Belated Congrats to Warne & Murali

Neon and Chopping - I totally dis-agree that cricket is batsman's game, and batting skills are primary attractions. That shows your ignorance about the game. You probably havent seen great bowlers bowling and how fans were crazy about watching every delivery they bowled. But Its not your fault there aren't any great bowlers around and that's why batting is so easy that even tailenders can hit six on every other ball. But cricket is always more exciting when bowlers are good and batting is difficult and then you can see the real talent of a batsman. Cricket was never more popular than it was in 1970's 80's and 90's. That was the time when fast bowlers and and bowling all-rounders were dominating cricket and that was the time when commercialism came in to cricket and cricketers became superstars. At that time only few batsman were able to perform well but those batsman were real greats. People do like to watching batsmen playing good shots but when they are playing in difficults conditions not on dead wickets like Faisalabad. That's why, no matter how many centuries Jacque Kallis scores, no cricket expert is willing to give him same respect as Viv Richards. Pakistan has always been a paradise for batsman with dead wickets but go and do a survey in Pak and you will find that most popular cricketers are Imran, Wasim, Waqar and Akhtar. Obviously in India situations is different because India with 1 billion people could not produce 1 great fast bowler in 100 years.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Cricket-lover, what a baby thing to argue really!!
Cricket will definitely cease to exist without bowler.Everbody knows that.You neednt remind us.
What I was saying was that most people watch cricket for batting.
Its because nothing is equal in nature.One is always dominant over the other.
Its exactly like the Striker/midfielder- defender/goalkie scenario in football.
The focal point is always/most of the time the striker.
People have always heralded the strikers at the greatest of the game.Not the goalkie or defender.
You can make the case of few exception, like you have done in above case.
I agree that football will be poor without poor defense just like ckt will b poor without poor bowling.
But What i was only saying is Cricktets focus is batting just like striker is for football.
Perhaps thats why a good batting wicket is generally called "good wicket"?

Perhaps ,because people favour more batting ,the groundsman over the world have been lulled into making batting paradise pitch? esp in sub-continent?

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Wrong chopping. Good batting wicket is usually called dead wicket and good bowling wichet is known as sporting wicket. BTW, do you think most of the discussion on this board is "not childish".

We are having a ring-road discussion really.
One says a glass is half empty the other says half full.
Nothing more tbh.
What I say is batting and batsmen are given the more focus by spectator and the media alike,which is true.
What you say is great bowling makes for a great game of cricket,which also is true.
So yes,we are having a childish ring-road discussion

Due to England srecent failures, those wickets are now referred to as "Turning Wickets"
===============================

In UAE and SL they are but in India they are still known as flat track for Indian bullies

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Boundaries are smaller, outfields are quicker, no more uncovered pitches, pace going out of wickets and restrictions on bouncers, now ball is changed after 34 overs in ODI. Most things favour the batsman nowadays. ICC knows who to keep happy.

It is sugar-coated by providing this illusion that the world places more emphasis on batting, but everyone knows which sole country loves batting records, trivia hundreds and that country usually get what they want from the ICC.