Which aspects of test cricket have regressed in the current era?

[Immenso]

Conversion rates from 50 to 100 has gotten worse in the last 20 years , definitely...
Joe Root struggled with it for a long time , De Villiers struggled with it , We've got players like Bavuma who have 1 test hundred in the entire career, I think Dickwella of Sri Lanka is closing in on Warne's record of most test runs without a test hundred ..I don't know if stats will back this up but it feels like more and more of the current batsmen get complacent in the 50-99 mark than ever before .

My instinct was that this would be statistically false. My instinct was that the faster pace of scoring, so less mental and physical fatigue, would offset the technical looseness.

But it appears to be true. Using the same space 10 years apart.
10 to 15 years ago the conversion rate was 50%, currently (last 6 and bit years) the conversion rate is 43%.

Mostly due to:
- on percentage: South Africa and Sri Lanka huge batting decline.
- on quantity: England's slightly less dramatic decline, but sheer volume, will affect the overall stats a fair amount.

(Only NZ and Bangladesh dramatic improvers)

 

[Burgey]

Preponderance of finger spinners is a massive regression for the sport.

 

[subshakerz]

I haven't checked the stats but it certainly feels like the home country wins more test now than 20 years ago.

Feels like the opposite. Winning away tests used to be more difficult.

 

[Coronis]

My instinct was that this would be statistically false. My instinct was that the faster pace of scoring, so less mental and physical fatigue, would offset the technical looseness.

But it appears to be true. Using the same space 10 years apart.
10 to 15 years ago the conversion rate was 50%, currently (last 6 and bit years) the conversion rate is 43%.

Mostly due to:
- on percentage: South Africa and Sri Lanka huge batting decline.
- on quantity: England's slightly less dramatic decline, but sheer volume, will affect the overall stats a fair amount.

(Only NZ and Bangladesh dramatic improvers)

View attachment 34993

Apart from anything else, we simply had better batsmen playing then. There are a ridiculous number of ATGs/close to who were playing back then. NZ has of course been at its strongest in Test history, particularly in batting. Bangladesh still has Tamim and Shakib, and their other batsmen have improved markedly.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

In response to the question, "Which aspects of test cricket have regressed in the current era?...what parts of the game can we say have definitely become worse in the past 20 years?"

You said, "Nations like...England...just don't have the same quantity of quality of Test batsmen that they had 10-15 years ago."

I pointed out that England has one of its strongest batting line ups in the last 50 years, or words to that effect.

I was right, and you citing the poor quality of England batsmen as evidence of a decline in the standards of test cricket in the modern era was misguided, and in fact wrong.

The fact that you think that your statistic of a top 7 batting line up in 2011 having a combined career average of 343 is more impressive than my statistic of a current England top 7 having an average in the last 12 months of 387 is neither here nor there.

England don't have as many quality batsmen as they had 10-15 years ago. England had 7 batsmen averaging 40+ over an extended period back then. They currently have 1.

Whether you like it or not that is an example of a decline in the quantity of quality batsmen.

The only batsmen in England's current lineup that would get into England's 2011 side on batting alone is Joe Root. Stokes would probably replace Collingwood for his allround abilities.

You're the one who pushed the form average vs career averages stuff. Not me. Form is temporary. Class is permanent.

 

[subshakerz]

England's batting is a lot better now than 80s and likely even 90s.

 

[Brook's side]

England don't have as many quality batsmen as they had 10-15 years ago. England had 7 batsmen averaging 40+ over an extended period back then. They currently have 1.

Whether you like it or not that is an example of a decline in the quantity of quality batsmen.

The only batsmen in England's current lineup that would get into England's 2011 side on batting alone is Joe Root. Stokes would probably replace Collingwood for his allround abilities.

You're the one who pushed the form average vs career averages stuff. Not me. Form is temporary. Class is permanent.

No I haven't pushed form average v career average.

You posted career averages. Without having seen that post (and not responding to it) I posted averages over a 12 month period. You then endeavoured to reduce the discussion to a contest between those two sets of figures (albeit whilst introducing further irrelevant numbers such as the batting averages of the bowlers in the teams).

For what it's worth, I actually agree with you and if there was the choice, I'd be more likely to choose a combined career average of 343 over a 12 month average of 387.

I actually also agree that that 2011 line up was probably stronger than the current line up. I's also probably choose England's 2005 line up over the current one.

But those are probably the only 2 England batting line ups that I would pick over the one which England might pick this summer, over the last 50 years.

