Wisden's Greatest ODI Players of each decade

[srbhkshk]

Okay, 30 meter boundaries...oh what the hell, 10 meter boundaries with 11 fielders . Hit a four now......i dare you
You are completely ignoring how much open spaces matter. I repeat, apart from six hitting every thing else is way more easier on a bigger ground,.

Don't be ridiculous.

You can literally set the exact same field on a large ground that you will on a small ground by only considering that part of the large ground which is equal in size to the smaller ground and ignoring the area beyond that.
That gives you an exact equal chance of hitting fours (in fact less because some will stop before reaching the boundary on the larger ground). The fields set in bigger grounds are more optimized, not less. That would be beyond stupid.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Okay, 30 meter boundaries...oh what the hell, 10 meter boundaries with 11 fielders . Hit a four now......i dare you
You are completely ignoring how much open spaces matter. I repeat, apart from six hitting every thing else is way more easier on a bigger ground,.

Sorry but you are just so wrong it's not even funny

 

[honestbharani]

The only good thing about a large ground is that batsmen can play angles better but even then it's mostly 2s and 3s rather than 4s. The thing about abnormally large grounds though is that u need a lot of practice to get ur field angles right and that is where home teams can take the advantage over visitors.

 

[Victor Ian]

I think it's pretty clear that bigger grounds are harder to hit boundarirs on. I'm waiting for the good part of this argument to take off. Obviously, our bowlers are over rated.

 

[stephen]

Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

In the course of ODI history, between top 8 sides, India has seen batsmen average 33.81 rpw @ 5.22 RPO. It is the highest average for a top 8 host nation. Australia has seen batsmen average 28.75 @ 4.62.

This might be a little misleading because more games were played in Australia in the early days (pre 1990).

Running the same query again, with a date filter shows:

Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

India are still the top nation for batsmen who average 34.31 @ 5.33 RPO. Sri Lanka is the worst country for batsmen who average 29.35 @ 4.86 RPO. Australia comes a close second at 29.67 @ 4.81 RPO. India has the highest RPO and Australia has the lowest RPO in that time.

If only away or neutral games are looked at, India is still the fastest country to score runs in and Australia is the slowest. However, foreign batters average slightly more in Pakistan and the West Indies than they do in India, suggesting that Indian batsman are significantly better in India than foreigners.

If you look at home averages, New Zealand and the West Indies are at the bottom of the list, while India and South Africa top it (confirming again that India gives its batsmen a significant home advantage). Win loss ratios favour South Africa and Australia, who both have a win/loss ratio of over 2 at home. India come in third. Pakistan and the West Indies are at the bottom of that list, having the worst home records (though this doesn't take into account the UAE for Pakistan).

In tests, it's taken for granted that the pitches make a difference to batsmen and their ability to play. In ODIs, the pitches are more homogenous but there is still some statistically significant variability between countries (and, more specifically, individual grounds).

Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

On a ground by ground basis, the top 3 grounds for batting averages are all in India. All 6 major Australian venues are jammed between the top 2 and bottom 2 New Zealand venues for averages. Things look pretty similar when looking at run rates too.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Don't be ridiculous.
You can literally set the exact same field on a large ground that you will on a small ground by only considering that part of the large ground which is equal in size to the smaller ground and ignoring the area beyond that.

And who does that? The whole point of bigger grounds is that the players can get caught while trying to hit big, I have never ever seen a single match where all fielders are pulled away from the boundaries , not even in test matches.

That gives you an exact equal chance of hitting fours (in fact less because some will stop before reaching the boundary on the larger ground). The fields set in bigger grounds are more optimized, not less. That would be beyond stupid.

That's the whole point , you get an equal or similar chance of hitting a four and then in reality where fielders will actually be close to the boundary, you will get bigger gaps, more chances of stealing a 3 (which nowadays has become quite rare), overthrows will cost more, run outs will be way more difficult, easy to play lofted shots without getting caught etc etc.

It's just that six hitting is hindered by a good amount , apart from that its much ado about nothing

Devilliers and Ponting have the same percent of runs in fours

Actually i just went through the same record of 90s players and the current crop( considering that the older ones had to play on bigger grounds), in most cases the older players actually have a higher percent. That pretty much seals it and the gap is actually quite wide

Percentage of runs in fours ----------
The 1990s crop -
ST JAYASURIYA -44.67
SR Tendulkar - 44.5
Punter -36
Ganguly -39.4
Lara - 40
Inzi -33

The current generation -
Abde - 35
Kohli - 37
Sharma - 36
Amla -40
Taylor - 33 (Smallest grounds, this was something which pretty much sealed the deal for me)

Hitting sixes is way easier but hitting fours is pretty even( actually a tad more difficult nowadays)

 

[ataraxia]

And who does that? The whole point of bigger grounds is that the players can get caught while trying to hit big, I have never ever seen a single match where all fielders are pulled away from the boundaries , not even in test matches.


