Wisden's Greatest ODI Players of each decade

[Victor Ian]

Yes, that's the downside but bigger gaps over compensates for this.
Another advantage -
Bigger ground means more open spaces to play lofted shots and not get caught.

That is just silly. Those gaps you talk about not being caught in are otherwise 6!

 

[TheJediBrah]

That is just silly. Those gaps you talk about not being caught in are otherwise 6!

no, not necessarily. You'll find on larger grounds more mistimed shots in the air will land safely because the fielders are deeper/spread more thinly whereas on smaller grounds they would have gone to hand.

You know that players need to find gaps to hit fours? Easier to do that on a bigger ground with more open spaces.

what? ataraxia is right, that makes no sense. The inner ring is the same size regardless how big the ground is. It's not easier to hit through the infield on a bigger ground, it's just harder to hit 4s because the boundary is further away. Any small increase in 4s due to bigger gaps on the boundary is nowhere near significant enough to make up for that.

Oh and it didn't matter so much batsmen trying to hit 6s in the 90s, but hitting a ball that would have gone for 4 in another country would often only give 2 runs in Australia. That would particularly hurt boundary- reliant batsmen, unless they were cross bat specialists like Gilchrist.

Gonna have to explain this. If anything I would say the opposite, that Australias bigger grounds tend to be larger square of the wicket and shorter straight.

 

[stephen]

I think that's nonsense to be honest. Ask any batsman whether they would prefer batting in smaller grounds or larger ones and they'll look at you funny because they will think you're an idiot because smaller grounds are more preferable any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[stephen]

Miss timed pull shot on the MCG might be out or 2 runs. On anther ground the same miss timed pull shot is 6. You don't create opportunities by giving fielders less ground to work with.

The other thing to consider is that on larger grounds a batsman is probably more reluctant to even play the big shot, instead working the ball into gaps or lofting ballad over the infield for 4. On another ground they may have hoiked the same ball for 6 instead.

 

[Gob]

I think that's nonsense to be honest. Ask any batsman whether they would prefer batting in smaller grounds or larger ones and they'll look at you funny because they will think you're an idiot because smaller grounds are more preferable any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

That could depend on the batsman yes?

Powerful players who are confident they can clear short boundaries will take smaller grounds while those who like to work it around and run hard prefer big ones yes?

 

[stephen]

That could depend on the batsman yes?

Powerful players who are confident they can clear short boundaries will take smaller grounds while those who like to work it around and run hard prefer big ones yes?

All batsmen would prefer the smaller grounds.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

I think that's nonsense to be honest. Ask any batsman whether they would prefer batting in smaller grounds or larger ones and they'll look at you funny because they will think you're an idiot because smaller grounds are more preferable any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

what? ataraxia is right, that makes no sense. The inner ring is the same size regardless how big the ground is. It's not easier to hit through the infield on a bigger ground, it's just harder to hit 4s because the boundary is further away. Any small increase in 4s due to bigger gaps on the boundary is nowhere near significant enough to make up for that.

No one is arguing against that
It is way easier to hit sixes on small grounds, I am specifically talking about fours. I don't think that it will change significantly.
If you pierce the inside ring, you will get atleast 3 on bigger grounds, couple this with the advantage of more open space in the outer circle and less risk on lofted shots and you will see it won't make much difference

 

[Gob]

All batsmen would prefer the smaller grounds.

I know I won't but I'm claustrophobic

 

[TheJediBrah]

No one is arguing against that
It is way easier to hit sixes on small grounds, I am specifically talking about fours. I don't think that it will change significantly.
If you pierce the inside ring, you will get atleast 3 on bigger grounds, couple this with the advantage of more open space in the outer circle and less risk on lofted shots and you will see it won't make much difference

I addressed that:

what? ataraxia is right, that makes no sense. The inner ring is the same size regardless how big the ground is. It's not easier to hit through the infield on a bigger ground, it's just harder to hit 4s because the boundary is further away. Any small increase in 4s due to bigger gaps on the boundary is nowhere near significant enough to make up for that.

You are not going to have more 4s on a bigger ground.

 

[TheJediBrah]

All batsmen would prefer the smaller grounds.

And yes this should be obvious. Doesn't matter if you're a touch player like a Michael Bevan who uses large gaps well, or a power player like Andrew Symonds, you are always going to prefer batting on a smaller ground.

 

[Flem274*]

stephen acting like australia are the only country with large grounds lol

hagley oval is like 5m smaller than the scg but you don't see us banging on about how big ours is.

ground size also doesn't take into account how the ground plays, as stephens hard done by australian batsmen continuously discover in eden park odis if its humid.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is a really dumb discussion all round

 

[stephen]

Eden park is difficult because of the pitch conditions. Most ODI pitches don't offer the bowlers as much to work with.

The point is that batting at the Gabba, a good score used to be 260. On many pitches around the world that would be a low score. Skill will determine the winners but ground and pitch conditions (and playing conditions, but they should be identical worldwide) determine scoring trends.

 

[trundler]

Well all this just makes the hysterical whining about the guy with the most ODI wickets getting picked as a player of the decade even more cringe

 

[ataraxia]

No one is arguing against that
It is way easier to hit sixes on small grounds, I am specifically talking about fours. I don't think that it will change significantly.
If you pierce the inside ring, you will get atleast 3 on bigger grounds, couple this with the advantage of more open space in the outer circle and less risk on lofted shots and you will see it won't make much difference

Imagine a fielding setting on a ground. Then imagine the exact same fielding setting on a bigger ground.

How would hitting fours on the bigger ground be easier? (Don't say 'well sixes will become fours' because that complete misses the point about it being easier for batsmen to score runs.)

 

[Victor Ian]

Because a bigger ground means there is more boundary to hit. Obviously!

 

[Burgey]

hagley oval is like 5m smaller than the scg but you don't see us banging on about how big ours is.

The scg isn’t an overly big ground though

 

[Gob]

Size matters

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Terrible discussion. It’s not as if scoring more boundaries is ever a decisive factor in an ODI.

 

[Migara]

The only downside to this argument is assuming grounds in other countries are small. In Sri Lanka for example, other than for RPS, all other grounds are of humungous size with special reference to MRICS Hambantota and Dambulla grounds. Pallekele is also pretty large.

May be our pitches were so crap, even our batters were unable to score on them.