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

[Spark]

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.

I don't think that was being rusty though; that was a combination of not being good enough and an epochal case of the yips.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Yeah but here we are talking about someone getting better as the game goes on, right? NO matter how good the batsman is, if he plays two bad shots and gets out twice in the game, he cant do much after that to get better within that game. But a bowler can bowl very poor stuff for 2 or 3 spells even and then get it all together at the end and be a matchwinner.

Warne pretty much did that against SL in his first real successful spell in test cricket.

 

[Spark]

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.

How do you know that? You have concrete evidence of this?

I said the impact was unquantifiable for a reason. But it would be dishonest to ignore it, it's clearly had a huge impact. Just listen to how every team talks about the impact that Covid bubbles have had on their mental health, and that's just one impact the pandemic has had.

 

[Xix2565]

How do you know that? You have concrete evidence of this?

I said the impact was unquantifiable for a reason. But it would be dishonest to ignore it, it's clearly had a huge impact. Just listen to how every team talks about the impact that Covid bubbles have had on their mental health, and that's just one impact the pandemic has had.

How exactly would it work though? Is Root in a better mindset suddenly going to make tons against Australia when they planned well for him? Same goes for Kohli, I don't think he'd be substantially better just because he's not been overworked as the BCCI's prized horse.

 

[Spark]

How exactly would it work though? Is Root in a better mindset suddenly going to make tons against Australia when they planned well for him? Same goes for Kohli, I don't think he'd be substantially better just because he's not been overworked as the BCCI's prized horse.

I don't really know what to say to this, it's like total bafflement at the idea that mindset has an impact on batsmanship at all.

 

[Xix2565]

I don't really know what to say to this, it's like total bafflement at the idea that mindset has an impact on batsmanship at all.

Mindset is not suddenly going to change the difficult lines and length being bowled at a batter though. You keep ignoring the bowling side of the argument, as if they'd not be as good or consistent without the pressures of COVID.

 

[Spark]

Mindset is not suddenly going to change the difficult lines and length being bowled at a batter though. You keep ignoring the bowling side of the argument, as if they'd not be as good or consistent without the pressures of COVID.

???

Do you think batting is an entirely passive activity, that you just sit there and react to whatever the bowler does with no ability to affect that at all with your own actions? That the output of batsmen is not drastically affected by batsmen across the world being far less prepared, both mentally and prep-wise, for the rigours of Test batting?

I genuinely am utterly bewildered at this. The idea that the pandemic had little to not effect on Test batting in the last two years is so ludicrous as to be barely worthy of serious discussion.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

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.

Graphs mean nothing if the numbers behind them are bunk. And the meaning of numbers is also open to question (ever seen the arguments here?). Numbers can be chosen selectively. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, disentangling different causes that result in one number or another is actually extremely difficult. It is usually possible to come up with multiple explanations that fit a certain set of numbers, and then decideing what they mean often depends on one's prior assumptions (this is not merely a cricket problem, it affects all things using statistics).

So, do Kimber's stats show what he claims and what you claim to the exclusion of other possible explanations?

 

[Flem274*]

global pace bowling stats are impressive because almost everyone has joined the party. australia, south africa and england have historically been reliable for having world class quicks, with the west indies being there for most of their history. there always used to be places to hide though.

india have joined the chat, nz are at their best sincce hadlee and pakistan are hopefully back too.

there's nowhere to hide now, which forces global stats down.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

nz are at their best sincce hadlee

Nothing like the high pace of these bowling attacks to bring out the excitement of fast-bowling. We even got double Pringled.

 

[Xix2565]

???

Do you think batting is an entirely passive activity, that you just sit there and react to whatever the bowler does with no ability to affect that at all with your own actions? That the output of batsmen is not drastically affected by batsmen across the world being far less prepared, both mentally and prep-wise, for the rigours of Test batting?

I genuinely am utterly bewildered at this. The idea that the pandemic had little to not effect on Test batting in the last two years is so ludicrous as to be barely worthy of serious discussion.

Batters react to the bowling they face, not the other way round. When the bowling in general is tight and penetrative, it's hard to do much as a batter even with all the prep, as Australia found out against India in 2017 and 2018/19. I can understand there being stresses from the Covid pandemic, but this was a trend pre pandemic and there's no suggestion so far that it was a blip extended by the pandemic.

I'm baffled that you seem intent on ignoring the contributions of the bowlers to suggest that the batters could plan around it. That is far easier to measure and discuss vs lack of prep and quarantine stresses.

Graphs mean nothing if the numbers behind them are bunk. And the meaning of numbers is also open to question (ever seen the arguments here?). Numbers can be chosen selectively. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, disentangling different causes that result in one number or another is actually extremely difficult. It is usually possible to come up with multiple explanations that fit a certain set of numbers, and then decideing what they mean often depends on one's prior assumptions (this is not merely a cricket problem, it affects all things using statistics).

So, do Kimber's stats show what he claims and what you claim to the exclusion of other possible explanations?

Yes, he has explicitly discussed this in the video and throughout his content on YT and in podcasts.

I'm seriously questioning how many of you can watch or listen to videos.

 

[Starfighter]

I'm questioning your ability to think logically and methodically rather than parroting someone else's half-baked idea.

