Best match saving innings you have seen

[Ikki]

Love reading my own opinions being ranted by Burgey.

This comparison between the eras has, thankfully, gotten to the point where most people see it as exaggerated and quite ridiculous. As has been said, if you really want to talk about "attacks", as in a group of bowlers, there's little difference between the 00s and the 70s or 80s, really.

In terms of ratios of bowlers (averages and SRs) averages have gone up about a couple runs between the decades, but also the SRs are getting faster and faster; something often overlooked. So in fact, it's not that it's harder to get batsmen out; bowlers are actually doing that faster. It's just that batsmen are making more runs while at the crease. Goughy and I have argued plenty of times one of the most important differences is that the batsmen have different approaches nowadays and have cut down risk whilst increasing run opportunities.

 

[Richard]

But if you're not good enough to trouble them, then they must be too good for you. Be it on the day or in general.

Surely one must follow t'other. In fact, one IS t'other.

Nah. As I say, bowler bowls, batsman bats. The bowler can always be too good for the batsman... if he's good enough. As it were.

If the bowler does not bowl, the batsman cannot bat. But the bowler can bowl whenever he wants to.

 

[Richard]

Again, you're making assumptions about what other people are thinking...surely it's logical that actually, they just summise from what you write that your opinion is whatever they state that they believe it is. if that makes any sense. It certainly does in my head.

I certainly don't 'want' you to have written anything or nothing - I just reply to what I think you've said/are suggesting

Maybe you do; I guess we can't really be certain about what anyone else is doing apart from ourselves. You're right that I can't be certain about what other people are thinking; I'm making what seem to me to be logical deductions the same way they might be.

 

[Uppercut]

Love reading my own opinions being ranted by Burgey.

This comparison between the eras has, thankfully, gotten to the point where most people see it as exaggerated and quite ridiculous. As has been said, if you really want to talk about "attacks", as in a group of bowlers, there's little difference between the 00s and the 70s or 80s, really.

In terms of ratios of bowlers (averages and SRs) averages have gone up about a couple runs between the decades, but also the SRs are getting faster and faster; something often overlooked. So in fact, it's not that it's harder to get batsmen out; bowlers are actually doing that faster. It's just that batsmen are making more runs while at the crease. Goughy and I have argued plenty of times one of the most important differences is that the batsmen have different approaches nowadays and have cut down risk whilst increasing run opportunities.

I think that's all absolutely correct. That's not to say bowling standards haven't dropped or pitches haven't got flatter or bats haven't improved. It's all a potent mix of many factors and in the end, it only adds up to a couple more runs per wicket than previous eras- and significantly more results than at any other time in cricketing history. Pundits were correct to point out the notable difference in eras but it's gone to an absolutely ridiculous extent in places- something we're now seeing a bit of a backlash to.

 

[Richard]

The fact that, overall, it only adds-up to a couple of runs per wicket difference (if it does - I've never actually investigated that myself, merely heard others make claims) is not of relevance, because not all batsmen are the same. Each batsman is different, and each batsman will thus be affected differently by the mix of factors which made batting easier of which you talk.

The fact that the average runs per wicket has gone up by whatever does not mean all batsmen would merely average 1-2 runs lower had the changes not happened; it means lots of different players would be impacted in lots of different ways. And I prefer to look at individuals on an individual basis rather than generalise.

 

[aussie]

Love reading my own opinions being ranted by Burgey.

This comparison between the eras has, thankfully, gotten to the point where most people see it as exaggerated and quite ridiculous. As has been said, if you really want to talk about "attacks", as in a group of bowlers, there's little difference between the 00s and the 70s or 80s, really.

In terms of ratios of bowlers (averages and SRs) averages have gone up about a couple runs between the decades, but also the SRs are getting faster and faster; something often overlooked. So in fact, it's not that it's harder to get batsmen out; bowlers are actually doing that faster. It's just that batsmen are making more runs while at the crease. Goughy and I have argued plenty of times one of the most important differences is that the batsmen have different approaches nowadays and have cut down risk whilst increasing run opportunities.

