I don't think the pitch issue is overstated at all, if anything the technique erosion from T20s played more is being pressed too much rather than talent drain in some countries. I don't buy suddenly that batters with decent records in good batting eras (greats aside) prior to the T20 or even ODI influences would carry on fine having to deal with the pitch variety, skilled and deep attacks in home conditions and the existence of DRS as a whole.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Averaging 35 will be accepted again
- Thread starter Flem274*
- Start date
Bumrah averages 32.25 at home in 2 Tests to be fair to him.
Setting a minimum of at least 10 wickets taken for each category (to avoid any part timers messing things up) and the time period to be from 01 Jan 2018 to now. Considering both spinners and pacers in this also.
46 bowlers average under 25 overall.
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
At home, it comes down to 40.
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
Away from home, we have 20 only.
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
Neutral venues (since we did have teams like AFG, PAK and WI play in UAE/India) have had only 6 players who fit.
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
Do consider that since I've only considered limits by time period and wickets taken and not matches played, there will be some bias with small sample sizes. For example in the away section only 1 has played 20+ games away from home (Bumrah), and overall only 7 have played 10+ games away from home.
Ok, so how do we quantify that the pitches have changed?
srbhkshk
International Captain
At least for India, our players like Rahane and Pujara who are mostly away from LOIs have regressed whereas players like Pant and Jadeja who were brought up in the IPL age have done well in the post 2018 phase so I am not sure how much the T20 thing applies in our case.
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
Doing well is 50-100 nowadays and not big centuries and double centuries which is sad and reflective of T20 era. While Rahane and Pujara have regressed now, they still have big hundreds in their career over last ten years while Pant and Jadeja are yet to do something like that.
We start by comparing the frequency of high team scores being made, overall batting averages, runs per wicket in set periods and so on before going in. Take notes on what comments have been made and such. Generally when a lot of people pile on loads of runs the quality of the pitch would have been an important factor.
For example I think it's fair to say the Gabba Test in the 10/11 Ashes was played on a generally batting friendly wicket considering the scores made there. If games like that happen more in some years than others we have something to consider from there.
I don't see how you can quantify high scores = better pitches or vice versa. Far too many variables.
Jadeja - debuted in FC cricket in 2006. Built his technique before the T20 revolution. Pant, doesn't average 40, is a good cricketer with a great eye but is prone to the sort of horrendous mows he exhibited in the WTC final.
cnerd123
likes this
It's clear by watching games that the pitches in the last few years have become more bowler friendly, to coincide with the deterioration in techniques and temperament, and the emergence of some quality bowlers across the world. A happy storm of a multitude of variables. You always have natural fluctuations and variations in all these things, but only when the stars align do we get a rare period of ball over bat dominance.
We can say X pitch favours seam/swing bowling and Y pitch favours spin bowling and Z favours batting and so on with experience and analysis. If we couldn't suggest that a high score and good batting pitches have a strong correlation might as well call any and all cricket punditry and analysis as bunk.
What would be the variables involved that wouldn't be accounted for in a deeper analysis?
This hasn't been shown to be anything more than a theory. The failures against pace bowling doesn't seem to happen with spin bowling overall, SRs/runs per over haven't really changed and not everyone succeeding in Test cricket is free from the T20 influence or vice versa. Talent drain is one thing but this isn't reflected in anything but the batting against pace bowling.
srbhkshk
International Captain
Jadeja literally made his name through T20s, he wasn't a test contender for a long while. For all of Pant's brain farts not a single one of our non-T20 era keepers managed centuries in all three of Australia, SA and England.
Well let's do that then. Let's call off punditry. Because no, high scores and good batting pitches may not have a strong correlation at all. The pitches may have not changed one iota, but batting may have improved markedly. Conversely, low scores do not equal bad batting pitches. It may mean better bowlers, worse techniques, shorter attention spans for batting, etc.
Incidentally, your pitches opinion is a theory. My T20 critique is a theory. The pace bowling generation is a theory. None of it is proven as causation. It's all correlation at best.
