oneday games in the 70's 80's and 90's

[dass]

hey i just wana know onething, why were the scoring rates in oneday games so slow back then for the most part? were the batters lazier? or was it because feild settings?

 

[kwigibo]

For most of that period there were not the early overs fielding restrictions, the ridiculously close in boundary ropes, there were more balanced pitches, batting tactics were not as innovative, specialist one day players were fewer and farther between (a lot of teams just fielded their test lineups, which often included overly defensive players).

People will say the bowling was better back then, which is perhaps true, considering some very recent performances with the ball, but really it's the 30 years of batting evolution coming to a head, and every rule and condition change brought in to please the shorter attention spans that love one day cricket and lots of boundaries.

Heavier bats too.

 

[archie mac]

Another thing was that they used two new balls per innings, so no ball was more then 25 overs old. Stopped them turning brown as well. Or so the pitches were rarely as flat, and there was no bouncer limit for a long time.

 

[Goughy]

Well there have obviously been many innovations to increase scoring rates since the early days eg field restrictions etc.

However, the biggest reason is the difference in attitudes. Basically, teams and batsmen have consistently over time revised upwards what they think is possible, and they will continue to do so.

Few thought it possible to bat for any extended period of time at 8 an over. The difference is that it has been done now and all future players will be looking to pass that.

The days of an individual 200 isnt too far away, and 500 in an ODI innings is a certainly a possibility at some stage in the future.

 

[33/3from3.3]

The days of an individual 200 isnt too far away, and 500 in an ODI innings is a certainly a possibility at some stage in the future.

'

Yay!

 

[Richard]

Scoring-rates in the 1990s were not slow.

The sea-change in scoring-rates happened in the early 1990s - from that point onwards, <4-an-over became an exceptional economy-rate, in the 1970s and 1980s it was a basic requirement for a frontline bowler.

 

[Zinzan]

Scoring-rates in the 1990s were not slow.

The sea-change in scoring-rates happened in the early 1990s - from that point onwards, <4-an-over became an exceptional economy-rate, in the 1970s and 1980s it was a basic requirement for a frontline bowler.

Agreed, It would be interesting to see statistics of the average run-rates per decades, I'm sure they will be available somewhere

 

[archie mac]

Well there have obviously been many innovations to increase scoring rates since the early days eg field restrictions etc.

However, the biggest reason is the difference in attitudes. Basically, teams and batsmen have consistently over time revised upwards what they think is possible, and they will continue to do so.

Few thought it possible to bat for any extended period of time at 8 an over. The difference is that it has been done now and all future players will be looking to pass that.

The days of an individual 200 isnt too far away, and 500 in an ODI innings is a certainly a possibility at some stage in the future.

While I agree with you; on the otherside shouln't the bowlers have also improved, with better accuracy, better variations, better field placings?

 

[thierry henry]

Batting in general has improved, batsman of this generation are the best ever, and no-one wants to admit it.

 

[archie mac]

Batting in general has improved, batsman of this generation are the best ever, and no-one wants to admit it.

Welcome back mate, haven't heard from you for awhile

Although you are wrong

 

[thierry henry]

It's a very broad theory, but I think that in recent times, with plausible ODI scores getting higher and higher, batsman have been forced to take more and more risks. As a result a lot of the fundamental principles of batting have gone out the window, at least from time to time, with quite surprising success. I'm not saying that batsman never hit on the up or put good length balls into the stands in the past, but it almost seems as though an entire generation of batsman has realised that they are quite capable of using their eye and their talent to play big shots that would have once been considered unruly slogs or hoicks. "Keeping the ball on the ground" and "playing with a straight bat" have been replaced by "clearing the left hip" and "picking his hitting zones". I think that in some way, batsman have re-evaluated their goals and their potentials. But I'm probably being short-sighted.

 

[archie mac]

I think you are right, but the new bats have a lot to do with it. A mi**** once meant you were out, but these days it quite often goes for six

 

[Slow Love™]

Yeah, aside from conditions and whatever you think about the quality of batsmen and bowlers, I think Goughy's right. Batsmen were aware they should be scoring quicker than in tests, but they were (in hindsight) limited by their own expectations. Witness how innovative and groundbreaking it was considered when players like Mark Greatbatch and Sanath Jayasuriya (and his partner, Romesh Kaluwitharana) decided to hit over the top in the first 15 overs at well over 6 an over. Also, selection often wasn't as differentiated/specialised between the two formats as they are these days.

 

[Richard]

Batting in general has improved, batsman of this generation are the best ever, and no-one wants to admit it.

IMO bowlers of this generation are if not the worst then one of the worst ever (late 60s and first couple of years of the 70s was hardly flash, either, though it did have the greatest spin-attack ever as a redeeming feature).

 

[howardj]

1996 WC was a watershead, with respect to scoring rates.

Dare say this WC will redraw the parameters too.

 

[Richard]

1992 IMO.

That was the first time field-restrictions became universal.

 

[wpdavid]

1992 IMO.

That was the first time field-restrictions became universal.

Agreed, which may be why it was also the first time a number of sides decided to promote an aggressive middle order batsman to open the innings.

 

[Richard]

And yet it took Australia, who invented the rule ITFP, until 1997\98 to do it!

 

[wpdavid]

Now that surprised me, as I'd assumed that M Waugh did that from the mid90's. Learn something every day.

 

[Richard]

Haha, he actually started opening in 1995\96. Gilchrist was certainly tried for the first time (on nothing more than a Stephen Waugh hunch) in 1997\98, though.