The compariosn between between eras is by no means exaggerated, its very fair. It is impossible even without checking to state quality pace attacks or bowling attacks as a "group" is the 2000s era is as comparable to the 70s, 80s or 90s.

The only reason we have had more results this era, batsmen scoring at a faster rate is because of a combination of bowlers getting worse & pitches getting flatter. Personally i can't see no other way to it.

I certainly have seen no evidence of as you stated....the most important differences is that the batsmen have different approaches nowadays and have cut down risk whilst increasing run opportunities.

Give me an example of a player who has cut down risk againts quality bowling especially thus increasing his run scoring opportunities in the 2000s era?

 

[Goughy]

Give me an example of a player who has cut down risk againts quality bowling especially thus increasing his run scoring opportunities in the 2000s era?

What has happened is that batsmen have figured out that they can play more aggressively without increasing the chances of getting out.

Fewer balls are being left and the prevailing attitudes have changed in the past 15 years. Back in the mid-90s 270 runs was more than accaptable for a full days play. That was fast. Now we regularly see 300+ in a days play.

 

[zaremba]

If the bowler does not bowl, the batsman cannot bat. But the bowler can bowl whenever he wants to.

Blimey. This is way over my head.

If a bowler bowls in a forest and no-one is around to see him, does he really bowl?

 

[aussie]

As long as I've watched cricket I've never heard of anyone who averaged 45 being considered as a "great". Very good maybe, but never "great".

And I think your stats on 15 out of 30 aren't right. Who were these quality pace attacks? WI got theirs at the end of the 70s; there was Lillee and Thomson of course for about 3 years max together. Who else in the 70s? England had Willis, Snow very early on. Pakistan had Imran but he lost two years to WSC, and in the 70s Hadlee was a tearaway who was nowhere near what he became later, and with respect, not that many teams played NZ in the 70s anyway. I watched India here in 77 mate, and they had four ****ing spinners! It's piffle to say 50% of matches were played vs quality pace attacks in those days.

Come the 80s, the Windies were awesome of course. India were still crap in the pace department save Kapil; after Lillee retired we had 4 years where we couldn't find a quick who could hit the pitch ffs, apart from Bruce Reid, and he kept snapping in two. Pakistan toured here with Imran, but iirc he was either batting or bowling due to injury, rarely both at once by then. In 83-84 their other new ball bowler was Hafeez iirc. The rise of Hadlee to greatness saw NZ become formidable, but I think even most Kiwi posters here would say the support cast wasn't top shelf for the most part. Then, as I said in my previous post, England had Willis and Botham, but Willis was past it by 82-83. I don't accept he was in tip top shape on that tour by any stretch, but that's subjective.

Trying to think who I've missed. That's right - Sri Lanka. How could I have forgotten LeBrooy and Ratnayake?

The gap between WI and the rest in the 80s was massive imo. I didn't mean to offend you with the stridency of my earlier post, so I'm sorry if I did. I just don't accept the premise that there was this stockpile of quality quicks everywhere back then, I suppose we have to agree to disagree on that point,

On batsmen who average 45-49 being called great. Immediately i think of Gordon Greenidge a man who was good enough to average 50 & was better than most opener of the last 15 years. Peter May, Inzamam, Zaheer Abbas, Gooch, Boycott, Worrell

But overall yes 50+ is the regular benchmark. I just gave a window of praise to the few batsmen like those listen aboove who averaged 45-49 who where indeed considered great by their contemporaries.


The 15 out of 30 thing is a guess, i was only averaging based on my watching & knowledge of the game, but no 100% certainty was behind it intially. If we want to take any two other batting greats like what i did with Chappell & Ponting & go through EVERY one of their hundreds of innings one-by-one to see indeed how much of their 100s & 50s where scored againts quality pace attacks/overall attacks in either testing conditions or flat decks. That would be super tedious, even I as a cricket fanatic ain't going to do that.

That is why as i did before with Chappell vs Ponting, just check it by how much of the hundreds they scored againts quality pace attacks/overall attacks in either testing conditions or flat decks in their respective eras. Its pretty clear that more than 50% of Chappell's hundreds where scored againts quality bowling. While for Ponting is clearly less than 50%. So that sort of back up the 15 out of 30 innings argument.

