Batting - Really that much easier these days?

[Richard]

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?

Extra time being made-up makes a massive difference there, and if you go further back the simple fact that there's a stipulated minimum number of overs.

Look at some of the draws in the 1970s and 1980s and see how few overs were bowled in the games. Nowhere near the 450 which is always a target these days.

 

[sideshowtim]

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.

We must also remember that Ponting wasn't even half the player then that he is now. He was questionable outside off, his footwork needed working on and he was average against spin. He's without a doubt improved in each of those areas now though. Even when faced with a good bowling attack in tricky conditions, Ponting can come through on top now. See his two centuries against South Africa in South Africa in the same Test.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

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.

I was really talking about the current Tests, where Australia and South Africa don't need any extra time to bowl Sri Lanka and New Zealand out... twice. Batting may be getting easier, but the mental aspect doesn't appear to be any easier.

 

[Perm]

I was really talking about the current Tests, where Australia and South Africa don't need any extra time to bowl Sri Lanka and New Zealand out... twice. Batting may be getting easier, but the mental aspect doesn't appear to be any easier.

So you're basing your judgements on two Tests against two of the best teams in the world?

 

[ohtani's jacket]

So you're basing your judgements on two Tests against two of the best teams in the world?

Well, that begs another question. If cricketing standards have declined, then how good do you think Australia and South Africa are? How good is the guy in your avatar?

I do think we're living in a batting era, but I think cricket is still a contest between bat and ball & those players with high averages are very good batsmen.

My judgement from two Tests is that Sri Lanka wouldn't have scored 550 runs if they'd batted first & NZ can't bat against pace regardless of the surface. Australia and South Africa simply have better batsmen than those two sides regardless of pitches, batting technology, smaller boundaries or any decline in bowling.

Theoretically, an increase in the number of Tests played should lead to a decrease in players' averages, but in some cases it has led to an increase & those players are fine batsmen indeed. Batting still requires concentration and a high level of mental toughness & despite all the advancements in sport & coaching it's not something we see a lot of.

 

[Perm]

Well, that begs another question. If cricketing standards have declined, then how good do you think Australia and South Africa are? How good is the guy in your avatar?

They are good, the two best Test teams in the world IMO. Much better than the opposition they are playing at the moment

I do think we're living in a batting era, but I think cricket is still a contest between bat and ball & those players with high averages are very good batsmen.

There's no doubting that batsman like Ponting, Dravid and Kallis are fine cricketers. But do you really think that in an era that wasn't so batsman friendly that Mohammad Yousuf, Matthew Hayden and Kumar Sangakarra would all average over 50? Then there are the likes of Virender Sehwag, Mahela Jayawardene and Younis Khan who average just a touch under 50. Good batsman, all of them, and they have all been run machines in this decade. The real question is, are they really better than Mohammad Azharuddin, Gary Kirsten, Saeed Anwar, Martin Crowe and Conrad Hunte? Certainly their averages seem to suggest so, by a good 5+ points.

My judgement from two Tests is that Sri Lanka wouldn't have scored 550 runs if they'd batted first & NZ can't bat against pace regardless of the surface. Australia and South Africa simply have better batsmen than those two sides regardless of pitches, batting technology, smaller boundaries or any decline in bowling.

Facing the best team in the world, I doubt too many teams would score 550 runs TBH, especially not a team who have Prassana Jayawardene at #7 and Michael Vandort, Thilan Samaraweera and Chamara Silva in their side. New Zealand's batting deficiencies can be blamed on a number of things. No stable opening combination, one of our better batsman injured, and generally a lack of quality within our side at the moment.

Theoretically, an increase in the number of Tests played should lead to a decrease in players' averages, but in some cases it has led to an increase & those players are fine batsmen indeed. Batting still requires concentration and a high level of mental toughness & despite all the advancements in sport & coaching it's not something we see a lot of.

