Batting - Really that much easier these days?

[Ikki]

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

And that was when he was moved around a bit. Once he settled, I think it was at #5, he averaged 50.

And I agree that it's easier to score these days, but people saying we need to cut 15-20 runs off batsmen's average is just ridiculous.

 

[Perm]

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.

Well, since you insist

Mohammad Yousuf had a FC average of 55.73 when he made his Test debut. He'd only played 11 games though and I daresay he had to do a fair bit of learning in Test cricket.

Kumar Sangakarra played 34 FC games before his Test debut, and had an average of 33.66.

 

[Perm]

And that was when he was moved around a bit. Once he settled, I think it was at #5, he averaged 50.

And I agree that it's easier to score these days, but people saying we need to cut 15-20 runs off batsmen's average is just ridiculous.

Damn you drawing me further away from my homework!

Ricky Ponting batted 35 times at #6 and scored 1635 runs at an average of 51.09. I think it would be a fair exercise to take a modern day batsman's average, minus the runs he has scored against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and then you'd get a clearer picture. I'd hazard a guess and say that by taking away 5 runs from their average against Test standard teams, you might get a better picture. Obviously it's all speculation though.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

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

Yes, the opposition is no good, but if the standard of bowling has declined, while the number of batsmen friendly pitches has increased, then Australia and South Africa can't be that good, right? Particularly in the case of the Australians, do you think they're as good as their team numbers suggest?

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?

I don't think enough time has elapsed since Sangakarra and Yousuf started making big runs to really pass judgement on them. A batsman like Kallis has had lean trots and now he's back in form and you can see he has class. Hayden's not the type of batsman I like to watch, but I think he's of a particular build that may have been successful in the past.

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.

A batsman's average "averages" out over the course of his Test career. If Sehwag continues to play, we'll see how he goes. There's a lot of people who don't want him to have a better average than those players, just like people didn't want Yousuf to pass Viv or Murali to pass Warne. That's natural and happens in all sport, but I think it skewers people's perceptions of this era of cricket. If people think batting is easier now then they should just readjust their standards -- the old benchmark of 20 centuries and an average of 50 or more needs to be upped.

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.

Fair points, but if batting is easier Sri Lanka and New Zealand really should've made higher totals. Sri Lanka are showing more fight in the second innings, but where was that application in the first innings? Why wait for a follow on to bat respectably?

How should more Tests decrease players averages?

A greater number of innings means a greater number of dismissals. There's not as many draws as there used to be. You said that teams look to score quicker, which is true, but that ought to lead to greater chances for dismissals. It seems that some batsmen have adapted to the modern approach better than others. The Aussies have done this particularly well as a team (tail included.)

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.

Outside of Sri Lanka, who plays these teams that regularly? India? For as many batsmen who've scored against these teams, there's been good to very good to great batsmen who haven't.

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.

I think there's truth to what you're saying, but I also think the cream rises to the top. There are average batsmen scoring more runs and more Test centuries than they would have in any other era, but the very best batsmen stand out as quality players. I don't think higher averages detract from that.

Basically the point I want to make is that there's still pressure on batsmen in this era. If it's easier to score runs then you're expected to score runs, and if a team scores 550 then batting second is a daunting prospect.

 

[Ikki]

Damn you drawing me further away from my homework!

Ricky Ponting batted 35 times at #6 and scored 1635 runs at an average of 51.09. I think it would be a fair exercise to take a modern day batsman's average, minus the runs he has scored against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and then you'd get a clearer picture. I'd hazard a guess and say that by taking away 5 runs from their average against Test standard teams, you might get a better picture. Obviously it's all speculation though.

I think 5 runs tends to get you a better picture too.

But then, you know what? What about the bowler's averages? If the batsmen's average have gone up, so then too have the bowlers'. How many do we pin theirs down?

And as said before by someone, if that is the case, McGrath, Warne and Murali are the 3 greatest bowlers of all time - well, in my mind, two of them actually are anyway .

 

[Perm]

]Yes, the opposition is no good, but if the standard of bowling has declined, while the number of batsmen friendly pitches has increased, then Australia and South Africa can't be that good, right? Particularly in the case of the Australians, do you think they're as good as their team numbers suggest?

Well the Australian team of a few years ago were one of the best Test sides of all-time, players like Warne and McGrath are legends. If we're talking purely about batsmen then I think you may have a fair point. Their averages are inflated, but they are still quality batsmen.

]I don't think enough time has elapsed since Sangakarra and Yousuf started making big runs to really pass judgement on them. A batsman like Kallis has had lean trots and now he's back in form and you can see he has class. Hayden's not the type of batsman I like to watch, but I think he's of a particular build that may have been successful in the past.

