The landscape is changing in World Cricket

[Bleed_Blue]

I thought this article was extremely informative and interesting.
Designers of popular game Stick Cricket change game to honour the late Phillip Hughes | News.com.au

In particular ""In the old days, when the stick batsman missed a bouncer, he collapsed in an unconscious bedraggled heap on his stumps and was out bowled.
It was all rather amusing and ironically, the game’s designers were working on a way to make it even more graphic.
Then the Phillip Hughes tragedy happened.
“We felt that the landscape had changed,” Rowe says. “It was there for comedic value, and when we first made Stick Cricket, no one had ever died from a head blow in professional cricket, so we felt justified to add the comedy."

I played Stick Cricket many times and I will admit that went I missed a bouncer and was floored I did find it mildly amusing it's incredible though to think that now mortality has crept into the game even nuances like this on Stick Cricket have been adjusted.

The landscape in World Cricket has really changed with the events of late November, this move only further emphasises that.

 

[fredfertang]

I think things were already changing though - the old "pantomime villain" type of quick bowler hasn't been around for a while - that has coincided with the decline of the West Indies, who produced a lot of them, men like Roy Gilchrist, Charlie Griffith, Colin Croft and the late great Sylvers - but there have been others - guys like Lillee and Thomson, Sarfraz, John Snow and Merv Hughes - maybe we will not see their like again

 

[Spark]

I think things were already changing though - the old "pantomime villain" type of quick bowler hasn't been around for a while - that has coincided with the decline of the West Indies, who produced a lot of them, men like Roy Gilchrist, Charlie Griffith, Colin Croft and the late great Sylvers - but there have been others - guys like Lillee and Thomson, Sarfraz, John Snow and Merv Hughes - maybe we will not see their like again

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it but surely Stuart Broad is the epitome of a pantomime villain quick bowler.

 

[Flem274*]

Mitchell Johnson too

Dale Steyn isn't one though because he makes you fall in love with him over and over again as he wrecks your hopes and dreams.

So he's a bit like a toxic relationship I guess?

 

[Spark]

Not sure about Johnson tbh. Broad is "despised" by all opposition fans regardless of whether he's bowling well or not, whereas Johnson has been either comedy or terror.

 

[Bleed_Blue]

I agree with Spark, Broad is not liked wherever he goes Lehmann had some strong words for him before the Ashes in Australia last year.

To me it's amazing that a long standing game like Stick Cricket would make such a seemingly small but actually very significant change as to stop batsman getting out to the bouncer on their game.

 

[fredfertang]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it but surely Stuart Broad is the epitome of a pantomime villain quick bowler.

What Broady isn't is a hard man - in fact he's a bit of a big girl's blouse really

 

[dermo]

Bleed_Blue, in your opinion what impact has modern bat technology had on the changing landscape of world cricket? please reference stick cricket in your response

 

[Zinzan]

What Broady isn't is a hard man - in fact he's a bit of a big girl's blouse really

Haha, precisely

 

[Bleed_Blue]

Bleed_Blue, in your opinion what impact has modern bat technology had on the changing landscape of world cricket? please reference stick cricket in your response

I think the game is constantly evolving, yes bat technology has improved and bats are better now than in years gone by but the advancement in technology also means a greater level of skill and strength is needed to wield this blades successfully.

Much like real Cricket Stick Cricket also has different bats depending on your style of play, I understand why they have done away with the dismissal off a bouncer as a tribute to Hughes, it's amazing how mortality creeping into the game has shown us how we have take. Little things like that for granted!

 

[Spark]

advancement in technology also means a greater level of skill and strength is needed to wield this blades successfully.

well this really is just the opposite of relaity

 

[Bleed_Blue]

well this really is just the opposite of relaity

I don't think it is. Take Alastair Cook for example, a proven performer in 5 day Cricket a plucky performer who grinds out scores, but in the limited over Cricket even with advancement in bat technology he has not been able to transform himself into a player regularly capable of challenging some of the biggest boundaries in the world let alone clearing them.

Technology as I say a has certainly improved the bats but it takes a large amount of skill to use the improved equipment efficiently enough for it to have a positive impact on your game.

 

[Goughy]

I don't think it is. Take Alastair Cook for example, a proven performer in 5 day Cricket a plucky performer who grinds out scores, but in the limited over Cricket even with advancement in bat technology he has not been able to transform himself into a player regularly capable of challenging some of the biggest boundaries in the world let alone clearing them.

Technology as I say a has certainly improved the bats but it takes a large amount of skill to use the improved equipment efficiently enough for it to have a positive impact on your game.

That is because he doesnt hit it in the air very often and no advancement in bat technology will help balls hit on the ground clear the fence.

I took a random look at Mark Waugh and the people who opened the batting in his first and last ODI - ie looking at the generation or three before Cook.

Cook hits the same number of 4s per match (4) as Gilchrist. He hits more 4s per match than Boon, M. Waugh and Geoff Marsh. He hits more 6s per match than Boon and Slater (who admittedly has a poor ODI record but is not someone you would ever call a grinder - Cook of course hits far more 4s per game than Slater as well.)