How should more Tests decrease players averages? Taking into consideration that now teams play Test cricket against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, two very weak teams, and often opposition batsman really take advantage of this weakness. Nobody is doing it takes something special to score a truckload of Test runs, but in this era it has been much easier than almost any other decade in history due to a number of factors which people have listed throughout this thread.

 

[silentstriker]

Sehwag averaged 50+ for most of this decade - that alone should tell you something about what batting is like. He'd be lucky to average 40 in the seventies and eighties.

 

[Perm]

Sehwag averaged 50+ for most of this decade - that alone should tell you something about what batting is like. He'd be lucky to average 40 in the seventies and eighties.

Being very generous there one feels.

 

[Flem274*]

New Zealand is making batting look very difficult these days...

Outo f interest, what do you guys think the likes of Bond, Lee, Asif, Vaas, Clark and some of the merely good bowlers like Franklin etc would average if pitches weren't as favourable to batsmen and bat technology wasnt so advanced etc?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Here's a theory for you - nothing scientific, just sort of combining two recent threads:

With increased fitness, and longer careers, players are being picked only when they're already proven themselves over a long time in FC cricket, rather than being chosen as more of a "prospect" and having a struggle early. For example, someone talked about whether Sangakkara, Yousuf, etc. are better than Martin Crowe; whereas they may not have to undergo the development stage in Test cricket as much as much as the Crowe's, Azharuddin's and the Border's may have had to. Just a crazy cooked up ehtory.

 

[Perm]

New Zealand is making batting look very difficult these days...

Outo f interest, what do you guys think the likes of Bond, Lee, Asif, Vaas, Clark and some of the merely good bowlers like Franklin etc would average if pitches weren't as favourable to batsmen and bat technology wasnt so advanced etc?

Really don't think they'd do a heck of a lot better. The amount of runs that batsman score thesedays usually happens against poor bowlers, the likes of Sajid Mahmood, Liam Plunkett etc.

 

[Flem274*]

Here's a theory for you - nothing scientific, just sort of combining two recent threads:

With increased fitness, and longer careers, players are being picked only when they're already proven themselves over a long time in FC cricket, rather than being chosen as more of a "prospect" and having a struggle early. For example, someone talked about whether Sangakkara, Yousuf, etc. are better than Martin Crowe; whereas they may not have to undergo the development stage in Test cricket as much as much as the Crowe's, Azharuddin's and the Border's may have had to. Just a crazy cooked up ehtory.

Good theory. Martin Crowe says he should never have ben picked so early and felt humiliated when he failed in the early days. He thinks players should have to prove themselves in FC cricket and not be selected until their mid twenties.

 

[Flem274*]

Really don't think they'd do a heck of a lot better. The amount of runs that batsman score thesedays usually happens against poor bowlers, the likes of Sajid Mahmood, Liam Plunkett etc.

After watching poor old Bondy get whacked around by that damn Amla I have to disagree. There have been countless instances where good bowlers have been taken to in this day and age.

In saying that though I still think players of the modern era would still be very good batsmen if they were in an older era. I suspect Ponting would average late forties early fifties, Jayawardena would average in the early forties and Kallis would average early fifties.

Does Sangakkara really deserve to be included with Sehwag? I think he would average around 45ish in the older days.

EDIT: Can we blame batsmen for cashing in against crap bowlers? You can only play what in front of you. I don't blame the likes of Ponting for not standing aside and letting Plunkett etc have easy wickets. i do know what you are saying though and I agree.

 

[Perm]

Here's a theory for you - nothing scientific, just sort of combining two recent threads:

With increased fitness, and longer careers, players are being picked only when they're already proven themselves over a long time in FC cricket, rather than being chosen as more of a "prospect" and having a struggle early. For example, someone talked about whether Sangakkara, Yousuf, etc. are better than Martin Crowe; whereas they may not have to undergo the development stage in Test cricket as much as much as the Crowe's, Azharuddin's and the Border's may have had to. Just a crazy cooked up ehtory.

It's an interesting thing you've brought up, but I'm not sure whether you're right. Obviously it differs between players, and somebody like Michael Hussey has benefited immensely from what you talked about.