Whilst I recognise therefore that the my assertion that the current line up is the strongest in 15 years was probably technically incorrect, the essence of my point is completely valid, which is that your assertion that the current state of the England batting line up demonstrates a decline in the standard of test cricket in the current era, is a load of nonsense.

 

[Line and Length]

Many countries have current batsmen (eg Root, Smith, Kohli, Williamson) that would figure in ATG team conversations. Similarly we have bowlers (eg Cummins, Bumrah, Rabada, Anderson, Jadeja, Ashwin) who would be considered. I see this as a positive sign that standards aren't declining as severely as some would suggest.

 

[Brook's side]

You literally said the last 12 months so I got the stats for the last 12 months.

If you sort from June 1st 2022 and use the top 7 batters

Primary team England

Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 Jun 2022

Batting position between 1 and 7

Grouped by team

Team	Players	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
England	17	12	150	14	5862	186	43.10	7726	75.87	18	26	12	719	76

Primary team England

Start of match date between 1 Sep 2010 and 1 Sep 2011

Batting position between 1 and 7

Grouped by team

Team	Players	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
England	10	12	115	12	6150	294	59.70	10878	56.53	21	27	8	717	14

It's virtually the same difference.

Sep 2010 to Sep 2011 Overall figures

Player	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
IR Bell	12	16	4	1164	235	97.00	1838	63.32	5	5	1	140	4
AN Cook	12	17	1	1504	294	94.00	2931	51.31	6	4	0	162	1
KP Pietersen	12	16	1	1055	227	70.33	1633	64.60	3	5	1	139	3
IJL Trott	10	15	2	810	203	62.30	1613	50.21	3	3	1	90	0
MJ Prior	12	15	3	653	126	54.41	773	84.47	3	3	2	68	4
TT Bresnan	5	5	1	193	90	48.25	336	57.44	0	2	0	30	1
EJG Morgan	7	10	1	362	104	40.22	619	58.48	1	3	2	40	3
SCJ Broad	9	8	1	239	74*	34.14	254	94.09	0	3	3	32	2
AJ Strauss	12	17	0	563	110	33.11	1248	45.11	1	4	2	71	1
GP Swann	12	9	1	147	36*	18.37	179	82.12	0	0	0	16	1
CT Tremlett	7	6	3	47	24*	15.66	98	47.95	0	0	0	5	0
PD Collingwood	5	6	0	83	42	13.83	178	46.62	0	0	0	8	0
JM Anderson	11	10	2	70	27	8.75	191	36.64	0	0	1	10	0

Jun 1st 2022 to present Overall figures

Player	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
HC Brook	6	10	0	809	186	80.90	819	98.77	4	3	1	101	20
JM Bairstow	6	11	2	681	162	75.66	705	96.59	4	1	1	89	13
JE Root	12	21	4	1059	176	62.29	1409	75.15	4	4	1	116	10
BM Duckett	5	10	1	508	107	56.44	532	95.48	1	4	1	63	3
BT Foakes	9	14	3	428	113*	38.90	826	51.81	1	3	3	46	0
OJ Pope	12	22	1	809	145	38.52	1092	74.08	2	5	1	95	6
BA Stokes	12	20	2	651	103	36.16	892	72.98	1	2	1	73	19
Z Crawley	12	23	1	569	122	25.86	833	68.30	1	2	2	93	0
AZ Lees	7	13	0	327	67	25.15	592	55.23	0	2	0	45	1
OE Robinson	7	10	1	168	39	18.66	218	77.06	0	0	0	21	1
SCJ Broad	9	12	0	172	42	14.33	191	90.05	0	0	0	23	4
MJ Leach	12	15	7	69	15	8.62	182	37.91	0	0	3	10	0
MJ Potts	5	6	2	30	19	7.50	64	46.87	0	0	1	3	1
JM Anderson	10	11	4	50	9	7.14	88	56.81	0	0	1	7	0

I'd previously not seen this post.
Noted. I acknowledge that these figures trump the ones which I cited for the current line up. And glorious they are to see too. But this comparison does not substantiate your assertion that the current england batting line up demonstrates a decline in the standards of test cricket.

 

[Ali TT]

Scoring fast isn't that much of a virtue in itself. Alastair Cook could never do run-a-ball hundreds by just after lunch on Day 1 but like **** are you going to tell me that the likes of Crawley, Duckett and Pope are in the same league as he was as a Test batsman.

It's fun and great and all but there are other ways to win games of cricket.

