Batting - Really that much easier these days?

[sideshowtim]

People cite many reasons as to why batting is easier these days, and they certainly have merit and a lot of them are fair enough. However I think the idea that batting is far easier these days is grossly overplayed. You'd think anyone could score a Test century these days with the way people go on about it...Some reasons that negate the often cited reasons such as batsmen friendly pitches, shorter boundaries, lower bowling quality etc, I feel, are:

1. Increased fielding standards. In general, fielding standards around the world have improved ridiculously of late. This is due in some part to the one day game increasing in prominence, but some of the athleticism in the field from many international sides these days is quite astounding. You might see the odd case of it in older times, but it's nearly an accepted common practice that you have to be a good fielder these days. Fielding is worked on far more at training, and undoubtedly, the standards have improved. This is surely going to save many, many runs, or even catch you and end your innings when it normally wouldn't have ended.

2. Varied conditions. There are currently more places to tour than ever before, and thus more varied conditions to have to grow acclimatised to for batsmen. In older times, this wasn't the case, and with fewer places of travel, it was easier to master the fewer varied conditions. Varied conditions give a whole heap of concerns to batsmen, but the best will still generally master all of them.

3. Shorter tours. Tours are without a doubt shorter these days. You're lucky to get one FC warm up match on a Test tour, and therefore you have very little time to get used to the conditions. In the old days you'd play plenty of FC matches before a tour and thus had longer to get used to, and master the conditions. Not so easy these days, and it is why so many touring sides struggle in places like Australia for mine. A touring ton in a Test these days is worth more than it ever used to be...in my mind.

4. Professionalism of the game leading to a general improvement of bowlers. I feel the 'bowling is poor in the modern era' is extensively overplayed. Professionalism has meant greater depth in all countries bowling stocks. Your average bowler these days is far better than your average bowler in the 70s. There are still many very good bowlers of all varieties in world cricket today too, who I feel would do well in any era. Scoring runs against these guys can't be easy.

Maybe the reason that batsmen score more runs today is because well...They're better than they used to be?

Thoughts? Can anyone add anything else/dispute anything?

What do people think?

 

[Jono]

You're fielding and shorter tour points are spot on. I was thinking about the fielding point the other day as well.

That being said, its not enough to counter two key points. Flat pitches and bat technology.

You mention there are more varied conditions, but the fact is that conditions aren't AS varied as they used to be. Yes we have more countries toured, but in reality is there that much difference in the conditions? NZ and the sub-continent are still pretty unique, but even then there are less square turners in India nowadays IMO. Other than the odd difference, there isn't THAT much separation between WI, Australian and SA conditions.

England's pitches are flat as hell as well, and its only the overhead conditions that give it any variety compared to other nations.

There's just no way you could convince me that players like Jayawardene, Yousuf (as much as I rate him) etc. are better than some of the batsman of the 70s and 80s who average a significant 5-10 runs less.

 

[Dasa]

The bat technology point is very significant imo. A lot of the shots played today wouldn't be possible to play safely a few years ago. That, and shorter boundaries don't just make batting easier, they allow the batsman to be that much more confident.

 

[crickhowell]

You're points are pretty good, as are the points about bat technology.

To be a good bastman in any era your technique needs to be pretty near perfect. This afternoon Silva chanced his arm and took advantage of the better bats and shorter boundaries but his teamates (Attapatu included to some degree) had poor technique and perished. Part of the reason they perished is that they've had little in the way of warm up games and the Australian bowlers are very proffessional, proving two of your points as well.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah I pretty much agree with the majority of the first post Tim.

The only point which I don't really agree on is point number 3, because the bowlers are in the exact same boat most of the time and I think it's harder to come into a test as a bowler under done then as a batsmen.

 

[Sanz]

Technology is a big help to the players these days. If you have a weakness, it is far more easier to analyze it today and show you what you are doing wrong and eventually fixing it with the help of professionals(e.g. Coaches) who are appointed manily for this.

Not only that Technology also helps you in figuring out the opposition in a big big way.

 

[Craig]

How about quality of bowlers? I think that is a very important for one.

 

[bond21]

Theres way less fast bowlers now than in the 70s and 80s.

Brett Lee and Tait are the only 2 who really bowl fast at that standard.

Plus the bats are ridiculously good, even compared to five years ago. Watch the old matches in 88 or whatever and the bats make a clunking sound.

only 2 bouncers an over, benefit of the doubt etc.