 

[Xix2565]

I'm questioning your ability to think logically and methodically rather than parroting someone else's half-baked idea.

It's a noticeable trend on several fronts, what is half baked about it? Just because you can't accept reality doesn't mean those numbers and records aren't real. The logic presented isn't something alien either, and it's coming from an analyst who's worked with cricket teams before, and seen a lot of cricket to compare this to his experiences. No one's really made much of an alternate argument either, especially when some of them are touched on and dismissed due to lack of evidence in the video.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

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?

You do know that a fast bowler sends down the ball quicker a batsman would be able to play a shot if he were only looking at the trajectory of the ball, right? In fact, batsmen can predict a great deal about a delivery: it is necessary in order to be able to play genuine fast bowling. Changes of pace rely on upsetting a batsman's prediction, and they are not always successful (indeed, the results can be very spectacular when such is the case).

Taken at its most literally, batsmen cannot force the bowler to definitely bowl in one way or another. However, this is meaningless functionally, in an actual situation. Batsmen may be able to play more than one shot to a particular ball, move around or otherwise defy the bowler's intentions. Furthermore, by playing deliveries a certain way, they can force bowlers to change their method to something less preferred by the bowler, or get a bowler removed from the attack. In reality, batsmen have quite a lot of say in what the bowler does. They are not just passive receipients of a bowler's deliveries.

The batsman's choices and actions may be constrained, but there is a difference between a constrainted choice and, "don't get to decide anything about what is being bowled."

 

[Starfighter]

It's a noticeable trend on several fronts, what is half baked about it? Just because you can't accept reality doesn't mean those numbers and records aren't real. The logic presented isn't something alien either, and it's coming from an analyst who's worked with cricket teams before, and seen a lot of cricket to compare this to his experiences. No one's really made much of an alternate argument either, especially when some of them are touched on and dismissed due to lack of evidence in the video.

Your dismissal of the alternate arguments made here doesn't mean they don't exist, especially with your inability to actually argue your point.

 

[Starfighter]

Also apparently all that advice from coaches about dictating to the bowler is useless, because it's physically impossible according @Xix2565.

 

[sledger]

xix is properly trolling this thread in a way that i could only dream of

well done lad

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Yes, he has explicitly discussed this in the video and throughout his content on YT and in podcasts.

I'm seriously questioning how many of you can watch or listen to videos.

Did you read the italicised part? Has he proved that his explanations are the one most likely to be correct and that we should discard alternatives? And more importantly, has he shown it, not merely said it?

 

[Xix2565]

You do know that a fast bowler sends down the ball quicker a batsman would be able to play a shot if he were only looking at the trajectory of the ball, right? In fact, batsmen can predict a great deal about a delivery: it is necessary in order to be able to play genuine fast bowling. Changes of pace rely on upsetting a batsman's prediction, and they are not always successful (indeed, the results can be very spectacular when such is the case).

Taken at its most literally, batsmen cannot force the bowler to definitely bowl in one way or another. However, this is meaningless functionally, in an actual situation. Batsmen may be able to play more than one shot to a particular ball, move around or otherwise defy the bowler's intentions. Furthermore, by playing deliveries a certain way, they can force bowlers to change their method to something less preferred by the bowler, or get a bowler removed from the attack. In reality, batsmen have quite a lot of say in what the bowler does. They are not just passive receipients of a bowler's deliveries.

The batsman's choices and actions may be constrained, but there is a difference between a constrainted choice and, "don't get to decide anything about what is being bowled."

The point being made ultimately by Kimber is that pace bowling in general has become so good that batters can't properly deal with it and so are getting out to it more and so averaging less. The batters are not suddenly braindead whiteball whackers post 2018 who cannot do any of what you wrote up there, they just cannot adjust well enough to maintain/improve their averages. Bowlers are better overall and more consistent, and they get a lot of additional help that batters can't.

Your dismissal of the alternate arguments made here doesn't mean they don't exist, especially with your inability to actually argue your point.

The arguments being made are misinformed at best to outright idiocy, especially when they pertain to Kimber's video.

Also apparently all that advice from coaches about dictating to the bowler is useless, because it's physically impossible according @Xix2565.

Again, you cosplaying as an idiot is not making your points any more legitimate, especially when you refuse to engage with me properly and avoid providing evidence that would suggest these alternate ideas are somewhat legitimate.

Did you read the italicised part? Has he proved that his explanations are the one most likely to be correct and that we should discard alternatives? And more importantly, has he shown it, not merely said it?

Wtf do you think the video is? Yes, he has made and proven his case and he has actually explained in video why he dismissed alternate explanations. I don't get it, are you all not watching it? The whole point of sharing it on this forum was for you to watch it and think on it. Kimber isn't the only one making this case either.

 

[Spark]

He isn't proving it though. He's simply asserting it, based on the stats. Something like that would take enormous amounts of research to prove, not one YouTube video.

The closest I've seen to someone trying to do so is the Cricviz database but that is by its nature devoid of context and also built on a proprietary data model we can't see or test. And involves more than a single YouTube video.

Don't get me wrong I like Kimber's video but it's "food for thought" at best, the idea that it's proof is absurd.