Advancement in bat technology

[Starfighter]

Greg Chappell used a very heavy bat & 2’3” was never a thing either so take that article for what it’s worth

A light bat in the 80s was 2’6” or so

IIRC in Bradman's Art of Cricket he says a normal weight is 2 lb 4 oz. Geoff Boycott said he used the same, though describes it as light.

 

[GotSpin]

I don’t think so as batting and bowling SRs have improved. Modern bats allow the modern batsman to be more aggressive. More risk faster scoring and less intervals between wickets. In earlier eras batsmen were slower and more patient waiting for the bad ball. Modern batsmen take the initiative.

It seems the measure of batting/bowling averages have been fairly constant over the eras so the bowlers have received some redress for the bigger bats and smaller boundaries. Plus fielding continues to improve.

Ground fielding has improved but do you think slip catching has? Probably declined if anything

Decline in slips catching is far worse for the bowlers

 

[Ali TT]

Reading the thread title and me thinking "what, they've moved on from sonar!?"

 

[TheJediBrah]

Reading the thread title and me thinking "what, they've moved on from sonar!?"

Zubat has evolved into Golbat

 

[the big bambino]

Ground fielding has improved but do you think slip catching has? Probably declined if anything

Decline in slips catching is far worse for the bowlers

It probably progresses in waves. So catching in one year (or another shortish time period) might dip compared to the one proceeding it but my impression is that overall it's improved era on era.

 

[GotSpin]

It probably progresses in waves. So catching in one year (or another shortish time period) might dip compared to the one proceeding it but my impression is that overall it's improved era on era.

Not that I can statistically back it up but I feel like slip catching has probably declined. The strength in slip cordons can’t be as strong as it was in the late 90s and early 2000s

 

[the big bambino]

Not that I can statistically back it up but I feel like slip catching has probably declined. The strength in slip cordons can’t be as strong as it was in the late 90s and early 2000s

To back that up you could use Australia as an example. We had a good set back than so the impression is likely right. The best I've seen were the cordon we had in 74/75 and 75/76. The Chappells, Walters and Mallet in the gully was incredible. The WI of that era were superb too. But I wonder if that's just individual brilliance outshining improved training or techniques. SA are generally good too. I think other countries like NZ and India, not normally known for their fielding, have improved over the years. Pakistan ..? yeah, maybe not much

 

[Starfighter]

To back that up you could use Australia as an example. We had a good set back than so the impression is likely right. The best I've seen were the cordon we had in 74/75 and 75/76. The Chappells, Walters and Mallet in the gully was incredible. The WI of that era were superb too. But I wonder if that's just individual brilliance outshining improved training or techniques. SA are generally good too. I think other countries like NZ and India, not normally known for their fielding, have improved over the years. Pakistan ..? yeah, maybe not much

It also depends on your recollections. Obviously I've only watched highlights, but from what I've seen the 80s WI slip cordon would be average today, if that.

Charles Davis has data on dropped catches overall, and the older data he was able to get (by Bill Frindall for tests in England) has the overall percentage being about 30% in the 70s, compared to 25% or less today.

One thing he confirmed was my impression Australia has slipped recently - we were much worse in 22 and 23 than previous years.

 

[the big bambino]

It also depends on your recollections. Obviously I've only watched highlights, but from what I've seen the 80s WI slip cordon would be average today, if that.

Charles Davis has data on dropped catches overall, and the older data he was able to get (by Bill Frindall for tests in England) has the overall percentage being about 30% in the 70s, compared to 25% or less today.

One thing he confirmed was my impression Australia has slipped recently - we were much worse in 22 and 23 than previous years.

Fair enough though I thought Lloyd, Richards, Richardson and Garner were very good. I remember Benaud praising Australia after either 74/75 or 75/76 saying the catching was magnificent and you wouldn't want to be a swallow flying past our slip cordon that year as they caught everything. But overall I think catching is better and generally across all countries. I hope our catching, as well as batting, improves against India and England.

