Uncle Mick
Active Member
Re: CMCA- Ommies to remain in top grade
Merlot my good man, I'm a little disappointed with your post.
I do get a little frustrated by these baffoons that consider yesteryear to be far greater than the current cricket we're seeing in the CMCA. The level of competition in the top grade (and those below) may not be as competitive as years gone by, but I see no valid reason for many to dismiss players of today by comparing them to players of a different era.
For one side to be blessed with more talent than any other doesn't qualify an opinion that the past players cast shadows on today's cricketers. The onus is on the other clubs to bring themselves up to the "foreign legion's" standard and increase the competition. Not for the detractors to simply dismiss players as lacking ability by comparison to those 10 years ago (or more).
Once upon a time we played on matting. A surface which was favourable to the bowlers for seam movement, pace and bounce. We also played on grounds that held a lot more grass than the current outfields of today making life a little harder to score runs. Add to that the 2-piece ball was used in every grade of CMCA cricket. So yes, credit to the batsman who could dominate bowling attacks.
However, we've now gone full circle. We have technology come up with cricket bats that are of a lighter weight and hit the ball further. The 4-piece ball doesn't swing around anywhere near as much as the old 2-piece after the first 10 overs. The synthetic wickets are now a favourable surface to batsmen and by my reckoning, the umpiring fraternity seem more afraid to make a decision when batsmen are hit on the pads.
So whilst I appreciate there are factors that made life harder for the batting sides 10+ years ago and some like to consider years gone by as the halcyon days of CMCA cricket, I still believe there are cricketers at a level comparable, if not, greater than the cricketers back in those days.
It's mostly about the modifications to the game to which the modern player has had to adjust - particularly bowlers.
Moreover, my opinion is that the standard of cricket today isn't superceded by it's predecessors. We've simply seen an adaptation to the new requirements as a result of the game moving towards a batsman's game and subsequently the art of bowling has now become more of an unassisted craft than it ever was.
Merlot my good man, I'm a little disappointed with your post.
I do get a little frustrated by these baffoons that consider yesteryear to be far greater than the current cricket we're seeing in the CMCA. The level of competition in the top grade (and those below) may not be as competitive as years gone by, but I see no valid reason for many to dismiss players of today by comparing them to players of a different era.
For one side to be blessed with more talent than any other doesn't qualify an opinion that the past players cast shadows on today's cricketers. The onus is on the other clubs to bring themselves up to the "foreign legion's" standard and increase the competition. Not for the detractors to simply dismiss players as lacking ability by comparison to those 10 years ago (or more).
Once upon a time we played on matting. A surface which was favourable to the bowlers for seam movement, pace and bounce. We also played on grounds that held a lot more grass than the current outfields of today making life a little harder to score runs. Add to that the 2-piece ball was used in every grade of CMCA cricket. So yes, credit to the batsman who could dominate bowling attacks.
However, we've now gone full circle. We have technology come up with cricket bats that are of a lighter weight and hit the ball further. The 4-piece ball doesn't swing around anywhere near as much as the old 2-piece after the first 10 overs. The synthetic wickets are now a favourable surface to batsmen and by my reckoning, the umpiring fraternity seem more afraid to make a decision when batsmen are hit on the pads.
So whilst I appreciate there are factors that made life harder for the batting sides 10+ years ago and some like to consider years gone by as the halcyon days of CMCA cricket, I still believe there are cricketers at a level comparable, if not, greater than the cricketers back in those days.
It's mostly about the modifications to the game to which the modern player has had to adjust - particularly bowlers.
Moreover, my opinion is that the standard of cricket today isn't superceded by it's predecessors. We've simply seen an adaptation to the new requirements as a result of the game moving towards a batsman's game and subsequently the art of bowling has now become more of an unassisted craft than it ever was.
