Besides Root Will Any England Batter Average Over 40 This Decade?

[Xix2565]

Just so you know, I have an opinion and so do you. 'Baffling' probably isn't necessary.

Explain to me how you know T20 'never seemed' to have an effect? Because as I recall, T20 started becoming a real thing both domestically around the world and T20Is around 2010 (little earlier). How could you rule that out being part of the reason Test players aren't as effective? ODIs and T20s, I think you could appreciate, differ in terms of their jump to Test cricket. So that transition doesn't stand up as similarly disruptive.

Jarrod Kimber is a bloke with an opinion, too - just FYI. Smart guy, by the looks.

And you're saying England is a much harder place to bat than New Zealand? So things have changed since Cook, Strauss, Pietersen, Trott, Bell, Collingwood and Prior averaged 40 playing at least half their Tests, if not more at home? That's one generation of players and I just named 7 again who averaged over 40.

It's all good, there's no exact reason for the dip in the 2010s. You take your view, I'll take mine.

It's baffling because the evidence isn't there to support it at all.

Because there hasn't been a noticeable change that can be attributed to T20s or ODIs at all. When T20s became a thing we still had flat pitches good for batting, and even now when things get flat we can see scores of 400+ by Test sides with both all format players and Test specialists cashing in, which wouldn't be the case if short format cricket has degraded everyone.

Jarrod Kimber also has a lot of evidence to show and support his points, which you've handwaved as batting being crap when he's refuted that already.

Yes? Did you just forget how good things have been set up in favour of both English pacers and good opposition pacers to run through sides with swing and seam? Statsguru shows New Zealand at the top of the average runs scored per wicket list, and England just above India in the lower half of the list:

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Yes, 7 bats in one generation averaging over 40 is an indication of batting favoured conditions rather than necessarily good batting on bowling favoured conditions. Things have changed quite a bit from consistent scores of 350+ in Tests, this is the reality.

The exact reason is pretty clearly laid out with proof though. No reason to not believe it.

 

[SteveNZ]

Because there hasn't been a noticeable change that can be attributed to T20s or ODIs at all.

Apart from the 2010s onwards, which is exactly when T20 gained considerable momentum and when this drop in Test batting output, put forth by Kimber, was measured from?

 

[Xix2565]

Apart from the 2010s onwards, which is exactly when T20 gained considerable momentum and when this drop in Test batting output, put forth by Kimber, was measured from?

The drop began around 2018 onwards specifically. From 2010 to end of 2017 every country save WI had an average runs per wicket above 30, and that isn't the case compared to now. Kimber also says in the first minute of his video that the dip in global Test batting average only began from 2018 onwards, as from 2000 to 2017 it had been consistently above 30. About 8 seasons of the IPL had been played in that time, with no real dip in Test batting average until 2018. Kimber later points out how there isn't a disproportionately higher number of Test specialists averaging more than the all format players, which nixes the idea that T20s have ruined batting.

 

[SteveNZ]

Here's my counterargument to that. And that's fine, I think you make good points, as does Kimber, backed by stats.

The 2010-2017 Test players, who were scoring runs, by and large, had established their games somewhat before the T20 revolution started. You point to me the highest scoring run-scorers in that time and I would wager they came into FC cricket in the late 2000s. Your Kane Williamsons, Steve Smiths, Kohlis etc (not Root, he's an anomaly). They built their games on a basis of technique that applied to the format they cared the most about, which was 4-day cricket, or 50-over cricket. Your 2018 and onward cricketer, a lot of them came into domestic cricket when your Big Bashs, Super Smashs, Vitalogy Blasts, IPLs, Ugandan Premier Leagues etc were king. They never built that base of proper stroke play into their games. They tried to whack it, and OK maybe I'll see if that works in Tests too...but ideally it'll land me a few maximums and some cash. Obviously this is a generalised statement, but I think it fits a lot of the generation that I watch. I coach junior cricket too, and I see it. Everyone wants to pump it. The most talented guys, that's where they want to be.

Now I'm not advocating for 'it's all that dastardly T20' rubbish. I acknowledge bowlers are good now. Maybe better than other eras, quite possible. I'd argue, though, that pitches are flatter to maximise TV revenue through Tests and 5-day results. So all in all, yep the run output is down, and I firmly believe (as others do) that the lack of Test output is very strongly due to a poor base of technique and desire and/or knowledge of how to play long innings'.

 

[Xix2565]

I mean if that was really the case you'd see more Test specialists dominating the batting but that isn't the case at all. You cannot say people coming in now are being hurt because they want to be able to earn some money by crash-bang-walloping a white ball when the most successful people are the ones who can do that as well as grind it out against the red ball. The batting really hasn't changed that much, unlike the bowling.