I'm pretty sure if you take any other great batsman from the 70s, 80s, 90s & compare the quality of bowling they faced to score their hundreds to a great in 2000s era, you would get the same thing. A quick off the head example would be Atherton & Kirsten vs Hayden & Sehwag 90s vs 2000s. Without checking i am 100% certain that Athers & Kirsten scored more of their hundreds againts quality bowling than Hayden & Sehwag.


I dont necessarily disagree with what you said about 70s & 80s pace attacks or "overall" attacks. But that was still far superior to what we have seen in the 2000s era recently.

In the 2000s the only consisent quality attack in all conditions was Australia. While when you went to SRI & IND with Vaas/Murali & Kumble/Harbhajan it was hard work. Other than that i was gash:

South Africa - They where good for 50% & poor for 50% of the decade i would say. The Donald/Pollock combo lasted about 1 year in 2000s era then they both declined rapidly between 2001-late 2005. Then you had a period between 2005-2009 when Steyn/Ntini/Nel/Morkel gave SA some good bowling attacks. But it wasn't comparable to the consistent quality SA had throughout the 90s.

Pakistan - They where crap most of time Wasim & Waqar where finished by the time 200s era began. A few times Akhtat & Asif had destroyed a few batting line-ups with individual brillaince, but overall PAK never put together a quality attack.

England - where excellent some times & average most of the time. Gough/Caddick where superb for about a year then fell off. Then you had the rise of Hoggard/Harmison/Jones/Flintoff between 2004-2006, then things fell of again.

We all know the stories of IND, WI, NZ pace attacks (Although one or two times they surprised a few teams). Batsmen had an easy time.

The 90s was clearly the most consistent bowling era when it came to quality bowling in test history. I've seen some CWers question this.

The new ball bowling that AUS, SA, PAK, WI gave batsmen worldwide a headache (ENG where good on occassion as well), plus you add the fact that IND where basically invisible at home in the 90s. How is the 2000s era comparable to that?.

Finally dont under-rate the NZ back-up to Hadlee in the 80s, Chatfeild & Bracewell aided Hadlee very much in drawing series in IND & vs WI back then. It was clearly better than NZ attack of the 90s & 2000s. Although its fair to say if the likes of Allot, Bond, Nash, Cairns, O'Connor where fit for longer NZ attack of the last 10-12 years could have been better than the Hadlee clan in the 80s.

 

[aussie]

What has happened is that batsmen have figured out that they can play more aggressively without increasing the chances of getting out.

Yes & AFAI have seen in the last decade they reason they have figured out they can do this is because of the reduction in quality bowling & flatter pitches. They weren't tested enough technically & mentally.

Fewer balls are being left and the prevailing attitudes have changed in the past 15 years. Back in the mid-90s 270 runs was more than accaptable for a full days play. That was fast. Now we regularly see 300+ in a days play.

All true. But again it keeps coming back to poor attacks & flat pitches. Although i would say that in some ways the increase in amount of 300+ scores in a day & overall pace of scoring in tests has a bit to do with the aggressive instincts that have come from ODIs & now T20s.

But it has happened a bit too often in the last decade, very good/great bowling attacks in test history are hardly ever dominated with batsmen scoring at 3.5 to 4 rpo againts them that regularly. The contest between quality batsmen vs quality bowling is usually very balanced.

How many opposition teams have scored 300+ in a day vs AUS or in IND or SRI facing Kumble/Harbhajan or Vaas/Murali - or for top opposition batsmen how many of them smoked hundreds againts these few top attacks?. I dont recall many, we would have to check that out.

I'm going to start now, give me a week to check & report back...

 

[Richard]

What has happened is that batsmen have figured out that they can play more aggressively without increasing the chances of getting out.

Fewer balls are being left and the prevailing attitudes have changed in the past 15 years. Back in the mid-90s 270 runs was more than accaptable for a full days play. That was fast. Now we regularly see 300+ in a days play.

