The 872-run extravaganza at Wanderers was if not the greatest of ODIs, surely one of the strangest, at times resembling the children’s game T-ball, that variation of rounders where the ball is belted off a stationary tee. But it was neither the start nor the finish of a long-term process.

For the game has been a long time coming. Jam-packed international schedules are good for batsmen, offering a profusion of opportunities, and bad for bowlers, condemning them to a regime of increasing toil: the temptation is to ‘bowl smart’, within oneself, from a shortened run-up with a minimum of experimentation, risking nought where injuries are concerned. The transformation of Shaun Pollock from a head-hunting tearaway to a 125kmh corridor bowler is about more than age: it is a recognition of what it takes to endure in modern cricket.

There are other forces at work too. As our culture grows more aggressive, acquisitive and exhibitionistic, so does our sport. Batsmen are physically stronger and mentally bolder, playing more short-form cricket, both 50-over and Twenty20, which reduces the bowler to a drone and a drudge. Bats have improved colossally in their power-to-weight ratios. Thick edges travel for six; mishits clear in-fields. The game has changed even at grass roots level. Being a sentimental soul, I have all the bats I’ve used in my thirty-odd years as a club cricketer. I pick up the old ones and wonder how I ever used them. My latest is 2Ib 7oz, but picks up lighter and hits much further: I am game to hit over the top now in a fashion I would never have attempted even five years ago. As a slow bowler who must cope with the cosh from others, though, I reckon I deserve it!

What to do? It is expecting too much that bats should be made somehow less powerful, and the insistence on wood alone is, at least for the moment, probably a sufficient of an inhibition. Something vanished from tennis when the wooden racquet disappeared, and has not reappeared with the increase in the size of the ball, but no one speaks of turning the clock back: we are a generation that likes power in sport, and a little brutality as well, to get the adrenalin going, to engage the casual sports browser, to keep the networks happy.

What seems beyond dispute is that boundaries are too short. ridiculously so. In fact, the whole idea of standardizing the size of the cricket field seems as pointless as standardizing the design of golf courses: it is just something for ICC apparatchiks to do, when they’re not measuring the size of logos on players’ shirts and handing out plastic bats to Eskimos. It is not simply that short boundaries advantage batsmen: it is that short boundaries advantage a particular kind of mediocre slogger, introducing greater uniformity into the game. The skill of working the ball into gaps, turning
the strike over by placement and industry, is in decline, because boundaries have become so absurdly easy to hit. And in the end, nobody benefits. When bowling poses no threat to batsmen, batting loses meaning. It is not even really possible to be great, merely productive and effective.

What we are overdue, however, is a generalized consideration, by administrators, players and press, of what makes cricket special, different, unique - which we are sometimes not very good at articulating. The modern assumption seems to be that the bigger, wilder and louder the spectacle, the better. But that is an imposition of TV’s values on cricket, and they are not the same. Cricket seems to me to have two priorities that we should be
doing our best to nurture and promote: preservation of the equilibrium of bat and ball, and maximizing of the variety of its skills. The current direction of the game seems antagonistic to both.

will our pointless debates have any effect on the dollar-drunk politicians ruling/ruining the game?

does anybody -- people like woolmer included --have any say?

everyone seems to have sense except the people who matter. so why have such academic debates?

Gideon has suggested that boundaries have been made shorter to make batting easier. It could also be suggested that by creating space between the boundary rope inside the playing surface fence, allows the fielding team to field more agreessively near the boundary and as a consequence makes fielding safer.

John - It does indeed make fielding safer, but look at the 10 sometimes 20 metre gaps between rope & fence on bigger grounds. Surely you only need a gap of two to five metres to make it safe for fielders. I agree with the safety factor, but sixes become meaningless when hit over a rope that sits twenty metres off the boundary.

i believe the game should not be in the favour of batsmen and at the moment it is.

it should be 50/50 contest.

some ideas i have are

make the stumps 1-2 inches higher and 1 inch wider, this gives the bowler more oppotunity to hit the stumps or get a lbw if the batsmen plays a bad shot.atleast once per match a batsmen will inside edge the ball only to see it miss the stumps by a inch and the batsmen gets rewarded with four.

allow another man behind square as long as he is attacking 20 meters from the bat this allows bowlers bowl at the stumps without fear of consantly get flicked off his pads,(cricket rewards the batsmen with this rule allowing the batsmen to score singles for defensive flicks,leg byes, even balls that have flicked the glove,and inside edges that go for four)

allow three bounces an over while it might slow scoring down i believe batsmen would be forced to improve thier techneques,at the moment batsmen are just waiting for the ball pitched up in the slot.the batsmen often leaves the short ball because he knows he can easily score from the 4-5 balls that are pitched up.

I agree with Gideon - the game has become too easy for the batsman. I'd rather watch a test match were the scores are 250 per team than one where it is 450-500 per side, no matter how fast those runs are scored. The contest is between the batsman and bowler, and it should be a fair contest, rather than being just "who can score the most runs."

I agree entirely. One day cricket has ruined the art and the passion for bowling. Some of the most obvious flat wicket bullies are scoring like it's Christmas!

A balance should be restored between bat and ball. In the 70's and 80's cricket was spectacular because every team and macho fire breathing fast bowlers. Cricket meant being a man. Hanging in there and taking the short stuff from Thommo, Marshall, Patterson, Imran, Holding, etc. Where have all those macho fast bowlers gone? It
is a shame that the best fast bowler of this era, McGrath, is someone who does not move the ball much and specialises in spot-on accuracy. The only innovations he has are his astomishing range of verbal abuse. He is a lout and behaves like a "tapori". But he is put up as a shining example of modern fast bowling. He would struggle to find a place in any top West Indian side. I rate him far far below Garner and Ambrose.
Far far below Sir Richard, Wasim and Waqar.

[Sentence deleted because of possibly libellious comment - editor.]

Thommo, Holding and Imran had unquestionably fair actions.

Today, the speed gun is our only criteria. Fast means being able to attack all the time, being able to terrorise batsmen and still take wickets. Imran Khan had it in the 1983 home series against India. Malcolm Marshall had it all along his career. Marshall was a great fast bowler. Fast, mean and not one to waste time on sledging!

Viv Richards and Barry Richards shone because they could play fiercely fast bowling in the Packer circus on irregular grounds with such aplomb and aggression.

That is why I rate Gavaskar so highly. Had Sunny played against today's bowlers, he would have averaged 60 instead of 51.22!

When I look at the West Indian bowlers today, I want to cry. Are these guys fit to play for a team that had Wes Hall, Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Garner, Clarke, Ambrose, Patterson! Those guys could terrorise you!

Now Shoaib and Lee cannot terrorise. I think Bond is the guy with a clean action and is really fast. Maybe he can terrorise if he wants to!

The one country where bowling has improved greatly is England. I rate Fred as a better all rounder, esp. a better bowler than Beefy, and Hoggard, Harmison and Jones are really very good.

In India, people say that the Mumbai test was poorly led by India. But how can you blame Rahul? He wanted to pick a side which could take 20 wickets in a test. And he did succeed in that. Was he to blame that Sachin, Jaffer and Sehwag played so appallingly badly?

When you have three frontline batsmen not performing, you are bound to get in trouble.

And what about Dhoni's dismissal in the first innings! Couldn't Freddie have called him back, after he was falsely declared out. But he is not a [deleted] like Vishy who like an [deleted] called back Fletcher and we lost that test to England. Vishy did not care about his team, instead he wanted to look good to the world. [deleted]!

Anyway, India's batting is falling apart. We need to give Sachin and Sehwag a rest. They seem to have lost their hunger. And Gambhir clearly does not seem to have the big match temperament.

So where do we go from here? With Pathan, maybe we should groom him to be an opening batsman like Prabhakar!

I mean, he is never going to be as fast as Sreesanth and Munaf! And also with RP Singh as our best swing and seam bowler, Irfy would struggle to keep his place in the side purely as a pace bowler. So he ought to take his batting seriously. Maybe spend some time with Boycott, Sunny and Mohinder to learn how to play really fast bowling with courage and class.

Rahul is doing a great job and
deserves an extended run. But we need our batsmen to perfom consistently. Else, World Cup 2007 will be a distant dream.

We need to get our batting act together and win this one day series convincingly.

I disagree with Gideon. I believe in the evolution of the game.
To win games you still need to take twenty wickets regardless of the number of runs...both sides have the same field and use the same equipment. I bet whilst there are more runs being made than ever before and more 4's and 6's being slogged, there certainly appears to be more 'result' tests than ever before. That is a great thing!
So I am all for shorter boundaries, better bats, better fitness of players as long as results keep flowing. World cricket relies on its abilty to keep the viewer entertained. That is the lifeblood of the game. That's what keeps my 9 year old excited by the game.

I think the standard of bowling and the present quality of bowlers coming through are below par. Bowlers now just try to blast the batsmen out. They try to bowl like a Shoaib or a Brett Lee when they are plainly not. Getting back to the basics of line, length and patience employed by the likes of Macgrath, Pollock, Vaas should be the goal to keep batsmen in check. Too many slower balls and changes in line and length seems to be putting the bowlers off more than the batsmen. So lay off the batsmen and the new bats etc. The bowlers should get their acts together.

I agree with Gideon, the balance between bat and ball is now skewed. Shorter boundaries, better bats, too much cricket and flatter pitches give the batsmen an unhealthy advantage. Cricket may be more spectacular now but it is just less interesting. Something needs to be done!

