Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes

Perhaps age is dimming my memory but I recall attrition and hard work for batsmen. The West Indians were probably exempt from that - Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Richie Richardson and Viv Richards were strokeplayers with a young Gus Logie and Carl Hooper showing signs of class too. The other great batsman of that genre painted their reputations with drops of blood. Players like Sunil Gavaskar, Allan Border, Graham Gooch and Javed Miandad made brave runs, wearing their bruises with pride, playing epic innings' against hostile short-pitched bowling. Dean Jones' death-defying innings (literally) in the tied Test in Chennai will rank amongst the most courageous sporting performances of all time, in any sport.

Martin Crowe and David Gower were as elegant as any in cricketing history. The early Steve Waugh model showed glimpses of style (his later technique was much more effective but less attractive) and Aravinda De Silva was always good to watch. Pakistan had Salim Malik’s artistry and India had the wonderful wrists of Mohammad Azharuddin.

This next statement may appear confused but the bowling seemed high quality without being memorable. Does that make sense? I know West Indies had their usual production line of fearsome quicks but there seemed to be an awful lot of good medium-pace attacks around. Bob Willis was quick enough at times, Craig McDermott had good wheels and Wasim Akram was freakish but I can’t remember being captivated by anyone in particular. The spin-bowling stocks were particularly uninspiring with lots of steady, reliable tweakers but very little in the way of flair. Abdul Qadir was the obvious exception and his legacy still lives today.

Australia were certainly a mediocre team of battlers for much of that decade, especially after the retirement of the Holy Trinity (Greg Chappell, Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh) until we saw a glimpse of what the 90s had to offer. Border was the rock they were built around but it should not be forgotten that this was also the decade when teams started employing a full-time coach (Bob Simpson for Australia). Twenty years later, we now have a ridiculous circus of support staff and computer boffins who require their own coach (the bus variety).

We heard of the great African players like Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards but most of us never really saw how good they were. That is a great pity. How they dealt with Curtly Ambrose, Malcolm Marshall, Courtney Walsh, Patrick Patterson and Co would have been great to see. We’ll never know …

Something else we’ll never know is how the West Indians would have dealt with their own fast bowlers. Would they have ducked and weaved and worn bruises like a badge of honour or would they have taken on the short ball without fear? Would Viv have batted without a helmet against a relentless four-pronged pace attack? Probably!

The 1980s reflected the global economy of the time. These were hard men, eking out a living in tough times and the general style of play reflected that. Except for Botham in '81 of course!

"This next statement may appear confused but the bowling seemed high quality without being memorable. Does that make sense?" No, it doesnt Michael. Please explore this line of thinking a litte further. Im sure Willis was more 70's (started 1971) than 80's (retired 1984.) How about Marshall (1978-1991) at his peak arguably the best of the WI production line bowlers of the 80's? U mention akram (who was incredible)but how about those 80's players Ambrose & Walsh? Hadlee (73-90) played the whole decade? Holding played most of the 80's didnt he (1987)? He was memorable to me & to a Mr Boycott at the Oval in 1981! Im sure Imran, Botham and Dev could also be included in the memorable bowling category? Or am I mistaken? Or were all rounders bowling abilities excluded from your "memorable" category? I notice you did take the opportunity to stick the knife into he back of your adopted homeland once again Mr Jeh. Predictable.

I can't believe that you can possibly say that the bowling in the 80's was unmemorable.

The bowlers the way that cricket was played for ever. They may have bent the rules, but to watch Patterson, Marshall, Garner, Holding and Walsh pinging it off helmets left right and centre changed cricket batting techniques for ever. They were sublime in their own way. It may have been confrontational, but they were magnificent in their own way.

Batting in those days was harder work than anything today because of the bouncer limits. Todays game is made for Graham Hick. Do you think Vaughan would average over 40 playing in Gooch and Gower's era? He wouldn't get anything in his own half to drive. Ponting wouldn't get a bean in that era. Shuffle forward and pivot hook? Impossible. Take away the bouncer limits and see how fearsome Harmison would be in test cricket. He would go for one an over and scare everyone to death

It is hard to define what is memorable. To me "memorable" is watching Terry Alderman bowl so accurately stump to stump that there was never any question of LBW's not being given. In this regard he was far better than McGrath who was given his LBW's by brow beaten umpires and racuous appealing. The side on deliveries of Hadlee and Lillee to me are far better than the open chested style that is all too common nowadays which has also resulted in the death of swing and the mastery of batting over bowling on the global stage. None of the fast bowlers measure up to the greats of the eighties, whether you are talking about Pakistan, the West Indies or the Australia of Lillee, Alderman, Lawson, Hogg. England and Sri Lanka might be exceptions to the rule. To me, being memorable is being of the highest class and there were certainly a lot of fast and medium fast bowlers of said class in the 80's.

What the hell is Tboy on about? Why must every comment posted in Cricinfo infer some injustice done to the players or supporters from the sub-continent? Get over yourselves.

As for the actual article, I agree that the eighties were great. As an Aussie, of course, we were disappointed with our boys but we kept turning up to the games. After the World Cup in 1987, Australia rose up and became the champion team they are now, and ultimately have dominated the game like no other side.