Big, strong and technically weak? It takes a lot more than cross-batted slogs to counter bowling from the likes of Malcolm Marshall and Dennis Lillee. I don't want to sound too much like Richard, but it's generally accepted that around 2000 and 2001 that pitches began to flatten out, and bowling attacks started to become weaker and it's not really that much of a coincidence that Yousuf and Sangakkara began to score heavily around that time, as did a number of other batsman, Kallis included.

]A batsman's average "averages" out over the course of his Test career. If Sehwag continues to play, we'll see how he goes. There's a lot of people who don't want him to have a better average than those players, just like people didn't want Yousuf to pass Viv or Murali to pass Warne. That's natural and happens in all sport, but I think it skewers people's perceptions of this era of cricket. If people think batting is easier now then they should just readjust their standards -- the old benchmark of 20 centuries and an average of 50 or more needs to be upped.

There is no doubting that Virender Sehwag has benefitted immensely from flat pitches, just take a look at his record in Pakistan. He has scored heavily and an average of almost 50 from 52 Tests is evidence of this, despite him being a fairly average batsman in comparison to some of the greats of yesteryear. I personally don't want to see him have a better average than those batsmen, because there are people who look at an average of 50 and consider anything above that as great. You can't update those standards though, because if you increase the benchmark for greatness to 55 then batsman like Mohammad Yousuf will be considered great, when in reality he isn't fit to lace the boots of Greg Chappell, Brian Lara, Javed Miandad etc.

]Fair points, but if batting is easier Sri Lanka and New Zealand really should've made higher totals. Sri Lanka are showing more fight in the second innings, but where was that application in the first innings? Why wait for a follow on to bat respectably?

Batting is easier as a whole, but teams still struggle when they have a poor batting lineup and come up against a quality opposition with a strong bowling attack.

]A greater number of innings means a greater number of dismissals. There's not as many draws as there used to be. You said that teams look to score quicker, which is true, but that ought to lead to greater chances for dismissals. It seems that some batsmen have adapted to the modern approach better than others. The Aussies have done this particularly well as a team (tail included.)

A greater number of innings also means a greater chance of scoring centuries doesn't it? No matter what way you look at it, there is always a flip side. Teams can look to score quicker because of the better bat technology, flatter pitches, shorter boundaries and poorer bowling standards. While it is riskier to attack, it is much harder for the fielding team to dismis a batsman if all these factors conspire against them.

]Outside of Sri Lanka, who plays these teams that regularly? India? For as many batsmen who've scored against these teams, there's been good to very good to great batsmen who haven't.

The regularity of playing Bangladesh isn't really of much concern. Batsman still get a chance to bat against them, and generally do boost up their average. Just look at Jacques Kallis and his career average (batting and bowling if you like), then detract his performances against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Also, no, I disagree. More batsman score runs against Bangladesh than those who fail to, by quite a margin.

]I think there's truth to what you're saying, but I also think the cream rises to the top. There are average batsmen scoring more runs and more Test centuries than they would have in any other era, but the very best batsmen stand out as quality players. I don't think higher averages detract from that.

Basically the point I want to make is that there's still pressure on batsmen in this era. If it's easier to score runs then you're expected to score runs, and if a team scores 550 then batting second is a daunting prospect.

The best batsman do score more runs, that's true. But there are also just average batsmen who tend to average quite highly, which makes them look more impressive than they are. There is always pressure on batsmen to score runs, but there is less in this decade than in others, and it is easier now than in almost any other decade.

 

[Perm]

I think 5 runs tends to get you a better picture too.

But then, you know what? What about the bowler's averages? If the batsmen's average have gone up, so then too have the bowlers'. How many do we pin theirs down?

And as said before by someone, if that is the case, McGrath, Warne and Murali are the 3 greatest bowlers of all time - well, in my mind, two of them actually are anyway .

I think I mentioned it earlier to Phlegm, and I don't think bowlers averages have been inflated as much as batsmens and listed my reasoning

 

[JBH001]

I
And as said before by someone, if that is the case, McGrath, Warne and Murali are the 3 greatest bowlers of all time - well, in my mind, two of them actually are anyway .

Thats Warne and Murali, is it?

 

[Flem274*]

I think I mentioned it earlier to Phlegm, and I don't think bowlers averages have been inflated as much as batsmens and listed my reasoning

Still reckon that if there were more greentops then we'd have a field day with our greentop bullies like Martin and Tuffey and our good bowlers would be alot harder to negotiate.

 

[Ikki]

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.

McCosker and Redpath averaged that much in that era. I tend to think Sehwag is better than them. To me, Sehwag 'looks' like a low-to-mid-40s average opener.

 

[Ikki]

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...

Great post, I agree.

Thats Warne and Murali, is it?

Warne and McGrath, greatest duo ever.