I would argue that bat technology clearly helps Cook (though I would never use the phrase "plucky performer who grinds out scores" as I think it is a very shallow assessment) but it is seen in 4s rather than 6s by virtue of the way he plays. Balls that would have gone for two now go for 4 and even defensive pushes which previously may have been dot balls can now go to the boundary.

 

[Spark]

I don't think it is. Take Alastair Cook for example, a proven performer in 5 day Cricket a plucky performer who grinds out scores, but in the limited over Cricket even with advancement in bat technology he has not been able to transform himself into a player regularly capable of challenging some of the biggest boundaries in the world let alone clearing them.

Technology as I say a has certainly improved the bats but it takes a large amount of skill to use the improved equipment efficiently enough for it to have a positive impact on your game.

my previous sentiment applies.

the whole point about modern bat technology is not that it rewards greater skill i.e. better timing, better ability to "middle the ball" (as much). by all accounts, there's very little difference between modern bats and somewhat older bats as to how hard you can hit the ball when it's absolutely middled wrt power hitting - the biggest sixes are just as big as the biggest sixes viv richards etc hit decades ago. the real difference is what happens when you don't middle the ball, as modern bats now allow you to generate significantly more power even when you mis-hit the ball compared to older bats. modern bats literally reward less skillful battinginsofar as they don't punish it as much as older bats did. what they do reward is brute strength in order to take advantage of the fact that you don't have to middle the ball and be as "skilled" in terms of timing and placement, but you can rely on brute strength to have even mis-hits carry for six on postage stamp grounds.

so once again, what you are saying is the literal, objective opposite of reality.

(this is before we move onto the cook stuff, which as goughy said is incredibly shallow)

 

[Spark]

i mean you cannot look at an era of batting where leg glances can get a leading edge over backward ****ing point for four and tell me that modern bats "reward skilful batting" or do anything other than make power hitting much, much easier. that's just patent nonsense.

 

[Goughy]

my previous sentiment applies.

the whole point about modern bat technology is not that it rewards greater skill i.e. better timing, better ability to "middle the ball" (as much). by all accounts, there's very little difference between modern bats and somewhat older bats as to how hard you can hit the ball when it's absolutely middled wrt power hitting - the biggest sixes are just as big as the biggest sixes viv richards etc hit decades ago. the real difference is what happens when you don't middle the ball, as modern bats now allow you to generate significantly more power even when you mis-hit the ball compared to older bats. modern bats literally reward less skillful batting insofar insofar as they don't punish it as much as older bats did. what they do reward is brute strength in order to take advantage of the fact that you don't have to middle the ball and be as "skilled" in terms of timing and placement, but you can rely on brute strength to have even mis-hits carry for six on postage stamp grounds.

so once again, what you are saying is the literal, objective opposite of reality.

(this is before we move onto the cook stuff, which as goughy said is incredibly shallow)

You make a very valid point. Big hits have always been big hits. It is just that previously players had to weigh a 6 vs a miss hit and getting out. Now there is little consideration as a miss hit can equally travel over the boundary. There is no disincentive to throwing the willow at the ball. A lot of the skill of judging the right ball to go after and making sure you middle it has gone. Of course, there have been other gains in skills as batsmen adjust to this new environment and play some incredible innings in the modern game but there is no doubt that modern bats help all batsmen regardless of ability. Players have to be less precise where the ball hits the bat - that is no small thing.

 

[Spark]

it can make it really dull at times, tbh, exceptional exhibitions of genuine skill and hitting ability like abdv's hour of fun the other day aside. it does feel slightly demeaning watching a agricultural mistimed hack which has no right to be anything other than out somehow drift 60m for six. the risk-reward calculations are just all out of whack, and it makes something that should be inherently daring and exciting feel, well, passé.

 

[Goughy]

Just another quick observation, Nick Knight is considered by some to be, Gooch excepted, England's best ever ODI opener. He wasn't thrill a min but he was still possibly the best England has ever had to offer. Cook has more runs in 4s alone than Knight has in 4s and 6s combined and Cook has played in approx 10% fewer games.

 

[Spark]

Cook's always been a pretty effective boundary-hitter whenever he's scored heavily that I've seen. He's so vicious off anything that's bowled to his strength that he tends to be. People conflate "ugly" with "slow" with him, and whilst he certainly has the capability to grind out a full-day hundred off 250, it's not how he plays best IMO.

Certainly if you bowl tripe at him for five Tests in a row, he'll score quickly enough /notbitter. And there was a brief time at the start of the ODI captaincy where he scored rapidly during periods of his innings in Tests too (I seem to remember him finishing off a chase in SL in an almighty hurry)

 

[Antihippy]

Certainly think the game needs more restrictions on bat sizes. Bad techniques and lack of skill is being rewarded too much.

I think players like ABdV and Warner really don't need thick bats to bat the way they do anyway seeing that they already have immense strength, natural timing and hand eye coordination.