The batsmen in those days (especially touring batsman) played on pitches that were designed to give thme a tough time, there was less protective clothing, they were exposed to ball after ball of short, fast agressive bowling. And of course there was sledging.

Ahhh, the good old days when cricket was a competition between bat and ball. Today's game is a disappointment. Soon, bowlers will need to advise the batsman in advance what delivery he will receive. Harden up and play the game tough.

warnesie what are you on about? Im talking about Jeh always giving a serve to the aussies when he gets the chance (australia is his adopted country, its in his profile on cric info.) He sticks it to the aussies whenever he gets half a chance. Have to tell u Taff I think Punter would have played that pull/hook against any bowler in history. IF u watch the footage and read the articles bouncers were not only used to intimidate but to restrict run rates, its one of the reasons they changed the laws on it. Check out footage of sobers banging the ball in his own half and watch the batsmens reactions. They wish it was low enough to hook. WE have to face the facts that modern equipment has allowed batsmen, even tail enders, to take on the short ball. You cant just run up and bowl a half tracker to brett lee, if its not well directed he will plant you out of the ground (2 such occurences immediatley spring to mind) 20 years ago a tail ender would have been ducking now they are trying to hit it

We should not get in to the country wise debate but be more objective as we all love this GREAT GAME.
Well for the matter of fact if Imran's Heroics with the ball on Sub Contenatal pitches specially designed for Spinners (both in India & PAkistan) or Sarfaraz nine wicket haul in Australia or Qadir (the magician bundling the mega Batting line up for 54 runs) or W Indian pacers cracking some bones or Salim Malik batting against Great W Indian Pacers with broken hand (he batted with one hand)or Kapils 170 plus in 83 world cup. Just name few players who had more guts and determination then Jawed, Sunny, Border, Dean Jones etc, playing in current era

A bit like the earlier 70's piece, this was about MY memories of that period, not a historical truth. It's just my recollection of that era. That's what being a child is all about. You remember certain things, you don't necessarily appreciate some skills till you're older and you sometimes think that some things were bigger and better than they actually may have been. I came to appreciate the greatness of Marshall and Akram later on in my life when I realised how skillful they really were. Just because the bowling of that era did not SEEM memorable to a little boy doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else has to remember it that way.
Dean Jones, AB, Chappell, Lillee, Marsh, Waugh - all positive mentions of Aust and Tboy thinks that mentioning a relatively mediocre patch is "sticking the knife in". Did he switch off the tv for a few years and say "if I don't watch this rebuilding phase where Aust get beaten, then it never happened". Blind loyalty is just that - blind!

Lakshya, you are 100% correct. My apologies. Sri Lanka did in fact co-host that 1996 World Cup. So much for my theory about 'home' hoodoo. I vaguely recall the semi-finals in India and the Final in Pakistan which made me forget that SL were indeed hosts as well. I suppose no home country has ever won a final in their country. Quite strange that - in football world cups and in Olympic Games, home teams tend to perform really well. I wonder why cricket (albeit only 33 years since first World Cup) hasn't produced a home final winner. In fact, I think England in 1979 might still be the only home team to play in a World Cup Final. Did Collis King blow them away that day?

Not sure who u think has blind loyalty Michael, but its not me. Aus certainly did go through a rebuilding phase, but they also won the ashes (first in the domination of 17 odd years) and won a world cup too. Good thing Aus were so mediocre at the time, lord knows where it could have ended if they were a good team? You are right michael, this is about your memories of the time, and not an historical truth. All I would like from you mate is a little more balance in your views.Your constant litany of drunken ignorant aussie fans, evil underachieving south africans (no 2 in the world for a long time I believe?)and cheating aussie non walkers is old mate. I notice you did not reply to my post after the great Sachin didnt walk in SL, even after video replays confirmed that it did in fact hit his thumb and the back of the bat. Was this Sachin "...accepting umpiring decisions with relatively few histrionics?" Sure didnt look like it to me. In fact it looked far worse than Punter at the SCG.

I still don't think that the modern technique of coming forward first and swivel hooking would work. They may have got runs, but their techniques would have had to change completely or they would have been picking the ball out of their teeth. Batsmen today know that they are going to get far more length bowling than 20 years ago. That is the game as it is today, and techniques have changed accordingly. It is a lot more pleasing on the eye to watch the ball being smashed on the up thru cover than watching a batsman ducking and diving endlessly. But, I am sure a few players of their era knew that hitting Malcolm Marshall on the up was a signal for chin music for the next 3 overs.

Disagree Taff: if Greg Ritchie scored 2X50's & ave 22 runs vs 80's windies in 11 innings I think punter could ave 2 1/2 times ritchies average with a few 50's & a couple of tons as well for good measure. Im a huge windies fan, if I had to pick a team give me Marshall & Roberts. But the fact is they werent infallible & the aussie line up from 2001 were bloody great too. They werent infallible either. U say marshall would have made players change their shots, but if he played today he would have to change his game as well. U can no longer run in & bang in half trackers & watch batsmen run. Give them a helmet & watch them hook the bowler into frustration. Windies VS Aus would be interesting indeed, but y do most people send the aus team back in time? Y not bring the windies forward as well? I think a couple of issues need to be clarified: u need 1 game in windies under old rules & old conditions equipment & 1 game in aus under new rules & new equipment & condtions. Tied series anyone?