I'm responding to Manish Modi.

I agree with you about the bowlers. McGrath, while very good, isn't as good as people like Lillee and Marshall or any of the others you mentioned. If Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar played against those bowlers, Lara and Tendulkar would both average in the late-40's, and Ponting would average more like 38, rather than 58. The drop in pace-bowling standards is certainly partially responsible today's imbalance.

But really, ease off on Viswanath. I can only assume you weren't serious, because good sportsmanship isn't a crime. Some things about cricket should never change.

What is more atrocious is that test match wickets in Australia, England and South Africa have been made batting wickets. Batsman are making merry in Perth - Can u believe it. India makes 700 in Sydney, 500 in Adelaide and batsmen score almost 200 on the first day in Melbourne.

Hi Gideon! I too liked your 'preliminary remarks' to Manish's thoughtful article above.....Well done for that. As for Manish's work, it shows why the guys who so disappointed him in the Test series will again earn back his love if they play like themselves. Manish is the Indian Cricket fan

Some suggestions:

1. Go easy on the leg side wides in ODIs. As it is a batsman only needs to get a touch on something down leg to send it for four. It doesn't need to be called wide if the batsman misses. At this rate we will have wides being called when the batsman is bowled round his legs.

2. Boundaries scored during power plays to count for three, not four. Think about it: most of the time, all a batsman does in scoring a boundary during power play is find the gap in the infield - which would normally fetch him only 2 or 3 without the field restrictions. And we are not even talking about all the lucky boundaries from inside- and outside-edges throughout the match.

3. Do away with the leg bye. This has, of course, been discussed to death on other fora before.

In my view, it's not the batsmen so much -- it's the standard of bowling that has deteriorated. The good old days that you talk about had bowlers of the West Indian quartet's quality. Those were days when spinners from the subcontinent bowled solely to get wickets. After that, we saw a great influx of quality swing bowling -- Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and so on. The problem is, no one treats bowling like an art anymore - which it is. Bowling has lost its sophistication.

To Manish and Marcus,
I completely agree with you. In the past year we have seen the much vaunted batting line-ups of Australia and India made to look less than ordinary by what is a very decent fast bowling attack from England. Supposed greats such as Hayden, Sehwag and Gilchrist have been unable to play the swinging or short ball. And lets not get carried away by Ponting - admittedly he has scored runs by the bucketload of late, but the attacks he has faced have been poor.
With the quality of video footage available, it is easier to compare eras (at least in the past 30 years) in cricket to practically any sport. And what my video evidence tells me is the great Windies sides of the 70s and 80s would have bulldozed any of the top sides today.

No matter how the game of cricket evolves over the years, the one thing has to remain constant and every change in rule has to keep this in mind, is that it should be a 50/50 chance for a batsman and a bowler. A game of cricket does not become interesting because someone made 200 or a fielder took 10 wickets. It becomes interesting because it went all the way, there was competitions till the end, the result of the game was in doubt until the last ball had been bowled. Thats when you have 50,000 people sitting in the stands waiting for that final moment. As an example, the one day semifinal between Aus ans SF and the same team then making the 872 runs. Of either of them I select the World Cup Semifinal as the better one. Because cricket comes down to percentage game. The question is not, how many successful chases has there been for runs over 350? Rather the question is how many games has gone to the wire. The chances that on a pitch where 250 is defendable, those games have gone to the wire more often than not. And for one simple reason, it was a battle between bat and ball in its truest form with a 50/50 chance for both.

It is ridiculous to try and gauge how the best batsman of today would've fared against the best bowlers of another era. Maybe if that is the case you will also have to consider how many times Gavaskar or Miandad or Sobers or Richards was given not out by home umpires for plumb LBWs or edges caught behind and how many times Garner, Lillee, Imran or Kapil must've gotten wickets from awful decisions given by their home umpires while today's players can expect no such favours.

The game evolves but to make a bygone era look good it is stupid to pull down current players. Players like Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, McGrath, Wasim, Waqar and Warne have undoubtedly written themselves into the Hall Of Fame of cricket.

And finally if the general opinion seems to be that the game is too batsman-oriented then why the hysteria when a Mumbai pitch(Ind vs Aus 2004) finishes a game in two days. Let the batsmen be tested atleast on such wickets or even the green top in New Zealand where India's first innings ended at 99 and New Zealand's at 95!!

yes, its true, there seems now to be less than 50% chance of actually watching a good match, the low scoring tussle between Sri Lanka and Pakistan was a refreshing and exciting. A game where one team makes 350+ and the other team working at 5 an over is nothing but a bore. And think how disheartening it is for bowlers getting hit for 300 plus.

Its so obvious with stats now a days. Only about 5 years ago, getting over 220 was a good score, now it means you had a real struggle. No one can produce pure accurate pace for long with the new strenuous schedules. Most crowds just want to catch a sixer rather than see a good match now.

Groundsmen are willing to make that happen, all for ticket sales. If we want healthy cricket loving crowds today rather than those that shamefully boo off masters like Tendulkar. Something must be done, i don't know on what level to make the game more equal.

India and England played a riveting one day game in Delhi today, with the total number of runs scored being less than half of what South Africa and Australia scored in that biff-bang-wallop match the other day.

Flintoff and Pietersen smote a few using their Woodworm bats, but both got out after scoring 40 odd and England lost by 39 runs.

The point is that wickets need to be prepared in such a manner that bowlers aren't reduced to playing bit parts. Today's shirt-front wickets favour the batsmen too much.

The other change that we need to introduce in ODIs is to remove the restriction of 10 overs per bowler. If a bowler is bowling brilliantly [as Harbhajan did today] he should be allowed to bowl more overs.

Perhaps the fielding captain can nominate [during play] one or two bowlers who will bowl more than ten overs [say up to a maximum of 15 each].

Yeah, thank god the administrators have ruled against anything other than wood being used to make bats. I'm sure that, with hindsight, the governing bodies of golf and tennis wish that they'd done the same.
New bat technology has certainly given an advantage to batsmen, helping them to score more quickly, but it hasn't helped them stay in any longer, I don't think. More runs may be scored these days, but there are far more results in test matches. So, really, I don't see a problem there.
As for the relative bowling standards in the eighties and now, I don't really see much of a difference. OK, there were some great pace bowlers in the eighties: Hadlee, Imran, and all the West Indians, but otherwise there was a lot of poor bowling too. English attacks in the 80's were consistently terrible. Australian attacks weren't much better (post Lillee). The Indian attack is much better now than it was then. There weren't any great spinners playing then either, no one nearly as good as Warne, Murali and Kumble.
The one thing I don't like about the modern game is the amount of cricket played. I'm not a fan of back to back tests. Bowlers get injured. They must get tired. This must help the batsmen. I still can't believe that the next Ashes series is going to be played in 6 weeks. Madness.
Otherwise though, cricket is great at the moment. In the 80's, let's face it, when one of those great fast bowlers wasn't bowling, it was often a bit boring. So many draws...

Cricket has definitely changed. It has become, like everything else that is dear to us, too commercialized. In the good old days cricket was all about skill, technique and talent, today it is all about money. Mo' Money, Mo' Money! These new 'carpet-baggers' that run the game, are going to wring every penny that they can out of it.

Today's fan would much rather come and see Afrida hit ten sixes over a short boundary, than see Sobers put on a master-class for 150 not out in four hours. Therefore, that is what the powers that be are giving them.

The old saying, "give the customer what he wants" is very true here. Quick runs, mediocre batsmen and mediocre bowlers and bowling that is the modern day formula for good cricket.

Any sport that can produce as exciting and enthralling a spectacle (that lasts an entire summer) as the most recent Ashes series, does not have too much wrong with it. I agree with so much of what has been written about the modern game favouring the batsman (and the boundary size should definitely ensure that mishits are not sixes) but I think we should keep it in perspective. Limited over cricket is not ruining the game; it is opening the batsmen's eyes to new run scoring possibilities. No one wants to see a high scoring draw, but that is not the preserve of the modern game. It has happened in all eras. The high scoring rates mean there are less draws and more results. I am a firm believer in the value of a draw in a test series, but positive results should be aimed for. Look at the effect positivity had on Steve Waugh's team.
One of the beauties of cricket is that there are so many different conditions around the world's test grounds. We are still seeing as many tense, low scoring games as tense, high scoring games. We are also, I might add, seeing as many boring high scoring games as boring low scoring one-sided games. The joy is when two evenly matched teams engage in a contest that grips the imagination. This is irrespective of the amount of runs scored, the batsmen's averages or the workload of the modern fast bowler.
Equality between bat and ball is needed, but looking at the 2005 Ashes sereis, there is not too much wrong with the game.

ODI - dont care..make money but here are my rule enhancements for tests
1. test players cant play more than 22 in a year.
2. One bouncer rule to stay,but batsmen cant be hit more than 2 times on the helmeet by a bouncer.Automatic out.
3. reduce the wide lines on the leg side.
4. new ball due every 65 overs.
5.Stricter laws on bowling actions.
6.Stanadarize the ground size.

With all these advantages that batsmen have these days there are bowlers who consistently make them turmoil like Glenn Mcgrath,Makaya Ntini. Lets talk about raw talent than these sub-ordinate things.Standardisation of cricket grounds is a valid point though.