 

[Richard]

It's crazy to suggest fielding standards are better now. Ground-fielding standards might be better, but close-catching - the matter of infinitely more importance, especially in Tests - is far worse now than it was 10 years ago. Even the Richie Benauds of this World have acknowledged this. I can recall Tests at a time that went by without drops in the 1990s, sometimes a full series would go by with no more than 3 or 4. Now you sometimes get 8 or 9 going down in a really bad game.

Equally, conditions right now are far, far less varied than ever. Go to South Africa... the pitches are generally flat. Go to Australia... the pitches are generally flat. Go to England... the pitches are generally flat. Heck, even go to New Zealand, the pitches are generally flat. Added to this, cricket-balls of late have been swinging far less than ever, at least conventionally. This is added to by reverse-swing being increasingly well attained, but even this is rarely bowled to devastating effect, and it's also hard to get with a poor cricket-ball.

How anyone can honestly say shorter tours are an advantage to batsmen is beyond me. Bowlers lose far, far, far, far, far more from not having enough bowling than batsmen do by not having enough batting.

And it honestly baffles me that anyone can pointificate that bowling now is better than ever. Sure, training processes may be better than ever, but this is no use without the talent, and there simply aren't enough bowlers around at the current time who possess the accuracy and, yes, to an extent even the speed, that is required for success.

Added to the fact that bats have been getting better by the year (so I'm told) for about the last 20 years (and though this does have both plusses and minuses - mishits travel further, but this does mean more can be caught as well as more going quickly to the boundary) and you have the picture that batting has been ridiculously easy the last 6 years. Quite frankly, there are one hell of a lot of half-decent batsmen out there who could go out and score a few runs in a Test at the current time.

There's loads of decent Test batsmen, AFAIC, around currently who are being made to look like supermen and one or two who wouldn't even be good enough for Tests at most times in history who are being made to look both Test-class and supermen.

But no, I'm not getting into the Hayden debate or any others again.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, its far easier. And no, Ponting is not as good as Lara and Sachin and Hayden is simply the best opener this century but not an all time great opener.

 

[Manee]

Theres way less fast bowlers now than in the 70s and 80s.

Even though I have made my stance clear about how I disagree with this, it cannot be denied that there are far less 65mph trundlers in international cricket than in the 60s, 70s and 80s than now.

Richard was talking about talent, but back in the 60s was there the sheer quality of coaching that has made Ntini redescover his pace? I think this makes up for the so called lack of talent since talent these days is utilised better and for longer. In almost all of cricinfo's biographies, they talk about 'the edge coming off the pace' in the latter years and frankly, this to me means that most of the fast bowlers of yesteryear were not fast for a maybe up to half of their professional careers. A drop in pace would certainly go unnoticed were it for one or two years at the end of one's career.

Furthermore, considering that what we know at 140kph will never be classed as slow or having lost an edge, we can infer that this losing of the edge in pace meant that bowlers who were once quick were reduced to below 135kph.

 

[Richard]

We can never know how many 65mph (or 85mph) bowlers there were before 1998. No-one had reliable timing technology back then. It's very likely that equivalent bowlers then were the same sorts of speeds that they are now. Wicketkeepers are lesser, obviously, and don't stand-up to 75mph anywhere near so often as they used to.

People talk about "the pace dropping off in later years" for 2 reasons: 1, bowlers do lose pace in later years and always have done; 2, people like to make far too much fuss about this (witness the patronising rubbish that's been thrown Shaun Pollock's way the last 5 years or so).

When did Ntini lose his speed BTW? He was bowling in the late 80s in 1998, he was bowling in the late 80s in 2001\02, and he is bowling in the late 80s in front of my very eyes as I type this. There's been a few things that have changed about him down the years (and a lot that hasn't) but speed, UIMM, isn't one of them.

As regards the coaching question in general: as I said, coaching is no use without talent. The opposite doesn't quite apply so: talent is lesser without coaching, undoubtedly, but it's more use (and let's not forget that coaching has never exactly been completely absent - many players have been good self-coaches for instance) in itself than coaching is.

 

[andruid]

Unlike speed or coaching technologies, even pitch conditions how is one supoosed to beck any claims that something so abstract as 'talent' has increased or reduced since the 60s?

 

[Manee]

When did Ntini lose his speed BTW? He was bowling in the late 80s in 1998, he was bowling in the late 80s in 2001\02, and he is bowling in the late 80s in front of my very eyes as I type this.

