Are tons really that impressive in this era?

[Dan]

2010-2015 -- 466 tons, 212 matches, 2.20 centuries per Test
2000-2009 -- 945 tons, 464 matches, 2.04 centuries per Test
1990-1999 -- 547 tons, 347 matches, 1.58 centuries per Test
1980-1989 -- 444 tons, 266 matches, 1.67 centuries per Test
1970-1979 -- 359 tons, 198 matches, 1.81 centuries per Test
1960-1969 -- 298 tons, 186 matches, 1.60 centuries per Test
1950-1959 -- 237 tons, 164 matches, 1.45 centuries per Test
1940-1949 -- 105 tons, 45 matches, 2.33 centuries per Test
1930-1939 -- 161 tons, 89 matches, 1.81 centuries per Test
1920-1929 -- 99 tons, 51 matches, 1.94 centuries per Test


2010-2015 (exc. ZimBang)-- 1341 tons, 662 matches, 2.03 centuries per Test

 

[weldone]

Oh yeah. I thought it was Riggins who had underlined the innings per 100. But yeah, what does innings per 100 really mean?

If 11 players bat in an innings and 1 of them score a century then it's 11/1.

If in a year there are a total of 2000 innings and 100 centuries then it's 2000/100

 

[weldone]

2010-2015 -- 466 tons, 212 matches, 2.20 centuries per Test
2000-2009 -- 945 tons, 464 matches, 2.04 centuries per Test
1990-1999 -- 547 tons, 347 matches, 1.58 centuries per Test
1980-1989 -- 444 tons, 266 matches, 1.67 centuries per Test
1970-1979 -- 359 tons, 198 matches, 1.81 centuries per Test
1960-1969 -- 298 tons, 186 matches, 1.60 centuries per Test
1950-1959 -- 237 tons, 164 matches, 1.45 centuries per Test
1940-1949 -- 105 tons, 45 matches, 2.33 centuries per Test
1930-1939 -- 161 tons, 89 matches, 1.81 centuries per Test
1920-1929 -- 99 tons, 51 matches, 1.94 centuries per Test


2010-2015 (exc. ZimBang)-- 1341 tons, 662 matches, 2.03 centuries per Test

That's better. What about 1900-1919 and before-1900?

 

[Dan]

cbf now that I've closed the StatsGuru windows.

 

[NUFAN]

If 11 players bat in an innings and 1 of them score a century then it's 11/1.

If in a year there are a total of 2000 innings and 100 centuries then it's 2000/100

Weldone, please, I'm not 7 years old.

 

[weldone]

Weldone, please, I'm not 7 years old.

That's why I was surprised to hear the question.

I think innings per 100 is better than 100 per test. Will do a similar one like Dan when I get time.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Could it not be a combination of bigger bats and better outfields? It seems you have far more boundaries hit these days as at many grounds the ball just has to beat the men close in and it races away to the boundary. Might just be my mind playing tricks but for example I seem to remember Graham Thorpe collecting many many 2's and 3's and not be a big boundary scorer but a similar type of player now seems to hit 4 after 4.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Big bats and small boundaries aren't a 2014 thing though... they've been around for a while now. I just think it's a freak year where lots of youngsters have come through and have all hit their stride ( Kohli, Rahane, Williamson, Brathwaite, Root Ballance, Smith) and simultaneously older guys who're just about to retire are all having great swansongs (Younis, Sanga, Chanders etc).

 

[Coronis]

2010-2015 -- 466 tons, 212 matches, 2.20 centuries per Test

2010-2015 (exc. ZimBang)-- 1341 tons, 662 matches, 2.03 centuries per Test

Say what?

Tons are less valuable then in 1877. Charlie forever, Wiggum never.

 

[Spark]

Big bats and small boundaries aren't a 2014 thing though... they've been around for a while now. I just think it's a freak year where lots of youngsters have come through and have all hit their stride ( Kohli, Rahane, Williamson, Brathwaite, Root Ballance, Smith) and simultaneously older guys who're just about to retire are all having great swansongs (Younis, Sanga, Chanders etc).

