Are tons really that impressive in this era?

[cnerd123]

Pretty flat pitch, but Aus has bowled well and Kohli and Rahul played quite well to record their tons.

 

[Daemon]

Harris bowled better in this test on a flat deck than any West Indian has for years

 

[Red]

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 .

Don't rate Kohli?

 

[WindieWeathers]

Don't rate Kohli?

He's clearly a very good player but i haven't seen anything change in his game that tells me he wouldn't get exposed in England again.

But this is not about Kohli..it's about cricket in general and how tons are being scored like it's nothing these days!!..gets boring and questions have to be asked about the quality of the pitches and bowling attacks in the current climate.

 

[Noah]

He's clearly a very good player but i haven't seen anything change in his game that tells me he wouldn't get exposed in England again.

I don't think that is really true. From what I've seen of Kohli in England and Kohli now, he has moved across his stumps more to protect them, which is one the most important corrections a batsmen has to make if he is nicking the ball too much. Obviously you can't judge its effectiveness until he has to face similar bowling but he has certainly adjusted his game in response to his struggles in England.

But this is not about Kohli..it's about cricket in general and how tons are being scored like it's nothing these days!!..gets boring and questions have to be asked about the quality of the pitches and bowling attacks in the current climate.

I assume you're implying that the pitches are flat and bowling attacks are weak, which isn't entirely true and certainly isn't the main reason for the excess of runs. A very high percentage of games are producing results, which would indicate that the pitches aren't all flat batting heavens and I'd say the quality of the bowling attacks around the world are actually relatively strong at the moment (certainly compared to other years in the noughties). If you're concerned about boring run-fests, I think the answers lie elsewhere and have already been raised by others in this thread: bigger bats; better and faster outfields; shorter boundaries; and a glut of in-form batsmen.

 

[Blocky]

Bigger bats also have the disadvantage of edges carrying much further, meaning a lot more snick-offs in todays game as well as the ones that float off the leading edge over the field. I think it's helped scoring rates bigtime but I'm not entirely sure it's reduced the likelihood of you hitting catches to fielders, etcetera.

In saying that, seeing two young guys go out and break every record imaginable, while another old guy who was on his last legs before the series go and score a fifty in pretty much every innings indicates that either the pitches are horrible ( which I think is partially the issue ) or the fact that both sides don't want to admit, the bowling attacks simply aren't that good.

Johnson has lost his mojo, especially against batsmen who aren't effected by sledging and hostile bowling. Harris has been great but he's never going to run through sides on good batting conditions - as much as Lyon seems to be credited, he bowls some horrible **** at times too.... and that's the Aussie team who have a bowling attack about 15 times better than the one we're seeing from India.

Bhuvi bowling 115kph throughout most of his spell? Nathan Astle was quicker.

 

[Noah]

Bigger bats also have the disadvantage of edges carrying much further, meaning a lot more snick-offs in todays game as well as the ones that float off the leading edge over the field. I think it's helped scoring rates bigtime but I'm not entirely sure it's reduced the likelihood of you hitting catches to fielders, etcetera.

I think bigger (or better quality to be more accurate) bats makes it easier to score runs because you can mis-hit a shot or throw your bat at it and still have a degree of confidence that it will beat the in-field or even clear the rope. It also means that good shots which might have once earned 2 or 3 runs are comfortable boundaries these days. I think the bat issue probably applies more to ODIs and T20s but it definitely makes scoring runs easier at all levels of the game.

 

[Blocky]

I think bigger (or better quality to be more accurate) bats makes it easier to score runs because you can mis-hit a shot or throw your bat at it and still have a degree of confidence that it will beat the in-field or even clear the rope. It also means that good shots which might have once earned 2 or 3 runs are comfortable boundaries these days. I think the bat issue probably applies more to ODIs and T20s but it definitely makes scoring runs easier at all levels of the game.

The counter point to that though is that smaller bats edges may not have carried into the slips cordon, or ballooned into the air when hit on the splice, or stayed in the air so long when mis-timing a drive towards mid off. Bowlers strike rates have stayed the same since about 1950-1960 - it's really just the scoring rates that have changed.

 

[TNT]

Could we devalue taking a 5 for in the 80/90's just as easily. We counter the bigger bat argument with the pitch condition and the batsmen were obviously weaker.

 

[Noah]

The counter point to that though is that smaller bats edges may not have carried into the slips cordon, or ballooned into the air when hit on the splice, or stayed in the air so long when mis-timing a drive towards mid off.

That's true but it comes down to what the balance between that advantage and disadvantage is.

For the batsmen, better bats provide an advantage to almost every scoring shot they play. So it is an advantage that gets applied very regularly in every innings. Whereas the disadvantage is that a few half-chances for catches now become wickets. But that disadvantage seems like it would only apply to a small percentage of a batsman's dismissals and overall would only marginally increase his likelihood of being dismissed.

On balance it would seem to me that better bats offer far more of a benefit to batsmen and the small increase in edges carrying is outweighed by the ease of scoring runs.

Bowlers strike rates have stayed the same since about 1950-1960 - it's really just the scoring rates that have changed.

But its not just the scoring rates that have changed. If bowlers are striking with the same regularity but batsmen are scoring quicker, then the total runs scored will change too. Which is reflected in the increase in batting averages and number of centuries being scored.

