The evolution of LOIs in your lifetime

[stephen]

I'm sure Freud would love to analyze Swype and it's autocorrect crappiness.

 

[Burgey]

Maybe. There were plenty of DN series in Australia in the eighties but not so much elsewhere. Definitely changed in the nineties.

Yeah but the only venue with lights in the early 80s was Sydney. Then Melbourne got them. Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide all a fair bit later iirc

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm sure Freud would love to analyze Swype and it's autocorrect crappiness.

Maybe it happened because you've been typing "moist" and "stroke" a lot on other sites, deliberately.

 

[Bolo]

2010s.

Fair enough. Just over half of ABs matches came in the 2010s and most of Kohlis. This decade has seen the fastest shift in favour of batting. Viv would probably still end up ahead on stats if you did a straight era adjustment to their playing careers, just not by as much.

Also, Waugh had a better stroke rate than Kirsten during the 90s.

Rhodes and Cronje struck at 78 and 77 respectively, which is 3 and 2 runs per hundred balls higher than Waugh, who struck at 75 in the decade.

Waugh being stodgy is a bit of a myth. He struck at the same rate as moist other bats in the decade.

Peak Waugh was him being stodgy in tests. He isn't someone like ponting who was at his best going after the bowling. I reckon Waugh was a better test bat than Ponting, but to avoid controversy, let's say that they were comparable. In odis there is daylight between them though.

I'm not saying these 3 are far ahead of Waugh on stats, but they are ahead, and a ton of others will be too. The list of highest run scorers bfor the decade is mostly a list of who played for the greatest percentage of the decade, which (along with being good enough for a long career) is a product of chance for when a career was timed.

 

[stephen]

My main point was that during the 90s Waugh was considered a very good ODI bat. But statistically he would be considered trash with those stats today, as would half of the guys on the 90s list.

The turn of the century saw a massive jump in run rates and averages.

For the top 8 sides:

70s->80s 10% increase in SR, 8% increase in ave
80s->90s 4% increase in SR, 2% increase in ave
90s->00s 9% increase in SR, 6% increase in ave
00s->10s 8% increase in SR, 6% increase in ave

Overall 70s -> 10s 36% increase in SR, 23% increase in ave

So overall, batsmen are striking 36% faster now than in the 70s and are scoring 23% more runs (which I guess means they're facing less balls on average than in the 70s.

Even since the 90s, batsmen average 12% more and strike 18% faster. Meaning Bevan's adjusted strike rate and average is 60@87.6, which is an average fractionally higher than Kohli's at a strike rate fractionally lower.

 

[stephen]

One last aside, of the major host nations, the most dramatic change since the 70s has been England and the least dramatic has been the West Indies.

I would speculate that this is because of the fortunes and abilities of the host nation themselves. But the stats are truly extraordinary.

In England, in the last decade alone, strike rates have grown by 12% and averages by 10%.

Since the beginning of time, strike rates have grown 43% and averages by 25%. Which is unbelievable really.

On the flip side, the West Indies has seen (starting from the 80s since there were only 3 ODIs played during the 70s) strike rates grow by 9% and averages shrink by 9%. That's right, during the 80s, batting averages in the West Indies were 32.45 and now they're 29.6. It's truly sad.

 

[trundler]

Excellent responses. Exactly what I was looking for.

How do people think franchise T20s have affected things?

 

[Bolo]

Was he thought of as a very good ODI bat? I can't remember. If he was it was it was probably because he had one or two massive WC innings and because he was a top test bat, and people tend to conflate the formats. See Jayawardene.

Statistically he was a bog-standard specialist bat.

I thought there was more of a jump this decade. Idk if this is a top 8 thing. WI dragging it down- but they actually weren't top 8 the whole decade.

Bevan played nearly half of his career in the 2000s, and Kohli played 10 or 15% in the 2000s as well. Your adjustment is a bit heavy handed.

Also, while I think it's much more meaningful to era adjust stats than to look at them unadjusted, there's no way to extrapolate with any certainty. Bevan and Klusenar were probably the two best finishers of the 90s. They were utterly different in style though. I have no doubt they would both have much better SRs if playing today. Im not sure which of them would see a greater % increase in SR, but I doubt it would be the same. As for the averages, I'm not sure either of them would see an improvement- the push for higher RR in modern cricket might see them averaging less. Not that I have a solution to how to deal with this though, so this paragraph is a bit of a worthless observation.

 

[Borges]

Was he thought of as a very good ODI bat?

No. He wouldn't have made it to a world ODI XI during the nineties.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Even since the 90s, batsmen average 12% more and strike 18% faster. Meaning Bevan's adjusted strike rate and average is 60@87.6, which is an average fractionally higher than Kohli's at a strike rate fractionally lower.

Would love to see a table of this across some key players.

Difficult with some players I suppose who had extremely long careers (Sachin?).

 

[Burgey]

I suppose you could break down a long career into various blocks, but the difficulty is in picking arbitrary dates to do it.

 

[jimmy101]

This isn't necessarily a factor that affects ODI batsmanship, but Chappelli believes modern batting helmets are affecting the way modern batsmen play.