That's the whole point , you get an equal or similar chance of hitting a four and then in reality where fielders will actually be close to the boundary, you will get bigger gaps, more chances of stealing a 3 (which nowadays has become quite rare), overthrows will cost more, run outs will be way more difficult, easy to play lofted shots without getting caught etc etc.

It's just that six hitting is hindered by a good amount , apart from that its much ado about nothing

Devilliers and Ponting have the same percent of runs in fours

Actually i just went through the same record of 90s players and the current crop( considering that the older ones had to play on bigger grounds), in most cases the older players actually have a higher percent. That pretty much seals it and the gap is actually quite wide

Percentage of runs in fours ----------
The 1990s crop -
ST JAYASURIYA -44.67
SR Tendulkar - 44.5
Punter -36
Ganguly -39.4
Lara - 40
Inzi -33

The current generation -
Abde - 35
Kohli - 37
Sharma - 36
Amla -40
Taylor - 33 (Smallest grounds, this was something which pretty much sealed the deal for me)

Hitting sixes is way easier but hitting fours is pretty even( actually a tad more difficult nowadays)

Look, I'm willing to say that depending on the size of bigger grounds fours can be easier to hit - but that is only at the expense of sixes. Thus the argument that it is easier for batsmen is bullshit.

But even that isn't always the case. You are completely failing to realise that a significant percentage of fours on smaller boundaries wouldn't reach the fence on bigger boundaries.

'I have never ever seen a single match where all fielders are pulled away from the boundaries , not even in test matches.' What about, say, the WC final last ball?

 

[Red]

Okay, 30 meter boundaries...oh what the hell, 10 meter boundaries with 11 fielders . Hit a four now......i dare you

Meet me at an oval with ten of your mates (one a standard club level seconds bowler), we'll set this up, and I'll hit most of them for four.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Stopping every four by placing all my fielders in silly positions

 

[Migara]

Meet me at an oval with ten of your mates (one a standard club level seconds bowler), we'll set this up, and I'll hit most of them for four.

Hitting sixes would be easy. Hitting fours in such instance is difficult. Any half-**** stroke ends up in hands of somebody.

But once the distance in more than 40m I don't think it matters any more.

 

[Burgey]

Okay, 30 meter boundaries...oh what the hell, 10 meter boundaries with 11 fielders . Hit a four now......i dare you
You are completely ignoring how much open spaces matter. I repeat, apart from six hitting every thing else is way more easier on a bigger ground,.

Where the **** can I sign up to open the batting in this scenario? It's ****ing gold.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Look, I'm willing to say that depending on the size of bigger grounds fours can be easier to hit - but that is only at the expense of sixes. Thus the argument that it is easier for batsmen is bull****.

Yeah so that's basically my point, sixes are a lot easier to hit, fours are equally hard.
When did I say that i will prefer a bigger ground? It's just that i didn't agree with people who think hitting fours is easier if you pull in the rope. Apart from hitting six everything else is equally hard( in some cases a tad more difficult on smaller grounds)

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah so that's basically my point, sixes are a lot easier to hit, fours are equally hard.
When did I say that i will prefer a bigger ground? It's just that i didn't agree with people who think hitting fours is easier if you pull in the rope. Apart from hitting six everything else is equally hard( in some cases a tad more difficult on smaller grounds)

With 400m boundaries fours would be nigh on impossible to hit. With 10m boundaries everyone would hit sixes but fours would be pretty easy to hit regardless because reaction time. It's not about percentages of fours it's about the difficulty to hit them.

Any way that this argument turns descends into absurdity because of the stupidity of the debate in the first place. Oh sixes turn into fours is a pretty horrible argument since it has no positive impact on the actual result for the batting side.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How the **** is this still going on

pls stop

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

With 400m boundaries fours would be nigh on impossible to hit.

But think of all those juicy 5s you could hit. It'd be a batsman's paradise!

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah he had this one good knock against NZ and if not for the rain it could've turned into a better knock but then Miller took over after rain. He has been pretty poor apart from that one knock though.

He batted twice in knockouts in the decade. One was the 65* and in the other he was run out by his partner on 35. There was nothing poor from him at all, just one great innings and a lack of sample size.