 

[Perm]

McCosker and Redpath averaged that much in that era. I tend to think Sehwag is better than them. To me, Sehwag 'looks' like a low-to-mid-40s average opener.

Redpath averaged 50 in the 1970s, McCosker just 41. Sehwag may look like a 40-45 average opener, probably because he has all the strokes in the book. If he didn't play every second Test against Pakistan, or the opposition fielders knew how to catch, he'd be lucky to average over 45 in this era IMO.

 

[Ikki]

Redpath averaged 50 in the 1970s, McCosker just 41. Sehwag may look like a 40-45 average opener, probably because he has all the strokes in the book. If he didn't play every second Test against Pakistan, or the opposition fielders knew how to catch, he'd be lucky to average over 45 in this era IMO.

To average 40-45 in that era, by your standard, is average, but in all honesty it's actually pretty good. And I rate Sehwag a bit better than the aforementioned batsmen.

We tend to rate +50 batsmen as very greats, and whilst I don't rate Sehwag that highly, he is in the tier below that group of batsmen. I was just showing you, those batsmen in that time averaged that and they're nothing special, so be careful how low you are placing some of the current batsmen.

 

[Goughy]

I firmly believe that batting now is very well designed for its current demands.

Tracks are flat, the ball isnt doing too much, the batsmen have the benefit of the best protective equipment and video analysis and professional dedication is tightening techniques.

The change in mentality has increased averages as well. There is the accurate belief that it is possible to increase scoring rates with negligable difference in the chance of getting out.

If a player has an average innings length of 100 balls. A scoring rate of 3 per over has an average of 50 runs whereas a scoring rate of 3.5 would give an average of 58.33

There has been this creeping movement over what is possible to certain balls and what scoring rate is achievable.

The current batsman, with out needing to worry about uncovered pitches, the threat of physical injury and the benefits of all technology, coaching and professionalism has become a clinical destroyer of bowling attacks.

I think that the current batsmen are far better equiped to deal with current conditions than those of even 10-15 years ago. Whether that makes them better, I dont know, but they are well designed to tackle the current environment.

These guys may not be expert in facing Underwood on a sticky 'bunsen' or facing Holding without a 'lid' but they dont have to. They are expert for what they are currently supposed to do. Current batsmen are brilliant at what they are asked and needed to do

 

[Swervy]

I firmly believe that batting now is very well designed for its current demands.

Tracks are flat, the ball isnt doing too much, the batsmen have the benefit of the best protective equipment and video analysis and professional dedication is tightening techniques.

The change in mentality has increased averages as well. There is the accurate belief that it is possible to increase scoring rates with negligable difference in the chance of getting out.

If a player has an average innings length of 100 balls. A scoring rate of 3 per over has an average of 50 runs whereas a scoring rate of 3.5 would give an average of 58.33

There has been this creeping movement over what is possible to certain balls and what scoring rate is achievable.

The current batsman, with out needing to worry about uncovered pitches, the threat of physical injury and the benefits of all technology, coaching and professionalism has become a clinical destroyer of bowling attacks.

I think that the current batsmen are far better equiped to deal with current conditions than those of even 10-15 years ago. Whether that makes them better, I dont know, but they are well designed to tackle the current environment.

that is bob on

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Their averages are inflated, but they are still quality batsmen.

Personally I think the Aussies have an appetite for runs, I'm just curious as to whether people think the number of runs they score as a team are a result of poor bowling or the Australian mindset. If it's weak bowling, then perhaps Australian first class cricket isn't much of a step down from Test cricket.

Big, strong and technically weak? It takes a lot more than cross-batted slogs to counter bowling from the likes of Malcolm Marshall and Dennis Lillee.

I don't like Hayden but the guy is more than just a slogger. His footwork isn't the greatest but he's as mentally tough as any of the other Australians. They all prize their wickets & Hayden is no different. You don't see too many soft dismissals from Hayden. That's what separates the Aussies in this era, IMO.

I don't want to sound too much like Richard, but it's generally accepted that around 2000 and 2001 that pitches began to flatten out, and bowling attacks started to become weaker and it's not really that much of a coincidence that Yousuf and Sangakkara began to score heavily around that time, as did a number of other batsman, Kallis included.

Yeah, but c'mon, Yousuf's Test career was just beginning in the late 90s and Sangakkara didn't debut until 2000. Yousuf's transformation into a great batsman has only really happened in the past few years & I dare say it has a lot more to do with him than pitches and bowling.

The regularity of playing Bangladesh isn't really of much concern. Batsman still get a chance to bat against them, and generally do boost up their average. Just look at Jacques Kallis and his career average (batting and bowling if you like), then detract his performances against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Also, no, I disagree. More batsman score runs against Bangladesh than those who fail to, by quite a margin.

