Ninjaman seems to be one of those people who throws the past in the dustbin. He should try tro get his hands on In Celebration of Cricket and have a good read. Cricket is an ever-changing game, and these changes obviously overlap - there is no distinct line between one period and the other, rather, quite a lot of gray in between...

One of the most important benefits of the study of history, cricket or otherwise, is the lessons learnt from the past, and no matter how much technology that is applied to it, the final thing is that red ball being sent to the batsman who has a bat to deal with it. Men like Glenn Mcgrath - regardless of how much training they have had still have to deliver that ball to the batsman in a certain way - development and technology cover the background to what actually happens on the field, but neither the ball nor the bat nor the players have any electronic implants designed to improve things. They are still the same human beings with the same equipment doing the same job.

Strategies will change with time - tactics suitable to conditions in 1905 may not have been suitable in 1948, and so on - but the essentials remain exactly the same - hit the ball with the bat. Bats are supposed to have more hitting power than those of yesteryear - but when Albert Trott hit a straight drive over the Lords Pavilion in the 1890's, it was with a bat of the time - yet I have never heard of anyone else doing the same with the so-called modern bats - so improved equipment is not always as effective as some might think.

So do not hide behind the fact that cricket then isn't cricket now - as I have said, the basics haven't changed, and whether the delivery is from your friend Wavell Hinds or S F Barnes certain criteria, which haver NEVER changed have to be satisfied in order for the delivery to be a good one. You should read your cricket history, and you will discover that a man like Barnes would have been immensely sucessful today - not because he would bowl the same thing he bowled in 1908, but he had the ability to bowl what the conditions demanded, and he would have the skill to do just that nowadays - that is why Arlott described him as the 'greatest of all bowlers' . Obviously bowlers of limited ability do not have that flexibility to change their deliveries to suit the various conditions they encounter, and quite often are only effective in certain conditions. A great batsman or bowler has the ability to change his style to suit the circumstances he plays in, and that's why Bradman would have been great even today...