This seems like it, given that pace bowling is as healthy as it's been in over a decade and we're hardly seeing any draws.

 

[Goughy]

2010-2015 -- 466 tons, 212 matches, 2.20 centuries per Test
2000-2009 -- 945 tons, 464 matches, 2.04 centuries per Test
1990-1999 -- 547 tons, 347 matches, 1.58 centuries per Test
1980-1989 -- 444 tons, 266 matches, 1.67 centuries per Test
1970-1979 -- 359 tons, 198 matches, 1.81 centuries per Test
1960-1969 -- 298 tons, 186 matches, 1.60 centuries per Test
1950-1959 -- 237 tons, 164 matches, 1.45 centuries per Test
1940-1949 -- 105 tons, 45 matches, 2.33 centuries per Test
1930-1939 -- 161 tons, 89 matches, 1.81 centuries per Test
1920-1929 -- 99 tons, 51 matches, 1.94 centuries per Test


2010-2015 (exc. ZimBang)-- 1341 tons, 662 matches, 2.03 centuries per Test

Ha! I just did the same thing without reading the thread first

Most hundreds per test since the 40s (40% increase on the 1990s), current highest overall batting average since the 40s and the most runs per match in history (possibly due to quicker scoring rates).

Decade------Mat--------Runs--------Av--------100--------100s/Mat--------Runs/Mat
2010s--------212--------218164-----32.61-----467--------2.20--------------1029.08
2000s--------464--------459217-----32.02-----945 --------2.04--------------989.69
1990s--------347--------311162-----29.45-----547 --------1.58--------------896.72
1980s--------266--------235573-----30.45-----444 --------1.67--------------885.61
1970s--------198--------188130-----30.76-----359 --------1.81--------------950.15
1960s--------186--------178064-----30.81-----298 --------1.60--------------957.33
1950s--------164--------137508-----27.38-----237-------- 1.45--------------838.46
1940s--------45----------44926------34.26-----105---------2.33--------------998.36
1930s--------89----------81544------31.12-----161---------1.81--------------916.22
1920s--------51----------48620------31.88-----99-----------1.94--------------953.33
1910s--------29----------24591------25.91-----35-----------1.21--------------847.97
1900s--------41----------33133------23.87-----42-----------1.02--------------808.12
1890s--------32----------26149------24.18-----39-----------1.22--------------817.16
1880s--------29----------17618------18.4-------19-----------0.66--------------607.52
1870s--------3------------1837-------17.49-----1--------------0.33--------------612.33

 

[slowfinger]

Great statistical analysis. Hard to draw a definite conclusion however

 

[NasserFan207]

A lot of bowling attacks seem to give up a lot quicker once a batsman looks set these days.

 

[Goughy]

Great statistical analysis. Hard to draw a definite conclusion however

Fair point. I agree.

 

[NUFAN]

A lot of bowling attacks seem to give up a lot quicker once a batsman looks set these days.

No I dont think this it. Its the increase in strike rates which makes batsman set earlier. Im noy suggesting this, but I would enjoy Test cricket more if each fielding team could use an additional 2 fielders.batsman are just so good at finding the gaps..

Edit - it would suck if used negatively though. Think a ring field and negative bowling

 

[vic_orthdox]

Could be associated with the large number of one sided series over the past four/five years?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

No I dont think this it. Its the increase in strike rates which makes batsman set earlier. Im noy suggesting this, but I would enjoy Test cricket more if each fielding team could use an additional 2 fielders.batsman are just so good at finding the gaps..

Edit - it would suck if used negatively though. Think a ring field and negative bowling

Extra fielders must be placed either in the slips or as a short catcher?

 

[BeeGee]

Just increase the team size to 12. That would be awesome for the top sides in the world, like New Zealand, who have such a depth of talent that we have to leave world class players on the bench.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Oh look another two tons by india!..ZZZZZZZZZZZ like i said they are a dime a dozen now!!.

Crap pitches and crap attacks are making these batsmen look like world beaters .

 

[Teja.]

If Australia at home are a crap attack, what are the good attacks now?