 

[shortpitched713]

Given this, shouldn't this generation of bowlers get an uptick just for that, in comparison to the older guys, even the 80s and 90s bowlers ?

Bowler skill, is of course always increasing at a faster rate than batsmen skill. The technology of bats has always been improving, since the early years of Test cricket, as well as rules changes almost always favoring batsmen.

Yes, James Anderson circa 2020 knows more about bowling and is a more capable bowler than Richard Hadlee circa 1985 if you just transported him in a time machine.

I don't think anyone seriously uses those above facts to rate Anderson over Hadlee though. We just accept that bowlers are always getting better over the years, and only rate them in comparison to peers.

 

[Starfighter]

Bowler skill, is of course always increasing at a faster rate than batsmen skill.

An assertion without evidence. Don't come back till you've found some.

 

[Coronis]

Yes, James Anderson circa 2020 is a more capable bowler than Richard Hadlee circa 1985

Ok

 

[shortpitched713]

An assertion without evidence. Don't come back till you've found some.

This **** is obvious for those not blinded by the fallacy of "all things equal".

Bouncer rules, bat size, even introduction of sight screen. Every single major piece of technology in the game ( even more cameras on the field that help sniff out ball tampering ), favors the batting side at the expense of the bowlers.

The bowlers have always had the same exact tools, the ball, their bodies and their minds. They still keep up, which is a testament to the fact that their skill is increasing faster than the batsmen. Which makes sense, because they initiate and have control to direct the action of play (the delivery).

 

[Coronis]

This **** is obvious for those not blinded by the fallacy of "all things equal".

Bouncer rules, bat size, even introduction of sight screen. Every single major piece of technology in the game ( even more cameras on the field that help sniff out ball tampering ), favors the batting side at the expense of the bowlers.

The bowlers have always had the same exact tools, the ball, their bodies and their minds. They still keep up, which is a testament to the fact that their skill is increasing faster than the batsmen. Which makes sense, because they initiate and have control to direct the action of play (the delivery).

I tend to agree. DRS has made batting a lot easier I feel.

 

[shortpitched713]

I tend to agree. DRS has made batting a lot easier I feel.

I don't know about lot easier as it's just removing error not really changing much of rules, but batsmen are more successful in DRS challenges than bowlers, which seems a bit strange but whatever. I feel like a certain amount of "benefit of doubt favoring batsmen", is still inherent in the rules of how/when DRS can be used and enforced with umpire's call.

 

[Coronis]

I don't know about lot easier as it's just removing error not really changing much of rules, but batsmen are more successful in DRS challenges than bowlers, which seems a bit strange but whatever. I feel like a certain amount of "benefit of doubt favoring batsmen", is still inherent in the rules of how/when DRS can be used and enforced with umpire's call.

I was being sarcastic

 

[shortpitched713]

I was being sarcastic

Was thinking you might be going that way.

From Wikipedia:

Player Review statistics
An analysis of more than 2,100 Player Reviews between September 2009 and March 2017 found that:[64][65]

• 26% of Player Reviews resulted in on-field decisions being overturned.
• Reviews by batsmen were less frequent than reviews by bowling teams, as 41% of reviews were by batsmen and 59% by bowling teams.
• Reviews by batsmen were more likely to be successful, with a 34% success rate, compared to a success rate of about 20% for bowling teams.
• 74% of referrals were for LBW, 18% for wicketkeeper catches, and the rest for catches elsewhere or indeterminate reason. The success rate was only 22% for LBW, compared to 40% for wicketkeeper catches.
• There were on average about 1.4 batting overturns and 1.2 bowling overturns per match. Initial fears that DRS would bring an increase in the number of dismissals have, therefore, not come true.
• The UDRS claims to have 90% accuracy [66]

I'm confused as to how more batting overturns per match than bowling overturns is helping bowlers. It's leveling out some inherent biases, i.e. spinners can finally buy an lbw, but it's taking away from bowlers just as much if not more, than it's giving.