Sangakarra first class average once you take away Test cricket is 33.54. Mohammad Yousuf's is just 40. Now I realise this is a pretty basic way of looking at it, but these are two players who didn't perform that well in First Class cricket before they made their Test debut, but both still average quite highly at the top level.

 

[Perm]

After watching poor old Bondy get whacked around by that damn Amla I have to disagree. There have been countless instances where good bowlers have been taken to in this day and age.

It does happen, and more so in these days where a combination of factors conspire against the bowlers. Mind you, average bowlers can run through strong batting lineups too, so it does work both ways.

In saying that though I still think players of the modern era would still be very good batsmen if they were in an older era. I suspect Ponting would average late forties early fifties, Jayawardena would average in the early forties and Kallis would average early fifties.

Jacques Kallis is technically superb, so I think he would be pretty successful in an era of better bowlers and batsman being advantaged less. His average against the best bowling team of his time is 38.32, significantly less than his career average but still not too bad. Personally I think Mahela Jayawardene would be pretty poor in an era with better bowlers. He only played a handful of Tests in the 90's, and scored a couple of centuries, but it wasn't really enough of a scope to judge. You really need to take away the runs these batsman scored against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe to get a better idea.

Does Sangakkara really deserve to be included with Sehwag? I think he would average around 45ish in the older days.

The examples were purely based on average . Sangakkara is a much better batsman than Sehwag, but both have cashed in during this decade.

EDIT: Can we blame batsmen for cashing in against crap bowlers? You can only play what in front of you. I don't blame the likes of Ponting for not standing aside and letting Plunkett etc have easy wickets. i do know what you are saying though and I agree.

I'm not blaming them at all, just stating something I feel is reasonably important.

 

[Craig]

Sehwag averaged 50+ for most of this decade - that alone should tell you something about what batting is like. He'd be lucky to average 40 in the seventies and eighties.

Well one just has to remember is 309 against Pakistan 3 and a half years ago, how many times was he dropped in that innings? Richard would of had a field day with the infamous FCA (First Chance Average).

 

[Perm]

Well one just has to remember is 309 against Pakistan 3 and a half years ago, how many times was he dropped in that innings? Richard would of had a field day with the infamous FCA (First Chance Average).

Haha, typical Sehwag innings. Blast away against Pakistan and watch them drop catches.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Sangakarra first class average once you take away Test cricket is 33.54. Mohammad Yousuf's is just 40. Now I realise this is a pretty basic way of looking at it, but these are two players who didn't perform that well in First Class cricket before they made their Test debut, but both still average quite highly at the top level.

Pretty raw statistics (for a pretty raw hypothesis, I must admit). But who's not to say that these guys didn't have a couple of really good seasons to show that they were ready, instead of being picked before those seasons to show that they were ready.

 

[Craig]

Haha, typical Sehwag innings. Blast away against Pakistan and watch them drop catches.

It was both entertaining and comical. Entertaining in how he got his runs and how many times he got dropped. I'm not sure if you saw the Boxing Day Test in 2003 against India, he got dropped a fair few times by the Australians on the 1st day which made it all the more remarkable

 

[White Lightning]

I think you'd find that the better batsman of today's era would also be top line batsman in any other era.

you have to remember that over different era's, the talent doesn't change, its the techniques that change.

Take a batsman like Hayden, who relies more on power than technique has a style which is suited to today's flat pitches... if matthew hayden was born 30 years earlier, you would see a matthew hayden with a different batting style completely - more technique, and less power. he would still have the same amount of talent as he does today, and as such that talent would still see him get to the top and suceed...

in saying that the records would have lower averages purely to make up for the better batting conditions that todays batsmen encounter... but the names at the top would still be very similar.

The other question to ask, is how would some of the great bowlers of yesteryear go in today's conditions?? it's the same theory. pure all out pace, as we have seen for the best part of a decade now is just not as effective as it once was. but those bowlers who relied on pace, like Thomson, would have grown up learning to use bounce and movement rather than pace...