 

[Blocky]

Could we devalue taking a 5 for in the 80/90's just as easily. We counter the bigger bat argument with the pitch condition and the batsmen were obviously weaker.

Or devalue Bradman on the basis that the first time a bowling attack used a plan against him to stop him scoring, he only managed to half his average where as today, you're constantly under scrutiny of video analysis, planning and such about your weaknesses.

I think your only comparison is against their contempories. Guys like Kohli, Smith, Sanga, Williamson (of late) are all playing a lot better than other contempories at the moment.

 

[Blocky]

That's true but it comes down to what the balance between that advantage and disadvantage is.

For the batsmen, better bats provide an advantage to almost every scoring shot they play. So it is an advantage that gets applied very regularly in every innings. Whereas the disadvantage is that a few half-chances for catches now become wickets. But that disadvantage seems like it would only apply to a small percentage of a batsman's dismissals and overall would only marginally increase his likelihood of being dismissed.

On balance it would seem to me that better bats offer far more of a benefit to batsmen and the small increase in edges carrying is outweighed by the ease of scoring runs.



But its not just the scoring rates that have changed. If bowlers are striking with the same regularity but batsmen are scoring quicker, then the total runs scored will change too. Which is reflected in the increase in batting averages and number of centuries being scored.

Sure - but that would mean maybe a 65-70 turns into a tonne... you've still got the early innings period to get through and the chance of being gotten out. I also think (until very recently) you didn't see so many big hundreds, a double hundred was a rare occurence and a triple hundred was ultra rare - where as they were a lot more common in previous eras.

 

[Noah]

Could we devalue taking a 5 for in the 80/90's just as easily. We counter the bigger bat argument with the pitch condition and the batsmen were obviously weaker.

Malcolm Marshall and Curtley Ambrose were definitely a *whatever the bowler's version of a flat-track bully is*.

 

[Howsie]

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

Bangladesh obvs.

 

[Noah]

Sure - but that would mean maybe a 65-70 turns into a tonne... you've still got the early innings period to get through and the chance of being gotten out.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at here.

I also think (until very recently) you didn't see so many big hundreds, a double hundred was a rare occurence and a triple hundred was ultra rare - where as they were a lot more common in previous eras.

I don't think so. Big hundreds have been far more common in the last 15 years than they have been in any era since the 1930s.

Decade.........200+.........200+ per Match
2010s............48............0.23
2000s............94............0.20
1990s............34............0.10
1980s............35............0.13
1970s............26............0.13
1960s............21............0.11
1950s............27............0.16
1940s............7..............0.16
1930s............28............0.31

 

[Athlai]

100+ scores by continent

2010s

Continent.......100+......per Match
Americas........25.........1.25
Asia.........,.....203.......2.57
Africa.............62.........2.00
Europe...........65.........1.86
Oceania.........114........2.43

2000s

Continent.......100+......per Match
Americas........122.......2.39
Asia.........,.....335.......2.02
Africa.............135.......1.78
Europe...........151.......2.16
Oceania.........202.......2.00

1990s

Continent.......100+......per Match
Americas........56.........1.37
Asia.........,.....146.......1.54
Africa.............77.........1.32
Europe...........101.......1.77
Oceania.........167.......1.76

1980s

Continent.......100+......per Match
Americas........52.........1.73
Asia.........,.....158.......1.62
Africa.............DNP.......DNP
Europe...........92.........1.61
Oceania.........142........1.73

1970s

Continent.......100+......per Match
Americas........73.........2.15
Asia.........,.....80.........1.67
Africa.............6...........1.50
Europe...........76.........1.62
Oceania.........124........1.91


On the 2010s

Seems like England sees 100s about as often as ever, West Indies is in a trough because they're terrible. Oceania is running high as well, Australia (2.43) has gotten flatter and NZ (2.42) have found a few world class batsman and have pitches that last 5 days. Africa on a slight high, probably due to the tail end of Kallis meeting the ATG SA bats of Amla and AB.

Asia more than ever (UAE 2.67, Ind 2.5, SL 2.31, Ban 2.88).

 

[Jono]

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 .

**** post.

 

[WindieWeathers]

I don't think that is really true. From what I've seen of Kohli in England and Kohli now, he has moved across his stumps more to protect them, which is one the most important corrections a batsmen has to make if he is nicking the ball too much. Obviously you can't judge its effectiveness until he has to face similar bowling but he has certainly adjusted his game in response to his struggles in England.



I assume you're implying that the pitches are flat and bowling attacks are weak, which isn't entirely true and certainly isn't the main reason for the excess of runs. A very high percentage of games are producing results, which would indicate that the pitches aren't all flat batting heavens and I'd say the quality of the bowling attacks around the world are actually relatively strong at the moment (certainly compared to other years in the noughties). If you're concerned about boring run-fests, I think the answers lie elsewhere and have already been raised by others in this thread: bigger bats; better and faster outfields; shorter boundaries; and a glut of in-form batsmen.

Well you're entitled to your opinion but i'll still stick with mine thanks.

 

[WindieWeathers]

**** post.

Why you mad bro?

 

[social]

Sort of agree with WW here

Smith and Kohli are very good but ..........