Pitches aren't flatter now either, as shown earlier by the average runs per wicket. More than half of them are below 30, so most innings totals aren't even going past 300 in general, which would be a regular thing if pitches were flat. You cannot just discount the bowling side of the game when it is the side that dictates terms and conditions in Test matches, not batting.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I mean if that was really the case you'd see more Test specialists dominating the batting but that isn't the case at all. You cannot say people coming in now are being hurt because they want to be able to earn some money by crash-bang-walloping a white ball

Really? And this ignores the formation at lower levels, where you may be playing T20s regardless. Furthermore, if you are spending large amounts of time playing in T20 leagues, and particularly if those form the main money-earner [from cricket] for you, chances are your batting game will be geared towards them.

when the most successful people are the ones who can do that as well as grind it out against the red ball.

Not necessarily true. Take the person mentioned in this thread's title: Joe Root. Where did he feature in England's T20 World Cup campaign? He features in the One-day side, but as a big hitter? Conversely and more pointedly, Buttler has been ATG-level in the shorter formats and poor in Tests.

Pitches aren't flatter now either, as shown earlier by the average runs per wicket. More than half of them are below 30, so most innings totals aren't even going past 300 in general, which would be a regular thing if pitches were flat.

The pitches thing may or may not be true. I think Test pitches are more varied now than five years back, but LO pitches are very homogeneous and batting friendly (which makes me think back the 2017/18 ODI series here: the only match Australia won was on a difficult pitch where England was unable to pulverise our bowlers into submission).

Furthermore, how do you distinguish a decline caused by more difficult pitches from one caused by worse batting techniques on the basis of RPW alone? And they could both act at the same time.

You cannot just discount the bowling side of the game when it is the side that dictates terms and conditions in Test matches, not batting.

Bowling sides don't choose the pitch conditions; their choices about the condition of the ball are limited. Yes, the bowler is the one that starts with the ball and the batsman has to respond to the bowler's choice as to where to put it, but 'dictating the terms' has a connotation of control on the part of the bowler which is simply not true.

 

[honestbharani]

My lazy analysis of what is happening is that it is a combination of a few factors, like it often is when such shifts take place.

• Pitches are definitely more bowler friendly as a rule across the world, the flatter tracks are exceptions than norms.
• While we have had T20 for 15 years and IPL for 10 years as we started 2018, the sheer amount of T20 leagues around the world and the level of specialized scientific hitting coaching means that even an all format player has spent a decent chunk of time honing his ability to hit the ball longer and better than previous generations did.
• And lastly, the improvements with the balls themselves too. Dukes and SG have gotten progressively more prominent seams and now the new Kookaburra has something similar too.

The combination of these things has resulted in the numbers being where they are today IMO. And also because, once you have a weakness, bowlers can be all over you given how much more cricket is being played right now and how little FC cricket almost all of these international players play.

 

[Xix2565]

Really? And this ignores the formation at lower levels, where you may be playing T20s regardless. Furthermore, if you are spending large amounts of time playing in T20 leagues, and particularly if those form the main money-earner [from cricket] for you, chances are your batting game will be geared towards them.

Really, Kimber shows it in his video in a graph. Playing T20s regularly or not has no real impact that can be measured, so basically has no impact.

Not necessarily true. Take the person mentioned in this thread's title: Joe Root. Where did he feature in England's T20 World Cup campaign? He features in the One-day side, but as a big hitter? Conversely and more pointedly, Buttler has been ATG-level in the shorter formats and poor in Tests.

Root hasn't struggled just because he played ODIs/T20s, just like Smith/Kane/Kohli/Labu (who's only played ODIs and struggled just fine against India). The point was that some of the best Test bats, let alone good ones have played all formats consistently, just like some haven't. It's to show that the bad techniques from shorter fornats angle isn't well substantiated.

The pitches thing may or may not be true. I think Test pitches are more varied now than five years back, but LO pitches are very homogeneous and batting friendly (which makes me think back the 2017/18 ODI series here: the only match Australia won was on a difficult pitch where England was unable to pulverise our bowlers into submission).

Furthermore, how do you distinguish a decline caused by more difficult pitches from one caused by worse batting techniques on the basis of RPW alone? And they could both act at the same time.

I was referring to Test pitches alone. I don't see how LOI pitches matter here.

The same batters struggling now also played well before 2018, regardless of how much short format cricket they played. Hard to explain the sudden dip as bad techniques infecting everyone at the same time.

Bowling sides don't choose the pitch conditions; their choices about the condition of the ball are limited. Yes, the bowler is the one that starts with the ball and the batsman has to respond to the bowler's choice as to where to put it, but 'dictating the terms' has a connotation of control on the part of the bowler which is simply not true.

