Batting - Really that much easier these days?

[Manee]

Mpumelolo Mbangwa I'd imagine.

Thank you - I wasn't sure if it was him

The ball floating can make a bowler look slower like Mbangwa (although he was slow) but in reality, I find that looking at batsmen's reactions combined with roughly how long the ball takes to reach the batsman a good indication and the one I have used.

For example, from clips I have seen, Joel Garner looks only about 80mph but as you said, we will never know.

 

[social]

The only things that have changed are field dimensions, bat technology and the ball.

Most people would have you believe that this combination of factors has made batting INFINITELY easier.

That being the case, McGrath (especially), Warne and Murali are easily the greatest bowlers ever!

 

[silentstriker]

The only things that have changed are field dimensions, bat technology and the ball.

Those aren't small things. They could easily account for 5-10 pts of average.

 

[White Lightning]

there is no doubt batting is easier now than ever - you just have to look at the amount of runs being scored.

it's a combination of things:

1 - pitches are just roads time and time again

2 - boundaries shorter means more sixes... but i've maintained time and time again that defending larger fielding areas can be just as difficult to defend as smaller fielding areas as there is so much space for the batsman on big grounds.

3 - bat technology. the ease at which some sixes are hit is just redicolous.

4 - one day cricket; the growth of one day cricket has put so much emphasis on batting. the crowds come to see runs, the kids want to see runs and as such when people grow up they want to become batsman which led to a decline in bowling talent (although i think this is slowly coming back up)

5 - lack of bowling talnet; see point 4. as i said the bowling world wide is slowly getting better. around the turn of the century the standard of bowling was deplorable.

and i agree with Richard that catching isn't as good as it was during the 90's despite the fact that ground fielding is improving. this possibly has something to do with point 3 - guys just hit the ball so hard now and is making it harder for catches to be taken, particularly by fieldsmen within 15 metres of the ball....

all in all, i reckon you can take off about 10% of a batsman average to get a more accurate reflection of where they stand in a historic statistical perspective.... and i suppose you can do the same for bowlers, which makes the likes of Murali, McGrath, Warne and Pollock pretty special....

 

[andruid]

Can i argue that the increasing number of shots availableto the batsman is as much if not maore a case of continuos evolving in batting technique as much as better bats

 

[White Lightning]

you can always argue it - whether people accept it or not i don't know...

i wouldn't disagree with you though. i think it comes back to one day cricket. batsman have become much inventive in trying to get under a bowlers skin particularly in the latter overs of an innings.

perhaps bowlers are just being a tad conservative in field placings for some of these shots... ryan campbell used to love the flick over the keepers head - if a player loves the shot why not stick a player about 20 metres behind the keeper and about 10 metres on the leg side of him - probably because the bowler feels he is wasting a fieldsman as he would've rarely seen someone field there before.

 

[Richard]

The only things that have changed are field dimensions, bat technology and the ball.

Apart from the fact that, as Manan mentioned, these aren't small things, there's also the massive change in pitches, and the fact that there are few quality bowlers at present.

Most people would have you believe that this combination of factors has made batting INFINITELY easier.

It has. For me, many people simply don't appreciate how much easier it has been the last 6 years than most other times in history.

That being the case, McGrath (especially), Warne and Murali are easily the greatest bowlers ever!

McGrath certainly has a compelling case to be right at the top of the seam-bowling pantheon. Certainly the best ever produced by Australia.

Indeed, only Lindwall and Lillee even hold a candle.

 

[silentstriker]

How many edges do we see that carry to the boundary? If certain players are batting (I won't mention names), you can almost always expect some top edge six, which would have been caught most of time in thirty years ago.

 

[Richard]

and i agree with Richard that catching isn't as good as it was during the 90's despite the fact that ground fielding is improving. this possibly has something to do with point 3 - guys just hit the ball so hard now and is making it harder for catches to be taken, particularly by fieldsmen within 15 metres of the ball....

This would definitely be a possibility if these were catches constantly being dropped by close-in fielders in front of the wicket, but they're not, mostly they're straightforward slip-catches from things that have come from nowhere near the middle of the bat.

all in all, i reckon you can take off about 10% of a batsman average to get a more accurate reflection of where they stand in a historic statistical perspective.... and i suppose you can do the same for bowlers, which makes the likes of Murali, McGrath, Warne and Pollock pretty special....

Pollock's record in said time isn't really that outstanding (he was better last winter than he has been for years). Warne's neither.

As regards batsmen, I don't like to put an exact percentage on it because every batsman's different. For mine, there are one or two who've made crazy hay the last 6 years who would not even be Test-standard batsmen at most other times in the game's history. Equally, as I said above there are plenty who would be no more than good Test batsmen at other times.