As CLR James realized - if you want a contest focused on bat V Ball watch baseball (even with steroids). Cricket publicists even miss out emphasizing good Bat V Ball matches. The first test between NZ and WI was wonderful (at least that is impression I got from following it on Cricinfo), such a back and forth tussle between bat and ball - but no articles about that, just WI lost again, and what a wonderful one-day match in SA. Tell me of a better test match than that one in last ten years (even including Ashes matches last years)?

I am inclined to agree with Gideon Haigh. I remember last summer reading that Adam Gilchrist reckoned the England attack the best he had ever faced, and I thought back to the attack that Graham Hick faced on debut - Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, and Patterson, which is in a different league to Harmison, Flintoff, Jones, and Hoggard. Moreover, that was not even an especially strong West Indies attack, compared with the one they had in 1984. When you look back at the bowlers of the 1980s - Marshall, Holding, Garner, Walsh, Ambrose, Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee, Bob Willis, Ian Botham....Over the last 5 years only the Australians, with McGrath and Gillespie, have had bowlers of comparable quality. What seemed obvious last summer was that some of the Aussies - particularly Hayden, but also Gilchrist and Martyn - had records which had been inflated by batting against Poor bowling attacks.

If the bat is so dominant, how come more tests than ever finish in a result, often with a day to spare?

There seem to be alot of comments about 'who isn't as good as someone else' here, saying little more than cricketers now aren't as good as they used to be. Surely people can be gracious enough to see that great players today (Ponting, Tendulkar, McGrath, Pollock, etc.)are still great players despite who their competition is...

Who's to say that the greats of the past would have done so well in todays environment? Negative speculation does nothing but show the people making the comments as desperate to hold on to the past, or worse; bitter about their current crop of players not performing consistently.

I agree that cricket has changed for the worse, purely because i like to see a contest - no-matter what the result. Cricket shouldn't change to suit the tastes of those who don't understand it as it is. It should be nurtured into becoming a more skillful game that rewards those who aren't just the strongest or fastest in their field. How many sports can boast that size or speed make little difference to success over cunning and wit?

I disagree with Gideon.

Cricket and possibly any other sport is all about the people who play it and characters in the game. Even Gideon's memory of cricket himself describes as "... Past masters strutted their stuff anew: Lloyd, Richards, Greenidge, Gomes, Dujon, Marshall, Garner v Border, Wessels, Lawson and, all too briefly and forlornly, Hughes."

Everyone thinks the world was a more demanding and exciting place when they were younger. Cricket is as exciting and wonderful as it ever was and it's just the case of "the kids these days."

I do not agree that one day cricket is the reason for declining bowling standards. I think it is shorter boundaries, better bat technology and pitches made for batsmen.
A good game of cricket should be a contest between bat and ball. Why not have more bowler oriented pitches? Why not also use technology to our advantage by having more bowler oriented balls? - higher seams like the SG ball rather than the Kookaburra?

Only one problem with world cricket - it lacks five good fast West Indies bowlers...

I call it the "SportsCenter" affect, with so much to watch and do, sports must compete with other entertainment vehicles. Scoring in Cricket is more entertaining and a bigger draw for the general public and viewers than someone getting out. HomeRuns, Dunks, TouchDown, Fours/Sixes,Goals are all "offense" drugs that fullfill our WOW feelings.With so much information, sports memory are store for only a few days in sports fan brain and they need to refill it with another six or four or dunk...

People really seem to look at the eighties through rose coloured glasses. Sure, the West Indies were awesome, but Australia was awful, England were ok, India were nothing flash, New Zealand were a one man team (possibly two if you include M.Crowe with Hadlee), Pakistan had a few great bowlers but little else, and Sri Lanka weren't really on the scene. On top of this, the W.I. got to bowl 70 overs in a day and load their overs with bouncers. I'd like to see if they'd have done so well if they couldn't run up from the sight screen all day and bowl bouncer after bouncer. I'd also like to see them bat against Warne, Murali and some of the other class spinners we have today instead of just Greg Matthews or Eddie Hemmings. I'm sure they'd have done well, but it would be a challenge for them.

Look, I loved the 80's, but there is a lot to be said for the changes brought in since then. More results, more technology, more runs in a day...

As a postscript - Ponting bats in the same era as Lara and Tendulkar, has figures that rival both of them, has scored against all countries in all conditions, can turn a game with his flair or save it with his grit, and he's only getting better... isnt it time that he gets mentioned alongside them? Or is this a bit of anti-aussie prejudice?

P. Satish Kumar

Well I never personally thought that the players you mentioned weren't Great (apart from Ponting;I'll always have doubts about him). And certainly they are all Hall-of-Famers. But I just happen to believe that the '80's bowlers were generally better. And by the way, those players came out in the early-to-mid '90's, when the standards were still quite high.

With regards to your other point, that sounds a bit too much like conspiracy theory to me. Besides which, the case could be made that modern-day players also benefit from home umpires, so it really doesn't make much sense.

Bowling is coming back - England are now comfortably a top three Test team with a poor batting card. Pakistan only got their batting in order the last 18 months and their two best players are bowlers. Australia has been the best team in the world the last ten years primarily due to outstanding bowling and consistant but unspectacular batting.

The fact is, Test cricket will always be won by bowling, especially new ball bowling. It's not all doom and gloom, and I think in the past two or three years, bowling has definately come back. Flintoff has emerged in that time, now the second best (possibly even best) pace bowler in the world, Hoggard has become extremely solid, Harmison has his virtues though limited. Pakistan have an assembly line of U25 pace bowlers, as well as 24 year old, unbelievably advanced Kaneria. Nel has emerged, Bravo has emerged, Bond's comeback (though I think we are all sceptical) has started well. Hell, we're even talking about INDIAN new ball bowling, Munaf and Sreesanth.

No one noticed this when it was much worse 3 years ago, it's actually improving now.

And John, marginally more Tests are decided because we have been trying to blood two new Test teams (only one now) and run rates are at least .8 of a run higher than 20 years ago.

As always Gideon writes such sense, but I'm afraid that in general I can't agree with him on this. I don't think that in my 40 years of watching the game, cricket has ever been more attractive or consistently exciting. I lament, like him, the apparent loss of some of the arts of strike bowling, but I contend that we do live in a golden era when we can boast of at least 3 spinners (Warne, Kumbli and Murali) who would grace any team that's ever existed, Khamal, Dhoni & Gilchrist right up there as great keepers who are second to none with the bat, Ambrose, Donald & Walsh aren't that long retired, and I can't agree that the phenomenal McGrath wouldn't have made a similar mark in previous decades (unless he was English of course when he would have been treated like John Snow and labelled not consistent or penetrative enough!). I can only think of two "solutions" that would radically recalibrate things in favour of the bowlers, but does m'learned friend really want to go back to uncovered pitches and/or a barrage of bouncers per over (now that WAS boring!)?

Some perspective please. Ponting averages 50+ in both first class and Test cricket. Past greats like Richards, Greg Chappell and Gavaskar also averaged 50+ in first class and Test cricket. Don't tell me today's Test bowlers are worse than the 80s first class bowlers.

Look at the bowlers today: Pollock, McGrath, Flintoff, Shoaib, Warne, McGill, Murali all average in the 20s and 4-5 wickets/Test = about the same as the 80s greats. So, if you look at it, the bowlers are doing OK too. One tends to forget that the great 70-80s WI bowling side was a freak of nature.

Cricket, like any other sport has to progress and the game that it is today is a culmination of better technology and what people want.Nostalgia is good, I am 32 years old and I already miss the "good ol' cricket" that we used to play as kids. My point is people always remember with fondness the cricket that was played during their playing days or days when they used to follow cricket more keenly.The good part is that you can never go back to it,cricket like life can only go forward and we have to understand that to enjoy it.

I think making boundaries shorter, allowing leg-side bowling, making 4's to 3's, making stumps wider are all experiments which will prbly come to the 'super-sub' experiment result.

We've seen more runs scored in the past 4-5 years because of:

1)Groundsmen preparing the pitch to tilt the scale towards batting.

The bats now in use did not suddenly appear, top cricketers have been using good bats for quite sometime now. Its the aggresiveness the batsmen are allowed due to the pitch which allows them to score freely.

2)The amount of cricket being played. Every fast bowler and some batsmen break down. I want to see a contest in which every bowler and batsmen are rested and at the top or near theire peaks.

Prepare 'fair' pitches and dont play a million games in a year and we'll be back to where we were 5-10 years ago.

Why are pitches being made batsmen friendly around the world? Why is everyone playing more cricket in a year?
The answer is MONEY. The past 5 years have been the most lucrative for cricket as well.
The game's organizers need to get together to chart out a plan for the next decade on how to earn revenue without killing the golden goose. A consensus needs to be reached on what makes the game The Game and how interest and revenue can be maintained over a period of time. Seasons and tours need to be set. FIFA, NFL, NBA etc are all well managed and planned out.

The reason why cricket has been a batsmen's game for the past few years is unimaginative and inadequate management.

And that is a problem which requires a shake-up way at the top.

On the subject of mediocre batsmen, I want to talk about the West Indian opener, Chris Gayle. Chris is at present mediocre, however, what frustrates me is the fact that he has the ability to turn himself into a great West Indian batsman. He has all of the tools to be as great as he wants to be. I cannot understand why he is so contented to remain mediocre.