Players like Tendulkar, Inzi and Waugh have scored centuries against those teams, too. Hell, if not for Bangladesh Steve Waugh might not have finished with an average of 50. But he's a popular player and people think he deserved it.

If you look at the batting records against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe I'll think you'll find that not that many great batsmen have cashed in. Atapattu would have to be the most significant with 1145 runs against Zimbabwe and 5 centuries, but he still averages under 40 in Test match cricket. Take away Yousuf's runs against those sides and he still averages above 50.

There is always pressure on batsmen to score runs, but there is less in this decade than in others, and it is easier now than in almost any other decade.

When I was growing up there was no emphasis on scoring quickly in Test cricket. There were great batsmen who played for their average. Nowdays if you can't score and score at a clip everybody wants you dropped.

 

[aussie]

I firmly believe that batting now is very well designed for its current demands.

Tracks are flat, the ball isnt doing too much, the batsmen have the benefit of the best protective equipment and video analysis and professional dedication is tightening techniques.

The change in mentality has increased averages as well. There is the accurate belief that it is possible to increase scoring rates with negligable difference in the chance of getting out.

If a player has an average innings length of 100 balls. A scoring rate of 3 per over has an average of 50 runs whereas a scoring rate of 3.5 would give an average of 58.33

There has been this creeping movement over what is possible to certain balls and what scoring rate is achievable.

The current batsman, with out needing to worry about uncovered pitches, the threat of physical injury and the benefits of all technology, coaching and professionalism has become a clinical destroyer of bowling attacks.

I think that the current batsmen are far better equiped to deal with current conditions than those of even 10-15 years ago. Whether that makes them better, I dont know, but they are well designed to tackle the current environment.

These guys may not be expert in facing Underwood on a sticky 'bunsen' or facing Holding without a 'lid' but they dont have to. They are expert for what they are currently supposed to do. Current batsmen are brilliant at what they are asked and needed to do

word out, thats is why its so difficult to compare players across era's

 

[shortpitched713]

I firmly believe that batting now is very well designed for its current demands.

Tracks are flat, the ball isnt doing too much, the batsmen have the benefit of the best protective equipment and video analysis and professional dedication is tightening techniques.

The change in mentality has increased averages as well. There is the accurate belief that it is possible to increase scoring rates with negligable difference in the chance of getting out.

If a player has an average innings length of 100 balls. A scoring rate of 3 per over has an average of 50 runs whereas a scoring rate of 3.5 would give an average of 58.33

There has been this creeping movement over what is possible to certain balls and what scoring rate is achievable.

The current batsman, with out needing to worry about uncovered pitches, the threat of physical injury and the benefits of all technology, coaching and professionalism has become a clinical destroyer of bowling attacks.

I think that the current batsmen are far better equiped to deal with current conditions than those of even 10-15 years ago. Whether that makes them better, I dont know, but they are well designed to tackle the current environment.

These guys may not be expert in facing Underwood on a sticky 'bunsen' or facing Holding without a 'lid' but they dont have to. They are expert for what they are currently supposed to do. Current batsmen are brilliant at what they are asked and needed to do

What can we do to make it a little harder for them then?

 

[shortpitched713]

We really ought to move the boundary ropes back. Batsmen score far too many of their runs in boundaries nowadays, and imo the first thing you've got to do is give a boundary back its value.

Obviously, there's going to be a limit as to how far you can push them back though on the current grounds. Thats why I think that new grounds that are built sholuld have regulations to their size and be made bigger. Fielders would have to run around more, but really the standard of ground fielding nowadays just keeps on improving (well except for Pakistan and India ) so it wouldn't really have that much of an effect in that regard.

 

[Goughy]

What can we do to make it a little harder for them then?

Its difficult. We are never going to go back to uncovered tracks, and nor should we and we are not about to take their helmets off them.

Also, the genie is out of the bottle with regards to bat technology so its not even possible to get that back to the situation of even 10 or 5 years ago.

I agree with the boundaries being taken back to make the batsmen work to get full value, but unfortunately the paying public and the TV paymaster like boundaries.

I dont like limited bouncers, so Id allow unlimited bouncers (as we have had for the vast majority of Test crickets existence) and go back to the good old days where a quick can really rough up a batsman and test his ability. Im not sure how much of a difference it would make in the grand scheme of things but its a start.

Tracks are also too bound together now. Id make it illegal to water the day before a Test. A track should have a bit of juice in it on the first day, bat well 2nd and third and then be drying out and crumbling. Now they are holding together far too well.

The final point is that bowlers will have to adapt. We have seen some of that with the evolution of 'Irish' swing into the main stream, the development of the doosra and the increased importance and impact of the slower ball.

Batting has crept ahead of bowling at the moment but usually these things lag but eventually catch up.