“I think helmets have had a much bigger impact on batting than we realise. The weight of those helmets makes a big difference to your centre of gravity and balance. The weight is forcing batsmen to stand more upright, which reduces their balance at the crease and, in turn, their footwork."

Greg Chappell: What is to blame for batters’ swing struggles

 

[TheJediBrah]

Was he thought of as a very good ODI bat? I can't remember. If he was it was it was probably because he had one or two massive WC innings and because he was a top test bat, and people tend to conflate the formats. See Jayawardene.

Statistically he was a bog-standard specialist bat.

Even at the time S.Waugh wasn't considered a particularly special ODI bat. He'd probably have had much better stats if he batted 3 or even 4 but he pretty much never moved above 5.

Bevan played nearly half of his career in the 2000s, and Kohli played 10 or 15% in the 2000s as well. Your adjustment is a bit heavy handed.

wow no. Bevan finished in 2003 (might have played a few games in 2004). Kohli started in 2008. That 5 year period probably saw the biggest change in ODI batting conditions. Equating them because "in the 2000s" is heavy-handed.

I don't really care to venture into whatever Stephen is doing with his adjusted stats but suggesting that Bevan and Kohli's careers overlapped in any significant manner in relation to the evolution of ODI batting is ridiculous

 

[morgieb]

We need something like PEWS's standardised Test averages for ODI's, when you consider how much the format has evolved in contrast to Tests.

 

[Starfighter]

Ask him and in six years we might have it.

 

[Burgey]

This isn't necessarily a factor that affects ODI batsmanship, but Chappelli believes modern batting helmets are affecting the way modern batsmen play.


“I think helmets have had a much bigger impact on batting than we realise. The weight of those helmets makes a big difference to your centre of gravity and balance. The weight is forcing batsmen to stand more upright, which reduces their balance at the crease and, in turn, their footwork."

Greg Chappell: What is to blame for batters’ swing struggles

That's actually a very interesting POV.

 

[stephen]

Yeah I'm not really interested in doing thorough career analysis for a bunch of players, I was talking very generally and cherry picking a couple of players to show how much the stat inflation has affected international ODI cricket.

Tendulkar had very similar stats in the 90s to the 00s to the 10s. So he probably declined in ODIs as he got older but the better batting conditions made up for it.

As for Steve Waugh, he was consistently the third best batsman in the Australian ODI team. That makes him a "very good batsmen". I'm not saying he's an ATG ODI bat, but he's a good case of showing how times have changed. There's no way someone with his stats would be picked in a modern ODI side.

 

[Starfighter]

This isn't necessarily a factor that affects ODI batsmanship, but Chappelli believes modern batting helmets are affecting the way modern batsmen play.


“I think helmets have had a much bigger impact on batting than we realise. The weight of those helmets makes a big difference to your centre of gravity and balance. The weight is forcing batsmen to stand more upright, which reduces their balance at the crease and, in turn, their footwork."

Greg Chappell: What is to blame for batters’ swing struggles

I think that helmets have had an effect on batting, but not for those reasons. Firstly are modern helmet designs 'that' much heavier? I'm not too sure. The first helmets used in WSC by Greig and a couple of others were based off motorcycle helmets (heavier then than now) and actually reinforced and no-one suggested that effect, and although modern designs rapidly evolved I'm sure there were probably various ones going around with excessively thick shells in the eighties. I think that the main effect of helmets has been that batsmen, no langer fearing being hit on the head, are forward a lot more making them vulnerable to nicks (but less to bowled, which is much rarer in the modern game) and since there is little movement or variable bounce in modern pitches or with Kookaburra balls the need to play with soft hands has disappeared. Hence when such unfamiliar conditions arise everyone's like a fish out of water. You can't practice to be good in certain conditions if you never encounter them.

That's without accounting for the actual topic of this thread, the evolution of limited overs cricket, and the affect its techniques have in tests.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

As for Steve Waugh, he was consistently the third best batsman in the Australian ODI team. That makes him a "very good batsmen". I'm not saying he's an ATG ODI bat, but he's a good case of showing how times have changed. There's no way someone with his stats would be picked in a modern ODI side.

87 WCish - behind Jones, Boon, Marsh, Border and probably Veletta (in the team for his bowling)

92 - behind Jones, Boon, Marsh

mid to late 90s - behind Bevan, M Waugh, Ponting, Gilchrist, Lehmann

early 2000s - behind Ponting, Bevan, Gilchrist, Symonds, M Waugh, Hayden, Martin,

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think that helmet thing is bull****. They weigh **** all. Maybe it's affected batsmen's vision of the ball? Definitely affected how they play the short ball/changed the fear factor etc., but I really doubt the weight of a helmet on your head is changing anything.

87 WCish - behind Jones, Boon, Marsh, Border and probably Veletta (in the team for his bowling)

92 - behind Jones, Boon, Marsh

mid to late 90s - behind Bevan, M Waugh, Ponting, Gilchrist, Lehmann

early 2000s - behind Ponting, Bevan, Gilchrist, Symonds, M Waugh, Hayden, Martin,

Was just about to say this. I don't think S.Waugh was really the 3rd best in the team often. In the last few years of his career I got the impression he only really held his spot because he was captain and guys like Lehmann were unlucky to be missing out.