I really liked Carl Hooper, but before Chris Gayle, Carl was our greatest under-achiever. Now Chris has surpassed even Carl as an under-achiever. And I also like Chris, too.

I believe that with Lara about to depart, that Chris can lead the West Indies back to the top. However, he has to want it. Why doesn't he step forward and take on the responsibility? Why is he contented to slink around in the background of mediocrity and underachievement?

Damn he makes me mad!

Chris has been taking from West Indies cricket for so long that he probably does not know how to give back.

Come on, Chris....it is time to put up or shut up!

I meant fast bowlers of course - obviously Warne and Muralitharan are better than any of the spinners of the 1980s.

The game like society has evolved and in that same vein not all things have been for the better. Scoring rates and attitudes of batsman are far more attacking these days that has to be for the better. Pitches are more often prepared to a much higher standard than yesteryear and the implementation of Neutral Umpires has removed one of the major areas of concern from visiting teams of the past.

On the flip side, we have introduced more teams and touraments than ever before. Results and statistics garnered against sides such as Bangladesh and the more recently Zimbabwe, cannot be compared to those of the remaining teams. Similarly the roping off of grounds has invited batsman to take more risks, with heavier bats and all of the above, is it any wonder that batting averages have sky rocketed. The traditional 5 or 6 test match series has virtually disappeared and so much cricket is now played back to back. Warm up games against provincial teams have virtually been eradicated. Batsmen will never tire of making runs but bowlers will, their longevity in the game is being compromised by over use. Dare I suggest it but we need a reduction in the amount of cricket that is played. The International Calendar has reached saturation point and as much as I love watching it, I feel it needs to be pulled back a bit to make the contests more "special" rather than being served up on a weekly basis as it is now.

I disagree with Matthew Wyndham's comments about Hayden, Gilchrist, and Martyn's inflated records. The fact is what they had done in their previous matches amounted to nothing when they came up against what is without doubt the best four-pronged pace attack in the world today. Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Jones were all players who have never really performed to a great level against Australia before and I think that came as a massive shock. They also targetted the left-handers and hats off to the Englishmen for doing so.

Hopefully we can reverse the result later this year!

I agree with Gideon.
Push back the boundaries to safe limits.
Stop preparing batsmen's pitches!
My son plays senior school 1st Eleven cricket in Oz on decent turf wickets and he has never bowled on a pitch that has favoured bowlers. The odd one has had a ball or two that's kept low, but that's about it.
Now he has stress fractures and is playing as a batsman in the two's.... scored 90 last match heh heh, at this rate he may never bowl again.... pffft
ww
btw - matches finish quickly cos batsmen take more chances and score faster - do you really want Boycott, Lawry et al grinding out 30 runs a session at 9 overs an hour back again?

This is the reponse to talk about Ponting's batting skills:

No doubt, Pointing is like a raging bull in the batting skills over last two years, but he still wont be counted up there with Lara and Tendulkar, untill he scores runs in India. He doesnt even average 15 there. Instead my take in on Rahul Dravid, who is almost up there with an average of 58 and have scored centuries against each opposition at both home and abroad. Guess his mild-mannered mechanism lose out on more aggressive or flash-pan antics of some of his contemporaries.

Would be inclined to disagree with Gideon Haigh - nostalgia tends to color most facets of our life positively - and harking back to the good ole days is something that most of us are susceptible to. To me the idea that in any field of human endeavour, the mean skill or performance levels at a particular period of time or a particular geographic location is significantly higher than what it is now is somewhat antithetical to the general notion of evolution.
Have a few observations to put down (in no particular order) :-
- In this discussion of the great Windies team of 80s - a point that seems to have been missed out is that there was hardly a spinner of the Warne/Murali/Saqlain class who could tease or outthink their stroke makers. Would be interesting to see their stats against Pakistan during those days - with Qadir around. Similarly while the Packer circus had some of the best batsmen and fast bowlers playing there wasn't much by way of spin bowling.
- True, fast bowling is clearly not so much about fearsome pace now. But this probably has also to do with the introduction of helmets. Batsmen of today, during their formative years, probably honed their techniques based on the idea that there is that much less risk of physical injury while playing fast bowling. Would have been interesting to watch Holding bowl like he did to the Indians in that last test in 1976 to Gilchrist. Might not have been much different than that Fredericks innings against Lillee and Thomson.
- The game has probably become more cerebral now - with spin bowling on subcontinental wickets being the ultimate test for a batsmen.
- The argument that the Aussies under Waugh had no real competition could be countered by a similar argument about the Windies under Lloyd ? Ditto for the Hayden vs Gavaskar debate. Gavaskar was certainly among the best opening bats around, but his records are somewhat skewed due to the poor windies bowling attack at the start of his career and the packer circus during the late seventies ?

I thought the whole point of cricket was the battle between bowler and batsman? The ICC is forgetting that a game is only fun to watch if it is balanced. I love to watch a good period of bowling during which a bowler has the upper hand.

I also think they should lift the restrictions on bowlers bouncing batsmen – especially in one dayers. Fast bowlers are meant to be aggressive. I want to see batsmen fearing of their lives out there.

One of the best periods of play I've seen in a while was during the latest Durban test with Brett Lee coming at Andre Nel at 155+ km/h - all fire and brimstone. I would definitely pay for the pleasure of seeing that again.

Speaking about Ponting: the reason I don't rate Ponting as great is because of his technique. What with the crooked-bat shots, the thrusting front pad etc, it's really luck almost any time when he racks up a century. (remember his recent 70 against S.A? He could have been out like 5 times before he went.) I mean, given this, does anyone really think he would average 58 against the reverse-swing of Imran and Wasim? Or the brilliance of Marshall, Holding or Garner? No, neither do I.

Regarding Martyn, he also has a MASSIVE technical weakness which the English exposed-getting out BBW (Bat Before Wicket).

The WI fast bowlers were GREAT but the team was unbalanced as was shown by their appalling perfomances against mediocre spinners in Sydney in 1984-85 and again 1988-89. Dear old Max Bennett and Dutchy Holland bowled them out and then AB in 1988 got 11 wickets ! Imagine what Warne and Kumble would do to them. By the way Warne (possibly the greatest bowler ever) and Kumble are both legal bowlers unlike some I could mention.

ponting - the only mark against him is the fact that he hasn't had to face Australia's own attack and so we will never know how good he, or any of the australian batsman, could be. Dravid is good but he has struggled against Australia when both McGrath and Warne have been playing.

I don't like Ponting as a person, honestly like Warne I love to see them getting hammered. However Ponting has found a technique that works, and I am sure that he would adapt if he needed to. Did Viv have a perfect technique? No. He too would thrust his pad forward etc but no one would dare say anything about him. Batting is about getting runs. How many English batsmen with "perfect" techniques have come and gone (Ramprakash, etc) because they weren't streetwise enough in scoring runs.

I also agree that it is clutching at straws to blame modern bats. Top pros have always been granted exclusive access to unlimited quantities of the best bats made by the best batmakers. So I don't entirely buy that argument.

Warne vs. Windies:19 matches, 65 wickets, av. 29.95 with 3 five-wicket hauls. He doesn't exactly wreak havoc with the current West Indian teams, who are by far the worst of the ESTABLISHED test nations. So I don't think you can necessarily assume Warne would take bucketloads when playing against a team of great batsmen.

all talk bout de gr8 windies team of the 80's...where are de west indies siting on the test rankings in de last few years?? is dis gonna happen to de aussies of this era??

True -re Warne and the West Indians but overall -like Lara he is a true cricketing genius and deservedly one of the 5 cricketers of the century. As much as one likes Tendulkar and Dravid, they do not -and never have -frightened opposition in the same way that Lara does. They are too conservative and both have -for example never done"a Laxman" and played a truly great TEST innings. That Wisden poll of the greatest test innings ever was basically tosh (Bradman's 270 in 36-37 being ranked top when Don did not rate it in his top 10 -rightly as Fingo was in earlier and also got a big hundred) BUT it did get one thing right. No innings from Tendulkar in the top 100 innings. Funny thing but true. Unlike Lara who has literally won not just tests but series -Sachin never has.
By the way -as much as one admires Murali as a man I am afraid that I cannot agree to consider him as a great BOWLER for reasons that I need not explain.

Lara & Tendulkar have scored alot of their runs against some of the best bowling attacks in recent history, though if struggling early in the various series. How about Ponting? Dropped catches,Bad umpiring decisions & faulty, lousy bowling has helped him tremendously, but still he has to be good enough to take all that and score heavily and place his team in commanding positions.
and just to let you know Brian Lara did face some of the top West Indies bowlers of 1980s. Against what was one the best first class line ups in cricket history, Garner ,Marshall etc.. Barbados vs. Trinidad when he was a teenager(15 or 16) and did quite well; scoring 90 over three hours.and he did face Curtly Ambrose in a first class match in England in 1995 in a great battle between bat and ball, and wasn't dismissed by him.I think he did go on to score quite a few runs in that match.

Directed at marcus' comment:

So what's that meant to prove?

Warne vs. England:31 matches, 172 wickets, av 22.30 with 10 five-wicket hauls. And against what most English have decided the best in the world (sic) at the moment. As usual taking the most convenient statistics to prove whatever you want - doesn't prove anything...

Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, it's what you've done overall that truly shows what you're capbable of. I'm getting sick of derogatory comments being made about current great Australian players for the sake of it. Records speak for themselves. Or should we start digging up statistics for EVERY past and current player showing them to be less than great. Tendulkar's having a less than fantastic trot... Honestly, what a waste of time...

It's nice to know that Gideon is a club cricketer...!

David S writes: "Ponting bats in the same era as Lara and Tendulkar, .., has scored against all countries in all conditions"

That is FICTION.

Ponting has managed 172 runs in 8 Tests in India, at a Princely avg of 12.3. Neither Tendulkar, nor Lara's avg. drops off that way anywhere. For Ponting to be counted as an ALL TIME GREAT, a la Viv, Gavaskar, Waugh, he'll have to score a century or two in India.

Ricky is better by far than either Lara or Sachin.
As a batsman you have to make runs when it counts.
Ricky does, and most of his dismisals are not bowled like Lara.

Regards,
Alan

Yeah,I realy think that the only reason the batsmen are dominating today's game is because of stupid batting friendly pitches.Give them some good seaming wickets and all the complaints that we do about it will disappear soon.And talk about the modern great batsmen, lara, sachin,ponting,I just think that it is absurd to compare them with the past greats suny,Javed,Greg.There are some hellraisers still living in the game like Mcgrath,Pollock,Warne,Murli.And
It takes hell of a lot hardwork to score against these bowlers.And Lara,Sachin and Ponting have done it.Look at their records.I mean to score 35 centuries, or to score 400 or to score two centuries in a match three times is not a joke.So if anybody says that these three would've averaged in fourties against past great bowlers,I think it's a foolish thing.I know how great Sunil Gavaskar was then,but to say that he would have averaged 60 in modern game,I think that's realy nonsense.There's only one area though that we can improve today.Make the good sporting wickets and then we can really see the 50/50 contest,I promise.

Please, Answer to this questions.

1.) Do current teams need to dismiss 20 batsmen to win a match as in the 70-80's?

2.) In the same amount of overs?

Answer yourself

Directed to: MANISH MODI

How can you not rate Glenn McGrath as a great fast/medium bowler, amongst the west Indians of the 80's- you have contradicted yourself- it is evident that pitches have become incredibly unreponsive and unhelpful to bowlers, and to average as close to 20 as McGrath has is incredible- had McGrath been a bowler back then, would he have averaged 15, such as in the way you spoke of Gavaskar- how he averaged 50.something in the days of way back, he would average 60 now- same logic no? Glenn McGrath is a legend, among the great old fast bowlers unquestionably...

I personally feel that cricket has never been in better shape. Test Cricket has never been so exciting with the occasional ODI taking adrenalin levels through the roof. As for the bowler vs batsmen equation, the author seems to forget that ODI and Test cricket are entirely different formats, to the extent of being different games altogther; test matches are won by taking twenty wickets in a match (mostly) and ODI matches are won by outscoring the other team. Where bowlers win you one type of game, the batsmen win you the other. Hence the ODI is loaded heavily in favor of the batsmen, and the other having more perks for the bowler. And for all the hullabaloo about the equation, lets not forget that the batsman has to only make one mistake (unless lady luck feels otherwise) unlike the bowler who always has the chance to get his back.

This has gathered an astonishing set of responses.
I am all for short boundaries and one day cricket. To address the imbalance
a) Create synthetic pitches - like tennis. Standardized in 3-4 flavors.
b) Streamline LBW. If ball is going to stumps, its out. No impact in line of stumps necessary. Even from outside leg is out.
c) Strict quota policy on players. Restrict international outings per player to 40 one days/year. Automatically keeps the bowlers fresh.

To address McGrath. Just like people have said Pointing would average 38 in an earlier era, McGrath would probably average much better in an earlier era also.

Unfortunately those batting statistics does not disclose things like weaker sides, poor bowling, heavier, wider bats, smaller, quicker grounds, etc. Vice versa for bowling stats. Still the current records are being compared old records. They are not really comparable, are they??

Rob K

Now I never meant to suggest that Warne isn't great. He revived leg-spin bowling and you're right, he is deservedly one of the Five Cricketers of the Century. No one disputes that on the field Warne is a master, even if he's cricket's version of Bob Crane off it.

The only reason I brought that up is whenever commentators speculate who'd win now, the '80's Windies or the current day Australians, they pick the Australians. Why? Shane Warne. I only posted that to show that Warne wouldn't necassarily cut a swathe through a team of great batsmen when he doesn't do it to a team of mediocre batsmen on a regular basis. It's just one of those things which you never know, so you can't make assumptions like that.

Hope I managed to clear the air.

Regarding Phillips comments about the NZ vs WI 1st test. I have to say that this was definately dominated by the ball. I went to the 1st day and was impressed with Fidel Edwards, Ian Bradshaw and Jerome Taylor. Throughout the series there was some great bowling from these guys. While Edwards isn't much to look at on paper (yet) he was very threatening on NZ's slow wickets - striking several of our top batsmen in the helmet. Pretty tough to do at Eden park. There we saw Scott Styrus grit out to a match winning century against a good attack. An innings that was dominated by survival rather than attack.

Shoe on the other foot, we saw Bond and Vettori sink the Windies in the 2nd innings after a big opening partnership.

Move over to the 2nd test and we see the Windies get taken down by someone like Franklin, usually targeted by World class batsmen, on NZ's best batting wicket.

Added with other people's comments about the state of world bowling attacks and I would have to conclude that Bowling is coming back in a big way.

First of all, Muralitharan's action is legal. There is no doubt that what seems like a questionable action, when measured scientifically, is well within acceptable limits. Secondly, while Kumble deserves considerable respect as a sportsman, how many wickets has Warne gained by appealing dishonestly and using pressure against the umpires? I simply can't see Warne as an admirable figure, and I suspect his record has been inflated by this sort of unsporting behaviour. Much as I wish Bangladesh and Zimbabwe were competitive Test nations, I am afraid that right now they just do not look the part (although Bangladesh are improving.) What are records gained or improved against low-class opposition really worth? I have to say that I would be more impressed by Australia if their players had not learned to sledge their way to success. This is not cricket - and should be penalized severely. Why not a yellow/red card system for this sort of abusive and immature behaviour? As for the bowler/batsman dilemma - I think over-prepared pitches are mostly to blame.

To Marcus.
Ponting has luckily racked up centuries in each innings three times this season? If he wasn't making so much money he should buy a lotto ticket with that sort of luck. Another thing to look at is the fact that Ponting is also batting with the added pressure of being captain, and coming in at first drop. Luck? I don't think so. And as to him possibly being out five times in his 70, thats up to his opposition to hold catches.

The so called conversation is excellent.
Please don't even try to compare
sachin with sunny because sunny has played all his life against all quality pace attacks,and he came victorious against all the former wetsindian pace gods..
Sachin is a good player but not a match winner, don't forget Rahul and laxman have played more match winning knocks than sachin.

The real culprit here is the newish rules which are being implemented. Rules which simply skew the balance of power for no real reason at all. What is the main logic behind introducing PowerPlays, for example? Can anyone answer that for me??

Alan C.

Ponting better than Lara? If Lara does get bowled often, then Ponting leaves himself far too open to LBW's. And if he doesn't get out that way, then there are far too many opportunities he grants the bowlers to appeal. On top of this, Lara is burdened by playing in a shocking side, whereas Australia have players like Gilchrist at 7, so Ponting can naturally afford to play with more freedom.

frankly, i have never considered Ponting close to Tendulkar and Lara and never will

Reading Gideon's article on the 1984 series slaughter in Australia may I suggest that the reason why the ball was more dominant than today is that the bowlers were Marshall, Holding and Garner - surely the strongest trio of quicks ever to play in the same team - backed up by a young Walsh. I have no doubt that if these three were playing now WI would be the world's leading team. No present day player, however big the bats, would be hitting these guys for six.

In response to Manish's post:
Sure Thommo, Holding (my favourite) and Lillee and also maybe Ambrose were firey bowlers, but they would not have survived the one day game scenarios nowadays. The faster one bowls the faster one gets put away for a boundary. And none of the premier batsmen of those days, except maybe Richards and Loyd would have performed as well as say Ponting or Gibbs.
Time has a way of putting past cricketing greats look greater than they were. One should look at who these greats were playing against. Gavaskar was the only one probably to have a good average against the Windies. The Chappells too before him.
Test cricket is of course a different thing.

Nick,

You say that Murali's action is obviously legal, and that Warne's greatness has come from 'dishonest' appealing? Give me a break! I think Murali is a fantastic bowler, but i'll never be sure if his action is good or not, and i'm obviously not the only one. You still hear the odd commentary about it, and the same goes for other current players. There's got to be a reason for suspicion, doesn't there? I mean, why pick on a guy for chucking for absolutely no reason? You seem to forget that one of his deliveries WAS considered a problem through this testing.

Warne over-appeals does he? The nature of the sport today demands pressure be put on batsmen, added to the fact that umpires appear to be making more mistakes. If it's within the laws of the game, why is it dishonest? Why is it that entire teams go up for an appeal if they all can't see that it's out? Is it considered cheating when these individuals are appealing without knowing if it's out? This is something that ALL teams do.

