Trevaskis off to Leicestershire

[Parkside]

I think that is more a change of mindset tbh, remember waking up early 1996 if I remember rightly World Cup quarter final England v Sri Lanka.

We had batted first scraped our way to 230 odd which was considered a good score those days.

Sri Lanka came out to bat and blow us away in the power play with a whole new outlook of how to play one day 50 over cricket in what I consider a watershed moment in cricket for the better,it was a great way to approach the chase and changed 50 over cricket.

From that moment on teams totally changed their approach and outlook.

Under Morgan and Bayliss England took that again to a whole new level with their positive approach same players couple of years earlier facing the same bowlers totally changed their approach.

It seems unthinkable nowadays that although class test batsman like Atherton and Cook were that they actually used to open the batting in 50 over cricket.

You would not dream of opening with a slow scoring opener in 50 over cricket as you did back then.

The whole thought process has changed for the better for the game and the watching public imo.

Some of the 60 over games back in the old Gillette and Natwest cup the whole ethos and thinking was different and the way batsmen and team’s approached the game,and that the reason imo why more higher scores in that format than any decrease in bowling standards.

That and the fact teams bat further down in depth than they ever have before giving them the confidence to go hard earlier

Surely it can be disputed bowlers have more skills and variety than back then?

20 overs is a bit different I agree with some posters too much weighted in batsman favour the bats nowadays even thick edges and balls not hitting the middle going for 6, so even when spinners deceive batsman in the flight sometimes still going for 6, which unfair on the bowlers.

But even taking that point, the bowling variety and enhanced skills they have both learnt over the years is light years ahead of in the 90s for example not sure how that can be disputed.

For example in test cricket very very difficult for opening batsman as bowling standards execellent.

Batting, bowling and especially fielding in 50 and 20 over cricket has improved as it as evolved through the years, batsman can now score in more areas than ever before, bowlers have more variation than ever before and fielding is to an incredible level, not really sure that can be disputed either.

Sorry for the long answer, but bowlers have more skills and variety than ever before imo
But batsman have got even better and more relevant the mindset and confidence of batsman to go hard has totally changed as years have gone on
Which is the reason for the higher scores imo

Yeh,long winded response as ever. Doesn't address my point that if scores are higher then batting has become more dominant over bowling. Present scoring rates are monotonous to me. Perhaps no restrictions on field placing,normal sized boundaries and back to the red Dukes ball would even the contest between bat and ball. Pitches more encouraging for spinners would also be welcomed.
I realise that BOFs like me are in the minority.

The weird thing about Durhams T20 that a lot of that team is playing in the 100 now

so they can perform but are so inconsistent

No. They're in squads but not considered good enough to make their 1st choice X1.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Yeh,long winded response as ever. Doesn't address my point that if scores are higher then batting has become more dominant over bowling. Present scoring rates are monotonous to me. Perhaps no restrictions on field placing,normal sized boundaries and back to the red Dukes ball would even the contest between bat and ball. Pitches more encouraging for spinners would also be welcomed.
I realise that BOFs like me are in the minority.

No. They're in squads but not considered good enough to make their 1st choice X1.

Well no them are valid points you make,very good point about spinners imo, and bigger boundaries, but surely the massive shift in philosophy of how to approach overs cricket is also a fair factor??

I think to address your point, as I have said bowling has improved but batting even more soo.

You have number 8s and 9s in teams now that are better than ever before allowing teams to be more attacking in their approach surely that is factor as well in higher scores?

It is allowed for us both to make good points on this

 

[Ghfd]

Yeh,long winded response as ever. Doesn't address my point that if scores are higher then batting has become more dominant over bowling. Present scoring rates are monotonous to me. Perhaps no restrictions on field placing,normal sized boundaries and back to the red Dukes ball would even the contest between bat and ball. Pitches more encouraging for spinners would also be welcomed.
I realise that BOFs like me are in the minority.

No. They're in squads but not considered good enough to make their 1st choice X1.

Yes but they were all picked up nevertheless

so they are obviously rated and most of them have played at least once

 

[Mackem DJ]

bowling has improved

I meam, that just isn’t true. You dont need to look at any stats as the vast majority of bowlers now are net bowlers compared to the best that graced test and ODI teams in the 90s & 00s.

Imo it was the halcyon era of both types of bowling.

 

[leecoo]

I meam, that just isn’t true. You dont need to look at any stats as the vast majority of bowlers now are net bowlers compared to the best that graced test and ODI teams in the 90s & 00s.

Imo it was the halcyon era of both types of bowling.

I agree, would happily face many of today's bowlers ahead of many of the bowlers from 90s/00s

 

[Mackem DJ]

I agree, would happily face many of today's bowlers ahead of many of the bowlers from 90s/00s

Would you not be worried about facing this slowerball legspinning 77mph bouncer tripe of the modern era?
Its just absolute guff imo.

 

[Voice of fair play]

I meam, that just isn’t true. You dont need to look at any stats as the vast majority of bowlers now are net bowlers compared to the best that graced test and ODI teams in the 90s & 00s.

Imo it was the halcyon era of both types of bowling.

I think there is great fast bowlers of any era both past and present, Broad and Anderson are clearly the best English ever and they in the modern era, and Cummins simply brilliant.

Of course I agree with you some outstanding bowlers in the 90s and 00s too of course they was Hadlee, Ambrose, Walsh, Mc Grath, Donald etc etc , you could go on and on and before them the best of the lot ever imo Malcolm Marshall.

However in terms of variety and all round skills bowling has improved as has batting as has fielding imo.

It’s a natural progression that cricketers as a whole have developed more variety to their skills to deal with the changes to the modern game.

Bowlers now have to cope with batsman coming hard at them more than any other time in the game.

I agree, would happily face many of today's bowlers ahead of many of the bowlers from 90s/00s

Yeah that’s fair enough he could be argued that bowlers back then more fearsome.

Would you not be worried about facing this slowerball legspinning 77mph bouncer tripe of the modern era?
Its just absolute guff imo.

You still had bowlers like that playing for England back then your Derek Pringle’s, Richard Ellison etc etc, pretty sure Englands current bowling attack of the last few years as good if not better than back then.

It’s natural when you think back you only think of the best, and great bowlers in most eras

 

[Mackem DJ]

I think there is great fast bowlers of any era both past and present, Broad and Anderson are clearly the best English ever and they in the modern era, and Cummins simply brilliant.

Of course I agree with you some outstanding bowlers in the 90s and 00s too of course they was Hadlee, Ambrose, Walsh, Mc Grath, Donald etc etc , you could go on and on and before them the best of the lot ever imo Malcolm Marshall.

However in terms of variety and all round skills bowling has improved as has batting as has fielding imo.

It’s a natural progression that cricketers as a whole have developed more variety to their skills to deal with the changes to the modern game.

Bowlers now have to cope with batsman coming hard at them more than any other time in the game.

Yeah that’s fair enough he could be argued that bowlers back then more fearsome.

You still had bowlers like that playing for England back then your Derek Pringle’s, Richard Ellison etc etc, pretty sure Englands current bowling attack of the last few years as good if not better than back then.

It’s natural when you think back you only think of the best, and great bowlers in most eras

Yeah funnily enough when I was reffering to world class feared attacks of the 90s & 00s the Alan Mullalleys, Angus Fraesers, Dean Headleys & Mark Ealhams werent the ones I was getting at.