The terms and conditions was not meant to be something literal. I agree that bowlers can't do the gardening to get good bowling wickets but for the other part, why not? What can the batter realistically do about a ball that has both pace and variable movement they can't predict? How does the batter control the ball being bowled at them? Batters don't get to decide anything about what is being bowled, so how is saying bowlers dictate the game affording them imaginary control?

 

[Coronis]

• And lastly, the improvements with the balls themselves too. Dukes and SG have gotten progressively more prominent seams and now the new Kookaburra has something similar too.

Just to take this on a bit of a tangent, is it just me or does it seem completely insane that we have different balls in test cricket with clear differences in performance?

 

[Spark]

We can't be blindly talking about post-2018 statistics without putting a big asterisk over half of it called the pandemic. Batsmen need game time and constant practice more than bowlers do; both the huge break and massive disruptions to normal touring schedules and lack of domestic/early tour prep has clearly had a big, but unquantifiable, impact.

Pitches is clearly the big factor, but it's hard to know how much of the post 2018 dip has been artificially amplified by the pandemic.

 

[Xix2565]

We can't be blindly talking about post-2018 statistics without putting a big asterisk over half of it called the pandemic. Batsmen need game time and constant practice more than bowlers do; both the huge break and massive disruptions to normal touring schedules and lack of domestic/early tour prep has clearly had a big, but unquantifiable, impact.

Pitches is clearly the big factor, but it's hard to know how much of the post 2018 dip has been artificially amplified by the pandemic.

I mean the pandemic doesn't affect bowling tactics or pitches, so how much effect it has had is questionable beyond organizational and health related matters.

 

[GIMH]

Batsmen need game time and constant practice more than bowlers do

Is this true? I've never really thought about it.

Obviously batting is very much about having time in the middle, seeing the ball etc. But bowlers who are rusty can often quickly misfire, no?

 

[honestbharani]

I mean the pandemic doesn't affect bowling tactics or pitches, so how much effect it has had is questionable beyond organizational and health related matters.

The thing is, its a lot easier for a bowler to gain form through a game than a batsman. A bad ball may go for a 4 or 6 but a bad shot often means you cant bat again that innings.

 

[honestbharani]

Is this true? I've never really thought about it.

Obviously batting is very much about having time in the middle, seeing the ball etc. But bowlers who are rusty can often quickly misfire, no?

..

The thing is, its a lot easier for a bowler to gain form through a game than a batsman. A bad ball may go for a 4 or 6 but a bad shot often means you cant bat again that innings.

 

[GIMH]

mean the pandemic doesn't affect bowling tactics or pitches

I'll leave bowling tactics to someone else but the idea it doesn't affect pitches is so easily debunked.

Various grounds not been used for starters. Less time spent curating surfaces, certainly in 2020, than would have normally been the case.

 

[Spark]

Is this true? I've never really thought about it.

Obviously batting is very much about having time in the middle, seeing the ball etc. But bowlers who are rusty can often quickly misfire, no?

Yeah my judgment has always been that it's a lot easier to overcome that as a bowler than as a batsman. It takes hours and hours of practice and/or batting out in the middle to fully recover batting rhythm; bowlers can do it much faster than that. Just my view though.

 

[Spark]

I mean the pandemic doesn't affect bowling tactics or pitches, so how much effect it has had is questionable beyond organizational and health related matters.

...you can't see how having much less match practice, truncated domestic schedules, and much rougher tours psychologically and mentally could affect batting, which has a huge psychological component to it?

 

[Xix2565]

The thing is, its a lot easier for a bowler to gain form through a game than a batsman. A bad ball may go for a 4 or 6 but a bad shot often means you cant bat again that innings.

Bowlers have just more control in the game overall tbf.

I'll leave bowling tactics to someone else but the idea it doesn't affect pitches is so easily debunked.

Various grounds not been used for starters. Less time spent curating surfaces, certainly in 2020, than would have normally been the case.

I mean if NZ can still make good batting pitches that's not really a point for the pandemic affecting pitches. You could argue for reusing grounds or having to use lesser used grounds but it's not much of a factor in that regard.

 

[GIMH]

..

A bit of devil's advocate because I don't really disagree with what you and Spark are saying.

But a batsman who gets a golden duck or a pair or whatever on dayboo will probably get another go next time out. Whereas 13 overs (haven't checked the exact number, probably less) of utter filth from Simon Kerrigan ensured he was never near selection again. It is not always a blessing that you get another bite at the cherry.

 

[Xix2565]

...you can't see how having much less match practice, truncated domestic schedules, and much rougher tours psychologically and mentally could affect batting, which has a huge psychological component to it?

I don't see the upside being that substantial if everything was normal though. They're not necessarily going to make runs against good pace bowling just because the mindsets are better.