From a bowlers point of view, if you think it could be given out, why WOULN'T you appeal? That's your job, isn't it? To get wickets?! You can't blame a bowler for appealing more when good shouts are turned down often. Sometimes you get a good decision and sometimes a bad one. I've heard this comment about over-appealing before, and if anyone appeals excessively, it's Sri-lanka. I don't think i've ever seen an Australian side appeal for LBW for a ball that very obviously hit someone on the gloves playing a front-foot shot (ala Sri-lanka during the VB finals series this year).... I'm not saying Australia doesn't appeal alot, but lets not make out they're the only guilty party.

I am sure that those cricket fans who are truly passionate about the game will find watching a batting collapse engineered by a great fast bowler (such as Ambrose's 6/24 vs ENG and his 7/1 vs AUS) just as fascinating as the 400+ ODI.That ODI was remarkable but an overdose of runs will make the game boring.

We need a balance between bat and ball and althought there is a shortage of genuine fast bowlers we can account for this by preparing pitches which are not flat and provide assistance to the bowlers. I feel that the definitive ODI was the World cup 99 semi final between SA and AUS. it was a fair contest between bat and ball and i found that match more exciting then the 400+ ODI.

In regard to the argument about batsmen from different eras, one cannot look at stats to prove anything. The bowling attacks were different, conditions were different etc. The only way to compare batsmen is by a person who has seen two batsmen batting and there way and style of playing. Stats are vey deceiving.

In regard to Lara, Ponting and Tendulkar, Ponting will probably be the highest run scorer and will probably end up with over 40 centuries but i still fell the both Lara and Tendulkar are better than him. Lara and Tendulkar can create fear in the opposition and as MIke Atherton said: "Lara and Tendulkar have a certain aura to them- a part of you wants to get them out and a part of you wants themn to bat on." I AM SURE MOST CRICKET FOLLOWERS FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT LARA AND TENDULKAR BUT DO NOT FEEL IT ABOUT PONTING

And i cant help but quote Sambit Bal-But for light and song, for bliss and glory and for lifting the soul, who else but Brian Lara?

Marcus,

You are right. My theory of home umpires is a conspiracy theory!!

A few instances:

1) Read Kapil Dev's "By God's Decree", where he says in his first series in Pakistan the home team bowlers were not called even when they were blatantly overstepping while Indians were called even for perfectly legitimate deliveries,
2) Read(on cricinfo) Neil Foster's (or maybe Bob Taylor's, I forgot) experience of India and his description of the an Indian tour when he says India's strength was home umpiring,
3) Remember that thick inside-edge LBW Gavaskar got in the Melbourne test 80-81??
4) Richie Richardson scored 190-odd (194 I think) when India toured WI in 1989. I still jocularly refer to it as "190 for 4". That was the number of times he was given not out. Sportstar(an Indian sports publication) carried an amazing sequence of photos of an angry Kapil Dev result of the number of decisions that went in favour of Richardson.

In Tests, now we've had neutral umpires for more than 3-4 years and prior to that the home-neutral combination was around for close to a decade.

I am not a big fan of Ponting either especially considering his abysmal record in India, but the fact remains he is scoring tons and tons of runs when he can expect no "help" from the umpires and if he is given a reprieve it is pretty much due to the umpire's incompetence.

Home umpires, during the days of "all home" umpiring, have been blatantly biased in many many cases.

sankar,

You are absolutely right about Tendulkar not being a match-winner!!

And in the same comment, you contradicted yourself when you had to pick two Indian batsman playing together in the same era as match-winners!!

If you see most of the test matches India has won since 2000, you will find it is atleast two batsmen who were scoring runs at crucial junctures.

It takes a team effort to win games.

Tendulkar was carrying the Indian batting through the 90s when McGrath, Gillespie, Donald, Pollock and Warne (Australia 99-00 and South Africa 96-97) made Dravid and Laxman look like kindergarten kids in nightclub!! Tendulkar scored centuries in both the contests and not in dead rubbers either!!

India is winning nowadays not just because Dravid or Laxman is playing well, its because the team as a whole has more competent and competitive players.

There is only so much Tendulkar can do when ten others are under-performing.

It is exactly the same scenario Lara is facing today.

Well Molhotra, I guess until Tendulkar scores a century in Zimbabwe he also can't be counted as one of the all time greats?? Ridiculous logic...

Well said P.S. Kumar.

This is a team game full of great individual efforts and achievements. No matter what country you support, one member can only do so much to help the team to victory. If your whole team is playing well, then it's almost impossible to beat. Sometimes one amazing performance can swing games in their team's favour, and those players are the ones we admire the most.

It matters little who is performing against which oppostion, rather who performs when it's most needed. I for one, will always be a staunch supporter of players when expectations of them are far too high. No-one can play well every time, and it's about time cricket fans gave their teams' players more support when they're not playing at their best. By the same token, it would be nice to see great players seen as such, instead of opposing supporters resorting to making negative speculation about their achievements.

Saying luck has some extra part to play in one player's performances over another's just screams of sour grapes...
Surely every player makes their own luck?

Alan claims than Ricky is better by far than either Lara or Sachin because he makes runs when it COUNTS.

In India Ricky has played 8 tests over a 9 year period, lost SIX of them. Here's his run of scores: 14, 13, 18, 2, 60, 9, 16, 0, 6, 0, 0, 11, 11, 12.

Sachin's played 7 matches in Australia, in the same period, scored 661 runs at an avg of 60.1 with 2 100's.

QED.

Malhotra, now lets not sugar-coat the statistics, shall we? Sachin has played 12 tests in Australia (it's hardly the point stating which period to base his figures from - especially if you're talking about his perfomance overall), scored 1029 runs at an avg. of 54.15 with 4 hundreds.

Now these are still pretty impressive figures, but the interesting thing to note - and your point, i might add - is that India lost 8 of those matches. Is that really scoring runs when it counts? Sure Ponting could do with some runs in India, but Tendulkar scoring runs in Australia has hardly made any difference to the result, has it?

As a counter-point, Ponting averages 108.10 over 7 tests at home against India, while Tendulkar averages 'just' 51.87 in 9. I suppose this doesn't fit into the 'making runs when it counts' column? It seems that overall, the 'brilliant' Tendulkar's average is very similar to the 'average' Pointing's while playing head-to-head.

I think they're both brilliant batsmen, but you don't see me justifying Ponting as being a better bastman by spouting a few random stats about his superior performances at home...

Re: Dr George John's comments. Muralitharan's action was, for a long time, considered suspect. It was measured, under laboratory conditions, which showed that, in fact, his action is within the bounds of what is considered acceptable, and, in fact, well within those bounds. As for your point about teams appealing - I agree that all teams appeal for 50/50 decisions. However, I stick to my basic point, which is that Australia have stood out, especially Warne, for the persistent and gratuitous aggression shown towards the umpires. This is what I think should be penalized. I would add that although some sledging has always been part of the game, in the last 20 years it seems to have increased, and I hav the impression that Australia have led the way here as well. I love the game of cricket, which I find infinitely more enjoyable than any other, and I simply hope that we can stop it turning into the sort of thuggish, dishonest spectacle which soccer often now presents.

You surely know that Cricket is a game of 11 men.

Sachin carrying his team ALONE against the strongest bowling attacks of the day from 1991-2003 in Australia make his scores all the more impressive. An 18-yr Sachin scored the most runs for India in Australia when they lost 4-0 in 1991-92.

YOU claimed that "As a batsman you have to make runs when it counts. Ricky does."
I merely demostrated that this was fiction. Ponting failed MISERABLY in India when a decent contribution would have counted, i.e when his team kept losing, a la Sachin.

SR Waugh and Border seemed to manage fine in India, so it's not as if conditions are that inclemental there.

Well Rob since we've decided that HARD facts are now called "sugar coating" you may know that Cricket is a game of 11 men.

Sachin carrying his team ALONE against the strongest bowling attacks of the day from 1991-2003 in Australia trumps Ponting failing MISERABLY while accompanying the strongest team of the time.

WHY IS GREG CHAPPELL THE BEST BATSMAN OF MY LIFETIME (1969-):

-His career average > 50
-Averages 40-60 IN ALL countries
-Averages 40-60 AGAINST ALL teams
-never looked like he was going to get out, until he actually did

Why other contenders didn't get picked number one:

Sunny Gavaskar
-Scored 12 of his 34 centuries in 17 tests against Packer-weakened W. Indies and Aussies
-Best fast bowler of my lifetime, Lillee, had him for breakfast
-average against England 38.2

Viv Richards:
-Career numbers rest HEAVILY on pummeling hapless English attacks. Career avg of 44 against all others
-Never had to face Holding, Roberts, Garner, Marshall

Tendulkar, Ponting:
-their careers are still not over

Ok Malhotra, we can also call ONE match where someone scores a hundred a 'hard fact' when taken in isolation. All i was saying about that is, why mention what period to base your figures on? If Tendulkar has played 12 tests in Australia and you're talking about performance in that country, why base the stats on 7 tests just because Ponting started playing in India only 9 years ago... Surely encompasing an entire career in statistics gives the best idea of a players' achievements...

And i certainly wouldn't call the Australian attack of the early 90's the strongest of the day. It was only from 1993/94 onwards that Australia's attack started to become formidable. They were good, but certainly not fearsome. I'd hardly call what Tendulkar has done in Australia carrying his team alone either. He certainly wasn't the only one scoring runs on any of those tours.