He has lost his speed toward the very early 80s and late 70s in early 2007 up till the final day of the Second Test against Pakistan. Cricinfo followed his return to pace in an article or two.

He also lost his pace earlier (2005/6 season IIRC) and I remember reading a fine piece by the South Africa bowling coach and Ntini's mentor about how he told that Ntini was charging in in the nets to Smith and the ball was floating out and that he made the comment the he (a former RFM bowler) could bowl faster than Ntini was. He then talked about how he helped Ntini get his weight behind the ball again.

In the comment about trundlers...I know it cannot be proved but I have seen clips of batsmen facing bowlers than are 100% not 75mph. The eye is deceptive but I am confident that the number of trundlers have decreased as the game has professionalised.

 

[Richard]

Unlike speed or coaching technologies, even pitch conditions how is one supoosed to beck any claims that something so abstract as 'talent' has increased or reduced since the 60s?

The amount of talent that's available at a given time changes, this is a given. The calibre of players won't always remain the same - hence, teams go through times of plenty and times of paucity. These times are when there is a mass of talented players and less of them.

Currently, we are in a period where cricket is of a lower standard than it was in the 1990s especially, but also for most of the 1980s and 1970s and 1960s and 1950s and 1940s. And possibly any time since 1900, but that's not a call you can make with any certainty.

I just cannot see how anyone other than an eternal optimist would deny this. If one is realistic, they should accept that cricket is not currently in a vintage state. This, of course, should change again sometime, as it always has on the many similar occasions before this.

 

[Richard]

He has lost his speed toward the very early 80s and late 70s in early 2007 up till the final day of the Second Test against Pakistan. Cricinfo followed his return to pace in an article or two.

He also lost his pace earlier (2005/6 season IIRC) and I remember reading a fine piece by the South Africa bowling coach and Ntini's mentor about how he told that Ntini was charging in in the nets to Smith and the ball was floating out and that he made the comment the he (a former RFM bowler) could bowl faster than Ntini was. He then talked about how he helped Ntini get his weight behind the ball again.

ITSTL. Though obviously last summer (winter over here) anyone was going to be slowed down by the utterly absurd number of games in a short space of time South Africa played.

In the comment about trundlers...I know it cannot be proved but I have seen clips of batsmen facing bowlers than are 100% not 75mph. The eye is deceptive but I am confident that the number of trundlers have decreased as the game has professionalised.

I'm confident that the eye deceives. I've seen plenty of bowlers from the 1950s and 1960s and few could be described as "trundlers" (what I'd think of as sub-70mph). 70mph is seriously slow on the camera. Have you ever watched Bryan Strang?

 

[Manee]

I just cannot see how anyone other than an eternal optimist would deny this. If one is realistic, they should accept that cricket is not currently in a vintage state. This, of course, should change again sometime, as it always has on the many similar occasions before this.

I agree but in the slightly grander picture of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s as one generation, I do think that this is the best generation of cricket. But this is likely subconscious bias from growing up in the era.

PS: I know this is not the correct use of the term generation.

 

[Manee]

ITSTL. Though obviously last summer (winter over here) anyone was going to be slowed down by the utterly absurd number of games in a short space of time South Africa played.

Yes, but it was a biomechanical flaw which caused the major drop in pace. The number of games would probably account for about 3-5mph.

I'm confident that the eye deceives. I've seen plenty of bowlers from the 1950s and 1960s and few could be described as "trundlers" (what I'd think of as sub-70mph). 70mph is seriously slow on the camera. Have you ever watched Bryan Strang?

Yes, I have watched Strang. Boy, was he slow. He was the basis for my judgements on some of the bowlers I watched. There was also a black Zimbabwean around that era who bowled seriously slow 70mph swingers but I can't recall who it was.

 

[Richard]

Mpumelolo Mbangwa I'd imagine.

I've seriously never seen a Test-match bowler who appeared, to the eye and camera, any slower than those two. Alec Bedser, to pick one example, looks appreciably quicker. But the truth is we'll never know.

 

[Richard]

I agree but in the slightly grander picture of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s as one generation, I do think that this is the best generation of cricket. But this is likely subconscious bias from growing up in the era.

PS: I know this is not the correct use of the term generation.

Well, one's own best known will always seem the best. Ask the John Woodcocks they'll say the 1950s were infinitely more enjoyable than now.

Either way, I think to categorise the 2001\02-onwards period with the 1974\75-2001 period as totally wrong TBH. There are clear borders there.