Pant for the record has the best batting average out of all of the Indian wicketkeepers who've played 10+ games, and is 4th in terms of total runs scored behind Dhoni, Kirmani and Engineer.
Pitches are by no means the sole factor in deciding everything, but they are a very important factor overall in the grand scheme of things. Teams go out and check the pitch to see what kind it is and so how it might play out and have it affect their decision at the toss, they make plans and select players based on how they think the pitch will play and so on. If pitches weren't as important as you suggest then why would anyone look down on the surface they're going to play on? What does it matter, just be better batters or bowlers, that's all.
Teams have literally said they wanted to/could make pitches good for batting/bowling though, which would be a strange thing to suggest if you think pitches don't have a substantial influence on the game. In recent times we have WI looking to make seamer friendly wickets and NZ wanting pitches more suited for batting as examples either way. We have actual evidence on how balls can move off the pitch based on conditions of both ball and surface, we have actual evidence on how a lot of unpredictable, variable movement either way at any speed can cause trouble to any batter, we have actual evidence where conditions and bowling were so difficult the bar for a good score was very low compared to other games. This is hardly unsupported or imaginary by any means.
Pitches are by no means the sole factor in deciding everything, but they are a very important factor overall in the grand scheme of things. Teams go out and check the pitch to see what kind it is and so how it might play out and have it affect their decision at the toss, they make plans and select players based on how they think the pitch will play and so on. If pitches weren't as important as you suggest then why would anyone look down on the surface they're going to play on? What does it matter, just be better batters or bowlers, that's all.
cnerd123
likes this
The stats show that spin has been more effective in countries known for spin. Partly conditions based, but also batters just not being able to deal with balls that turn off the straight. The batting we've seen in India lately has often been woeful.
Spin has been slightly more effective in parts of the world that have gotten more pace-bowling friendly. The conditions don't suit them and there isn't as much quality and depth, yet they're going alright. If you think about it, there hasn't been that much top quality Test spin going around in the last 4 years. Ashwin, Jadeja, Lyon, then who? Keshav and Ajaz are neutered by the conditions in their home grounds, SL and BD's spinners aren't top quality but can do a job at home, and the rest of the nations have struggled with finding a front line spinner. In any other era we'd see the spin bowling average balloon up, but they've held their own despite this.
I mean they were also on the difficult side of pitches to play spin bowling on in India. It's also harder to play certain kinds of bowling spin or pace when DRS is involved as well. Padding balls away isn't an option anymore, which has been far more influential than anything originating from T20s alone. But even despite all that spin bowling in general hasn't been as effective as pace bowling, especially in recent times.
Overall from 2000 to now spin bowling has averaged 35.17 compared to pace bowling's 31.70. In the last five years that becomes 33.30 for spin bowling and 26.53 for pace bowling. I mean some spinners are fine, but going alright when you have pacers who can average less and strike more often makes picking spinners as genuine wicket taking options less feasible in general and far more conditions dependent. Even here I don't see how T20 batting has affected playing spin substantially enough to matter like it supposedly has for pace bowling which has been where all the problems have been for Test batting now.
At the end of the day, for whatever reason you choose to lean on, Flem is probably spot on with the thread title. 35 will be 'accepted' in that if you're averaging 35 over the next decade, you'll likely be a mainstay of your side.
In fact, once the Kanes, Smiths, Roots etc of that generation retire, averaging 40 will likely be the new 50. Marnus will be the new benchmark, and if people start learning how to catch the chances he gives, 40 odd might be his ceiling too.
In fact, once the Kanes, Smiths, Roots etc of that generation retire, averaging 40 will likely be the new 50. Marnus will be the new benchmark, and if people start learning how to catch the chances he gives, 40 odd might be his ceiling too.
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Pretty funny that there's just been a couple of batting draws and maybe another one coming up.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Especially for the WIs when you watch Brathwaite and Bonner.