You're right, Ponting has played pretty miserably in India, and sure, if Ponting had scored more runs in India, Australia may have won a couple more matches, but it's not like Tendulkar's runs made any difference to India's results in Australia. Who's to say the results would have been much different if he had? I'm sure he doesn't beat himself up about it. Apart from that, like i said before - what's the point in scoring lots of runs when the rest of your team isn't doing well? Does that make the loss easier to digest? Surely making runs which lead to victory make them more valuable to your team.

Now, i never intended to make any point about who was better than who, but you saying that Ponting DOESN'T make runs when it counts doesn't quite match up to his statistics. Since playing for Australia, Ponting has averaged 64.76 in a winning team with 23 of his 30 test hundreds. Now if that isn't scoring runs when it counts, i don't know what is.

I'm not saying Tendulkar hasn't scored runs when it counts for India -64.14 av. when in a winning team- but i'm not here saying that Tendulkar can't play when it matters. He HAS only managed 11 hundreds in a winning side if you want to get techincal, so on those figures you could say that perhaps Ponting DOES score more runs when it counts, despite the similar averages...

Malhotra, how about an unbiased opinion? You are trying so hard to find fault with Ponting and his standing in the game, and all you can hang your hat on is his record in India. He more than doubles Tendulkar's average in Australia and the West Indies, why no mention of that? Why is performing in India the utimate criteria? Is it so hard to accept that Ricky Ponting is the best batsman in the world, and has been for the last 4 or 5 years? Stop worrying about what he has or hasn't done in India, just compare his stats over the last few years with any other batsmen, including Tendulkar. No one is trying to cut Sachin down, he is one of the greats - just try and accept that Ponting is too. He has dominated for a long enough time now that any statistical anomalies (bowling attacks, favourable decisions etc) would have evened themselves out...

Regarding the Ponting vs. Lara vs. Tendulkar debate:

When Lara and Tendulkar came onto the scene, it was the early-90's and late '80's, respectively. Look who the bowlers were! All-time greats like Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh and Donald were in their prime. Imran Khan and Ian Botham were still around, albeit past their prime. There was still Marshall, McDermott, Patterson; a lot of very successful pacemen around. And these two batsmen made the runs against them.

Ponting on the other hand, debuted in '96. His performances in his first 5 years were good, but not great. It was at around the time when all the great fast men retired or gave in to bad backs when Ponting's average broke the 50 barrier. In fact, the Ashes was the first time that he faced a good-quality all round pace attack, and that one OUTSTANDING innings apart, didn't really dominate.

And for the record, I do think Ponting's a very good batsman, one of the best around now. But he is not a 58-average batsman, his innigs aren't as assured as Lara's or Tendulkar's, and he CERTAINLY isn't Australia's best since Bradman.

Give us a break Marcus. So, Tendulkar & Lara have never faced a bad bowler or received a long hop. On the other hand, Ponting's faced nothing but pie-throwers. If what you claim is true, then surely Tendulkar & Lara should be even more dominant now than they were back then, given the dearth of good bowlers these days? Why is Ponting the stand out batsman of the past few years if he doesn't rate in the same class as these others? And taking his 156 out of last year's Ashes stats, what's the point of that? Take Tendulkar's 241 out of his last Australian stats & see how he shapes up...

On the flipside you could argue that the 'great bowlers' of the eighties were only so good because the level of batting on average was poor. Maybe batters are just better now and thats why bowlers are finding it tough. Personaly, I think that the reason for this is that the pitchs are more batter friendly these days.

Peter

When batsmen are judged it is also inevitable that their performances in different conditions are taken into consideration.

So Indian batsmen who score hundreds in places like Australia, England and South Africa are considered more all-round players because those innings are played in completely alien conditions.

I think the same would have to be true for Ponting. He will need to score those runs on turners in India.

Okay, here precisely are the reasons why I don't think Ponting matches up with Lara or Tendulkar.

1) His difficulty in playing the full ball. Given his technique, I just don't think that he could really handle the full or reverse-swinging ball very comfortably.
2) Before I said that Ponting ran on pure luck. That was poorly expressed and I apologise. What I mean is that Ponting gives the bowlers a far bigger sniff than, well, anyone. When Lara or Tendulkar, or Laxman or Mark Waugh for that matter, are on a roll they never look like going. Can you say the same for Ponting?
3) As I said, I do think that Ponting benefits from poor bowling. Peter, I think you take it too far. Of course Lara and Tendulkar benefit as well, but they've made plenty more runs against quality opposition TROUGHOUT THEIR CAREERS. I mean, 2 centuries in a test is a remarkable feat, but a lot of test batsmen fancy their chances against the current W.I and R.S.A attacks.

As far as performing in India is concerned, well Lillee didn't really, and his greatness is undisputed. So That's not so important.

And yes, he's been in great touch for a while now, and based on current form is the best in the world. But he is not better as a batsman than Lara or Tendulkar.

I only write this to show I'm not shamelessly trashing Ponting. I think the above reasons are quite scientific, and you do have the right to dispute it. However, I've had my 2 bucks worth, and I intend to say no more on the matter.

It's been touched on already, but I think bowling attacks are improving across world cricket. However, they need help from the groundsmen. We need quicker and bouncier wickets. That's the key difference between the 80's and today - it also part explains why spinner shave been doing so well. You can have a great contest between bat and ball if you play on a fast track with a bit of life without sacrificing runs. Sort out the good batters by making them play off their back feet more and stop them from driving short of a length balls through the covers!

C'mon Rob, methinks it's better to compare two batsmen in the tests they played against each other, identical conditions! Including Tendulkar single-handed heroics in 1991 confirms that he does well everywhere, while Ricky fails miserably when in India.

In the 15 matches Ponting and Tendulkar played head-to head (post 1995) they have the same average:

Ponting: 52.2
Tendulkar: 55.2

with one difference.

Ponting
Home: 108.1
Away: 12.3

Tendulkar
Home: 51.9
Away: 61.1

See the difference?

Tendulkar DID carry India in Australia almost single-handedly for most series.

First Series in Aus (age 18)(1991-92)
Outcome: Aussie 4-India 0 (Aussie attack not yet as formidable as later)
Runs scored:
Tendulkar: 368
Shastri: 300
Prabhakar: 197
Azhar: 192

Second series in Aus 1999-2000
Outcome: Aussie 3-India 0
Runs scored:
Tendulkar: 278
Laxman: 221
Ganguly: 177
Kumble: 102

Aussie trips to India had similar outcomes, in reverse. Ponting did NOTHING!

Third Series in Aus 2003-04:
Outcome 1-1
Runs scored
Dravid: 619
Laxman: 494
Sehwag: 464
Tendulkar: 383

See what happens when others pull their weight?

Now who was that guy who scores runs EVERYWHERE while Sachin doesn't?

Marcus, Mon Ami, the original poster claimed that Ponting scores runs EVERYWHERE, while Sachin doesn't. I'm merely trtying to demonstrate that this statement is pure FICTION.

Let's set the record straight, once and for all.

Ponting:
Home 4907 runs at 62.9 avg
Away 3298 runs at 50.7 avg

Tendulkar:
Home 4917 runs at 55.2 avg
Away 5552 runs at 55.5 avg

Runs scored IN Diff. Countries.

Australia
Ponting: 4907 at 62.9
Tendulkar: 1029 at 54.2

England
Ponting: 938 at 43.6
Tendulkar: 1074 at 71.6

India
Ponting: 172 at 12.3
Tendulkar: 4917 at 55.2

New Zealand
Ponting: 293 at 97.7
Tendulkar: 498 at 41.5

Pakistan
Ponting: 119 runs in 1 inning
Tendulkar: 493 at 40.3

S. Africa
Ponting: 603 at 75.4
Tendulkar: 636 at 42.4

W. Indies
Ponting: 691 at 98.7
Tendulkar: 620 at 47.7

Zimbabwe
Ponting: 31 in 1 inning
Tendulkar: 240 at 40.0

At the risk of dving into someone else's alligator pond.... Re: Tendulkar v. Ponting. First up, are these comparisons very informative? I suspect that bowlers worldwide are happy to dismiss either of them! Impressionistically, I think Tendulkar has to rank as more of a natural talent, while Ponting seems to me to work harder for his success - which does not make him a lesser player in my eyes. I would guess that a full West Indies attack at its best would have troubled either player more than the attacks they face today. I am pretty sure, to extend the comparison further, that Matthew Hayden, in particular, would have struggled with such speed and hostility. If any player in the Australian side is over-rated by his average, I would nominate him , followed by Damien Martyn. As for India, can we really say that Sehwag or, for that matter, Dravid, would have wanted to face a full Windies pace battery? I doubt it very much! Overall, I think we would have to agree that over the last 10 years there has been a lack of strong bowling in the Test world, with obvious individual exceptions, and Australia as the team exception. I suspect that England are now the best pace attack, with Australia in decline, and with Pakistan and India showing signs of strong development on this front. South Africa lack a striking partner for the formidable Ntini, while New Zealand survive on Fleming's tactical nous rather than a rich vein of talent. Sri Lanka look less than impressive, with the exception of Murali. I suspect that Australia will find India and Pakistan more of a handful than in recent years, while England have a solid chance of retaining the Ashes. In my view, this shift in power comes down to much improved bowling, and we shall see whether the "great" batsmen of the last 5/6 years can cope.

Malhotra, again we're talking about Ponting's performances in India - less than 8% of his total test appearances! I've already agreed that he failed there in the past, and maybe he'll go to India next time and kick some arse, but i don't see what that's got to do with him not performing when it counts...