What is a great shame is the fact that the two people who could have proven this fairly conclusively, Stephen Waugh and Sachin Tendulkar, declined as batsmen just after the sea-change in pitches and balls.

 

[GIMH]

He's talking about KP I believe

 

[Perm]

It's way easier, you just need to look at batsman's average this decade and then make a judgement.

Player		Span		Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50
MEK Hussey	2005-2007	17*	27	6	1730	182	82.38	6	8
RT Ponting	2000-2007	78*	132	20	7332	257	65.46	27	27
JH Kallis	2000-2007	78*	137	25	7217	189*	64.43	23	35 
A Flower	2000-2002	24 	42	7	2214	232*	63.25	6	11
Mohammad Yousuf	2000-2007	61	101	9	5744	223	62.43	22	19 
R Dravid	2000-2007	78	133	19	6794	270	59.59	18	32 
ML Hayden 	2000-2007	83*	148	13	7521	380	55.71	26	27
Inzamam-ul-Haq	2000-2007	62	103	11	5113	329	55.57	17	23

Compare this to the 1990's, where there were just two batsman averaging over 55 (Sachin Tendulkar & John Wright) or the 1980's where it was Mark Taylor, Greg Chappell and Allan Border were all above 55. It's not hard to look back at history and basic statistics will tell a pretty damning story.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Flatter pitches, smaller boundaries, better bats and a lower standard of bowling have all contributed to that IMO.

 

[Richard]

It's way easier, you just need to look at batsman's average this decade and then make a judgement.

Player		Span		Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50
MEK Hussey	2005-2007	17*	27	6	1730	182	82.38	6	8
RT Ponting	2000-2007	78*	132	20	7332	257	65.46	27	27
JH Kallis	2000-2007	78*	137	25	7217	189*	64.43	23	35 
A Flower	2000-2002	24 	42	7	2214	232*	63.25	6	11
Mohammad Yousuf	2000-2007	61	101	9	5744	223	62.43	22	19 
R Dravid	2000-2007	78	133	19	6794	270	59.59	18	32 
ML Hayden 	2000-2007	83*	148	13	7521	380	55.71	26	27
Inzamam-ul-Haq	2000-2007	62	103	11	5113	329	55.57	17	23

Compare this to the 1990's, where there were just two batsman averaging over 55 (Sachin Tendulkar & John Wright) or the 1980's where it was Mark Taylor, Greg Chappell and Allan Border were all above 55. It's not hard to look back at history and basic statistics will tell a pretty damning story.

And the key thing being that Wright and Taylor played just a handful of Tests in said decades.

 

[Perm]

And the key thing being that Wright and Taylor played just a handful of Tests in said decades.

Exactly. Mind you, Andy Flower didn't play too many in this decade.

EDIT: And nor has Mike Hussey.

 

[Craig]

IMO it would be interesting to see how somebody like Ponting would have gone if he had played in another era.

 

[Perm]

IMO it would be interesting to see how somebody like Ponting would have gone if he had played in another era.

He didn't go too badly in the 1990's.

Player		Span		Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50
RT Ponting	1995-1999 	33 	52	5	2092	197	44.51	6	10

 

[Craig]

He didn't go too badly in the 1990's.

Player		Span		Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50
RT Ponting	1995-1999 	33 	52	5	2092	197	44.51	6	10

Very true, although he was Mr Inconsistant back then, the captaincy has made him twice the player he was then. Although hypothetically I was thinking 70's and 80's and if he came up against the great West Indies pace attacks and how the bowlers react especially if Ponting went about hooking and pulling the bouncers.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

If batting is so much easier these days then why do so many Tests end in a result? Why is there so much crap batting -- i.e. Sri Lanka and New Zealand?

 

[Perm]

If batting is so much easier these days then why do so many Tests end in a result? Why is there so much crap batting -- i.e. Sri Lanka and New Zealand?

Because the batsman generally score their runs quicker, leaving the bowlers more time to force results. I wouldn't really label Sri Lanka as a crap batting lineup either. Jayasuriya, Atapattu, Jayawardene and Sangakarra are all class.

 

[Perm]

Very true, although he was Mr Inconsistant back then, the captaincy has made him twice the player he was then. Although hypothetically I was thinking 70's and 80's and if he came up against the great West Indies pace attacks and how the bowlers react especially if Ponting went about hooking and pulling the bouncers.

I knew what you meant .

It would certainly be interesting. I don't think he would be the run machine he is now, but I still think he'd be good enough to average between 45-50. Certainly I don't think batsman like Mohammad Yousuf or Matthew Hayden would be anywhere near as effective. Kallis and Inzamam would be though, IMO, and both would average around 45, maybe more.