than Thommo, but I still think he could be targeted much more easily than he used to, especially in ODI cricket.

he could move and cut the ball

Lot of CMarsh B Lillee wasn't cause it was straight or a bouncer

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

I think the more interesting discussion would be what might happen if you put a guy like Border or some of the earlier bats who barely wore a lid in a situation where he had the protection the blokes today do...

Agreed! ....

To best work through, i'd suggest this needs to be performed over about 6 schooners at an appropriate ale-house...

While the forums here are our best communication avenue, and a very good one... Nothing beats a pub talking over this kind of stuff...

But if I'm to reply in brief on the topic.. I reckon the top echelon of batsman like Border, Miandad, Gavaskar, Chappell (x 2), Richards, Martin Crowe amongst others would be better than the modern day top echelon of batsman with the benefit of protection. Although I doubt that Richards would bother with any of it - just a hat and some chewing gum is all he'd still need.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Holy f**k.

Lillee had everything, pace, movement of the seam, swing, accuracy, a bouncer.

The bloke was at the forefront of professionalism too, he'd spend weeks getting himself into peak condition to bowl at his best.

Came back from stress fractures as well, when everyone said he should pack it in - he remodelled his action and came up with a plan on how he was going to bowl again.

He would kill it in any era and be a great in any era.

 

[Bazal]

he could move and cut the ball

Lot of CMarsh B Lillee wasn't cause it was straight or a bouncer

Again, I'm not disagreeing that he'd take wickets.

I simply don't think he'd be anywhere as effective as he was. I certainly don;t think he'd be Hazlewood or Cummins level.

 

[TheParraboy]

Holy f**k.

Lillee had everything, pace, movement of the seam, swing, accuracy, a bouncer.

The bloke was at the forefront of professionalism too, he'd spend weeks getting himself into peak condition to bowl at his best.

Came back from stress fractures as well, when everyone said he should pack it in - he remodelled his action and came up with a plan on how he was going to bowl again.

He would kill it in any era and be a great in any era.

agree

 

[Bazal]

Holy f**k.

Lillee had everything, pace, movement of the seam, swing, accuracy, a bouncer.

The bloke was at the forefront of professionalism too, he'd spend weeks getting himself into peak condition to bowl at his best.

Came back from stress fractures as well, when everyone said he should pack it in - he remodelled his action and came up with a plan on how he was going to bowl again.

He would kill it in any era and be a great in any era.

Again, (although I can't speak for Timbo who I think first mentioned it), I'm not saying he wouldn't take wickets. I'm saying I reckon he'd go for a lot more runs and be less consistent.

His greatest weapons included his accuracy and his aggression, and certainly the latter is much less effective in the modern era. I'd argue the former is too on most modern wickets, at least in terms of actually getting people out. You also have to take into account the pitches and better batsmen...well, better in terms of their protection, preparation and professionalism, not necessarily better in terms of ability.

It's a fun discussion. Would be interesting if they managed to one day have some sort of VR set up to model it somehow, obviously you can't bring the actual bloke in lol.

 

[TheParraboy]

They should bring out that Rocky software, (I think it was Rocky 6?) where they take everything considered from the current champ, to old man Rockys past, and it spits out a winner

Rocky won of course

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Again, I'm not disagreeing that he'd take wickets.

I simply don't think he'd be anywhere as effective as he was. I certainly don;t think he'd be Hazlewood or Cummins level.

Me either, he'd be 27000 levels above

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Just saying - Lillee dismissed Viv Richards 9 times in tests, the most by any bowler.

 

[hineyrulz]

If an Overrated Pie Thrower like Mitch Johnson could take over 300 Wickets Lilliee would twice as many. Blokes like Marshall, Ambrose, Wasim would have a picnic against some of these modern day front foot Plodders.

 

[Timbo]

I understand that they were all natural talents, but do you think that Gary Cozier and Craig Serjeant were watching hundreds of hours of Marshall and Croft bowling? Do you think they knew that player x struggles statistically when there’s a left/right combo in or that player y struggles with the old ball?

Also, beyond the real legends batsmen were scared shitless of the short ball. When Roberts or Holding tried to kill you, you got the f**k out of the way because you were batting in a cloth cap. Batsmen these days (a) know that they only have to cop two bumpers and over and (b) aren’t afraid to rock onto the back foot because if they miss they’re wearing a lid.