Anyway, I'M not the one who said Ponting scores runs everywhere... I'm merely trying to say that there's no point making statements about how Ponting doesn't score runs when needed just because he happened to fail in 7 of 8 tests he's played in India.

It's not like he hasn't scored runs on the sub-continent before (UAE + Pakistan when playing Pakistan) and we all know that pitches, conditions and bowling is quite similar from country to country. So who CARES that he hasn't scored in India? It seems that YOU do, but does anyone else?

If you're unable to admit that Ponting is a great player just because of that, then there's no point in this discussion - as you're just not ever going to get it...

I said i never wanted to get into the debate about who wins games for their country more, but the figures don't lie. STATISTICALLY Ponting DOES score more runs when they are needed most. ie. when they lead to Australian victories. The fact that Australia has won more test matches in the past 10 years than any other nation playing cricket enhances this record even more. 75% of his hundreds have come during a team victory, and that to me, makes Ponting well and truly world-class.

He does it in tests, and he also scores big runs when it counts in one-day finals and such. He's a big-game player and has been since he turned his career around at the turn of the century. Perhaps if he hadn't had a drinking and disciplinary problems before this, he may have done even better (even in India).

Look, the fact is, every player has a bad trot (just look at tendulkar's at the moment), and i think it's completely rediculous to rule out Ponting as a great player because one of his slumps happened to encompass an entire tour in India, and the other he just didn't play well enough...

It's not like he's never scored runs in India at all. He's scored 4 hundreds in One-dayers at an average of over 40, but does that count in your analysis of him? Of COURSE not!!

Another thing to note is that Tendulkar has never scored a one-day hundred in Australia and doesn't have the greatest average either, so by rights we should say that Tendulkar has never performed in one-dayers in Australia, and therefore cannont be called one of the greats... On your logic that seems perfectly just.

By the way, in that third series in Australia, Dravid and Laxman were the ones who won India that test (Tendulkar having failed in that particular match). All Tendulkar managed to do was score a large century that led to ANOTHER draw - a match condition that he seems to do VERY well in (ave. 71.52). Can we say that Tendulkar is the guy you can go to when you want to draw a test match? Fine if you're saving a match, but not exactly the kind of guy you'd call on when you want to win...

AND, as you insist on calling the Australian attack formidable, you'd do well to notice that you managed to tie a third series 1-1 against a side missing McGrath - *some* would say weakening the attack somewhat, considering he's one of the greatest bowlers of all time.

Rob K states, "So who CARES that he (Ponting) hasn't scored in India? "

IMHO, his teammates probably CARED when they lost 6/8 tests that he failed so miserably in India. He scraped together an average of 38 in his 18 tests in Asia (1/5th of total tests). Is that a sign of "GREATNESS?"

His career average (of 58) is INFLATED by his success at home with familiar conditions/umpires (avg 60 at home, 50 abroard).

Fair to say that unfamiliar conditions/umpires won't affect the performances of truly GREAT batsmen such as:

-Border career avg 51 (46 at home and 57 abroad)
-Sachin career avg 55 (55 at home and 55 abroad)
-GS Chappell career avg 54 (54 at home and 53 abroad)
-Dravid career avg 58 (52 at home, 64 abroad)
-SR Waugh career avg 51 (48 at home and 56 abroad)

QED

p.s. another batsman who was a hometown hero:

Miandad career avg: 53 (61 at home, 46 abroad.

Your arguments aren't convincing anyone Malhotra. Why are you so desperate to bring Ponting down?

"He scraped together an average of 38 in his 18 tests in Asia (1/5th of total tests). Is that a sign of "GREATNESS?"

Now open both eyes & apply the same warped logic to Tendulkar's record: An average of 37 against South Africa and 39 against Pakistan, both after 16 Tests. Very similiar stats to the ones that you use to try and ridicule Ponting, but for some reason you choose to ignore them in Tendulkar's case. And you also think that the fact that Ponting 'only' averages 50 overall when playing away is a negative! Again, you ignore the fact that Tendulkar averages under 50 against 5 countries when playing away, and much nearer to 40 against 4 of them.

Start looking at things impartially Malhotra...

Malhotra...gees mate, now why would you go and try and qualify your argument by changing the rules here...

How many times do I have to say that i agree that Ponting hasn't played well in India before you accept that i AGREE?!? So what's the point in taking Asia as a whole when it comes to his figures, when he's clearly done well in Sri Lanka (av. 55), and against Pakistan(av. 104), but not in India. That's all we're arguing, isn't it?

I've never said anything to doubt Tendulkar's greatness, but you seem keen to press the issue. 'Is it a sign of greatness' when Tendulkar barely averages 40 in Africa (a continent, just like Asia)? This time though, there isn't some shining light in a particular country - he's just 'average' in Africa.

And since when is has batsman's performance overseas been the ultimate test of his 'greatness'? Is that written in some rulebook i've never been privvy to? You make averaging over 50 overseas sound like it's not an achievement. Further than that, Ponting has managed this average while only averaging 12 in India!! What a champ!It's only 3 less than G. Chappell and that's while 'failing miserably in India'!!

Furthermore, if you can't get some sort of boost playing at home, then where's that home-town advantage you're supposed to get? It seems like maybe Ponting just knows how to make the most of it, while others don't. And that's a NEGATIVE?!

Just get over it. We've never tried to bring Tendulkar down here. Why can't you just accept that Ponting is a great player too? I suppose it's just a way of the world that Australia is destined to be allowed only 2 or 3 'greats', while the "more passionate" supporter countries can have as many as they like...

Very interesting thread. Completely digressed from the original topic. Why are so many stats being thrown about?
as if that's the only benchmark for great batsmen? What about the strength of the either sides? Conditions? Bowling attacks? And most importantly the way those runs are being made in context of the state of the game. Mr.Malhotra has horribly gone wrong getting into the stats muddle. Gavaskar and Richards (though diametrically opposite in their batsmanship) were better batsmen based on all the above parameters than Chappell was (barring the regal on drive, I guess!!). Infact Gavaskar shud not be compared with anyone since he was an opening batsman and played for the weaker of the teams amongs the players discussed and btw he scored 9 100's instead of 12 during the Packer circus against Aus & Wi, still containing Thommo, Marshall and a Hogg who was coming on the back of a hugely succesful Ashes series. But instead of digressing further, vis-a-vis the current players, let's say that '90s had Tendulkar and Lara as the best of the lot & the 2000's belong to Ponting and to a lesser extent Dravid.

>

I do give the appearance of trying desperately to bring Ponting down. IMHO, there's NO QUESTION that he's been NUMERO UNO for the last 2-3 years. His numbers speak for themselves. I haven't forgotten the trauma of the World Cup Final :(.

I merely take exception to the statement, "Ricky has scored runs everywhere, while Sachin, Lara haven't."

Just coz he's Numero Uno today, doesn't mean he's "scored runs everywhere."

p.s. I am not a Lawyer, I'm an Economist

>

Hey Rob, DON'T denigrate Chappell. Remember his presence whenever he walked onto the field? I tried, and failed, to imitate his batting.

>

May I offer a list of "Greats" who played in my lifetime (1969- )

Australia
G Chappell, Lillee, Marsh, S Waugh, Border, Warne

England
Botham

India
Gavaskar, Kapil, Tendulkar

New Zealand
Hadlee, M Crowe

Pakistan
Imran, Waqar, Wasim, Inzi

Sri Lanka
De Silva

West Indies
Richards, Sobers, Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Walsh

To Rob K and Malhotra, re: the Tendulkar v. Ponting dispute. Why not agree that each of them has his own form of greatness and agree to leave it there? I think neither side is going to "win" by throwing around statistics, which mean whatever the person selecting them wants them to mean. How about agreeing to a virtual handshake on this one and calling it a day?

I'm not quite sure where you got that from, but i certainly haven't tried to denigrate Greg Chappell. My mention of his name was purely to compare Ponting's average overseas with his. I'm more likely to take exception to current era 'greats' than those from before the 90's. Those names are well established as exceptional players, and shall continue to be as such in my eyes.

As long as exceptional players are still rising and performing, then i'll continue to be happy with the state of cricket - as long as there's a contest, of course.

malhotra

add Mark Waugh to your list. If you have room for one genius (De Silva), why not another?

Ricky Ponting is a lovely batsman to watch, strikes the ball as well as anyone, puts fear into most opposition nowadays, but benefits from playing on featherbed pitches in Australia which are erroneously called sporting wickets. Besides that, I'm amazed by bowlers who aren't able to exploit his shuffle across the stumps which should logically make him extremely vulnerable to the incoming ball. He is certainly not someone who should be averaging in the late fifties. His average, along with the averages of most batsmen today, have benefitted greatly from the lack of quality bowling around the world. Pitches in Australia, South Africa and England are no longer what they used to be.

Methinks Rob is an Aussie, the kind of bloke who'll fight you tooth and nail on the cricket field, and get stinking drunk with in the evening.

I've had the pleasure of spending a month in Sydney. It was supposed to be for work, but I spent most of my time sampling the local beers and the excellent food in the harbour.

Do you know who ALL of India was rooting for after the home team left the World Cups in 1987 and 1995?

Marcus I thought of adding Mark Waugh, but he just wasn't consistent enough. The only reason De Silva made my list was coz he did well overseas, when his flat-track-bully teammates did little.