In 12 tests including the 2010 Ashes through to the victory at home over India, England racked up scores of 517/1, 620/5, 513, 644, 496/5, 486, 474/8, 544, 710/7, 591/6.

As good as BazBall has been over the past year, it can't compete with that side for sheer weight of runs.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

How about spin bowling? Is there any team with a better spinner now than they had say 15-20 years ago?

The answer maybe India, but if you include Kumble then he'd be at least the match of Ashwin.

Collectively - Warne, MacGill, Murali, Kumble, Harbhajan Singh, Mushtaq Ahmed, Saqlain Mushtaq, Daniel Vettori.....was a strong era for spinners that 1990s - mid/late 2000s era. There isn't the quality nowdays with the spinners collectively.

But on that note, good to see spinners Swepson, Kuhnemann and Murphy get opportunities in recent times.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

I'd previously not seen this post.
Noted. I acknowledge that these figures trump the ones which I cited for the current line up. And glorious they are to see too. But this comparison does not substantiate your assertion that the current england batting line up demonstrates a decline in the standards of test cricket.

The thread was asking about the regression in the last 20 years. Not the last 100 or the last 50. My assertion was that the batting lineups of those teams I listed don't have the same number of quality of batsmen that they used to have. Hence a decline in the period of time listed.

The drop off between the top echolen of Test batters and the upper middle tier seems a lot greater then what it was 20 years. Lower order runs in recent times have often saved teams from the lack of performances from top and middle order batsmen.

 

[Spark]

The drop off between the top echolen of Test batters and the upper middle tier seems a lot greater then what it was 20 years. Lower order runs in recent times have often saved teams from the lack of performances from top and middle order batsmen.

Part of this is the result of pitches being much more bowler friendly than they were in that late 00s era. You really didn't have to be all that great to average above 40 in Tests at that time by feasting on the plethora of absolutely dismal roads that were the norm; now a high 30s average takes some work to maintain.

 

[Brook's side]

The thread was asking about the regression in the last 20 years. Not the last 100 or the last 50.

So your view is that test cricket gradually improved until around 10-20 years ago, when it peaked and has since declined?

That's not my take on the intention of the thread, which seems to be arguing that test cricket has always maintained a certain standard, which has suddenly fallen off in the last few years, rather than arguing that test cricket was at its performance zenith around 2010.

 

[_00_deathscar]

In 12 tests including the 2010 Ashes through to the victory at home over India, England racked up scores of 517/1, 620/5, 513, 644, 496/5, 486, 474/8, 544, 710/7, 591/6.

As good as BazBall has been over the past year, it can't compete with that side for sheer weight of runs.

That’s cos they beat up on poor attacks (in some incidents) on flatter tracks.

 

[Ali TT]

That’s cos they beat up on poor attacks (in some incidents) on flatter tracks.

That's one argument, although considering this thread's topic generally, I wonder more that today's attacks are just beating up poor lineups on favourable wickets

 

[Spark]

That's one argument, although considering this thread's topic generally, I wonder more that today's attacks are just beating up poor lineups on favourable wickets

I think this line of argument starts to become very circular very quickly. I'd generally call the late 00s/early 10s a real nadir as far as Test bowling goes.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

So your view is that test cricket gradually improved until around 10-20 years ago, when it peaked and has since declined?

That's not my take on the intention of the thread, which seems to be arguing that test cricket has always maintained a certain standard, which has suddenly fallen off in the last few years, rather than arguing that test cricket was at its performance zenith around 2010.

I think there are ebbs are flows from generation to generation. Some generations will have higher quantity of quality players then others. I don't think the median/average standard remains linear no matter what.

There is also the influence of money in Twenty20 leagues which wasn't around 20 years ago, which does affect the mindset, technique and priorities of players.

 

[Brook's side]

I think there are ebbs are flows from generation to generation. Some generations will have higher quantity of quality players then others. I don't think the median/average standard remains linear no matter what.

There is also the influence of money in Twenty20 leagues which wasn't around 20 years ago, which does affect the mindset, technique and priorities of players.

No doubt the game is changing.

My instinct is that opening batsmen of test standard are becoming fewer, but that middle order batsmen may be reaching standards which they previously didn't.

For example, I'm doubtful that Root would be the player that he is now (or pre-Bazball) had he played in the 80s, 90s or even 00s.

 

[Brook's side]

I'll give you another change in test cricket if you want.

You used to get a lot of 3s. Even a few all run 4s.