FTR I don't remotely dispute this. What I dispute is that batsmen would be able to do this had decks not flattened-out and the really top-quality bowlers become so few and far between.

If they'd tried under said circumstances then batting averages would've fallen markedly, and thus batsmen wouldn't have tried - same way they had never tried at any point in cricket history until 2001/02.

 

[Richard]

Blimey. This is way over my head.

If a bowler bowls in a forest and no-one is around to see him, does he really bowl?

Different matter. A bowler (almost) always sees himself bowl for starters. The point is that in cricket, the bowler can only be dominated if he allows himself to be.

 

[Goughy]

FTR I don't remotely dispute this. What I dispute is that batsmen would be able to do this had decks not flattened-out and the really top-quality bowlers become so few and far between.

If they'd tried under said circumstances then batting averages would've fallen markedly, and thus batsmen wouldn't have tried - same way they had never tried at any point in cricket history until 2001/02.

No they wouldn't. There are countless reports of from old players on how they see players play at balls they were coached to leave in generation or few before. That is just opening new scoring opportunities that has little to do with the quality of the bowling. The same balls are just being treated differently (Im talking more about the leaves than anything else in this particular case).

All it takes it 2 balls a session to be hit for 4 that would have previously been left and, all other things been equal, bowlers averages jump by 4.

I know that myself (and Im not that old) was told it was better to leave a rank, wide ball than risk getting out to rubbish whereas now, Im happy to see, that people are encouraged to punish it.

 

[Burgey]

Blimey. This is way over my head.

If a bowler bowls in a forest and no-one is around to see him, does he really bowl?

Ha, reminds me of that T shirt I saw about a fat girl falling over in the forest, and would anyone care...

 

[aussie]

No they wouldn't. There are countless reports of from old players on how they see players play at balls they were coached to leave in generation or few before. That is just opening new scoring opportunities that has little to do with the quality of the bowling. The same balls are just being treated differently (Im talking more about the leaves than anything else in this particular case).
All it takes it 2 balls a session to be hit for 4 that would have previously been left and, all other things been equal, bowlers averages jump by 4.

I know that myself (and Im not that old) was told it was better to leave a rank, wide ball than risk getting out to rubbish whereas now, Im happy to see, that people are encouraged to punish it.

Well in some way Matthew Hayden revival as a test batsman kind of questions this theory TBH.

He as you are suggesting was the premier opener of the 2000s era who hit more balls than left in his typical "bully-mode" between Mumbai 2001 to Cairns 2004, againts many average new-ball attacks on flat decks.

But as many know when he ran into a quality ENG attack in the 2005 Ashes, he failed miserably with that "bully mode" type batting. He had to reinvent back himself into the more traditional style of opening againts quality new-ball bowling (leaving alot more) or else he wouldn't have saved his career with his Oval 05 hundred - nor scored the runs he did vs SA 05/06. Hayden "the bully" was never seen again after the 2005 Ashes. (Although still to some degree is my subjective analysis of Hayden, but i'm fairly confident that how his career went).

Hayden is one the few FTBs who made this adjustment in 2000s era after being technically exposed. Many others haven't, they get exposed by the few times they face quality attacks - then go back & look superb againts joke attacks on roads. This is why i can't accept any premise that batsmen have improved to any serious degree in the 2000s based on what i've seen.

 

[Richard]

No they wouldn't. There are countless reports of from old players on how they see players play at balls they were coached to leave in generation or few before. That is just opening new scoring opportunities that has little to do with the quality of the bowling. The same balls are just being treated differently (Im talking more about the leaves than anything else in this particular case).

All it takes it 2 balls a session to be hit for 4 that would have previously been left and, all other things been equal, bowlers averages jump by 4.

I know that myself (and Im not that old) was told it was better to leave a rank, wide ball than risk getting out to rubbish whereas now, Im happy to see, that people are encouraged to punish it.

It isn't just about wide rubbish balls though - what is a rubbish delivery depends to no small extent on the nature of the bowling, which is influenced by the quality of the bowler and the pitch\ball. Playing at more wide balls will indeed result in more being smashed to the boundary rather than being dot-balls, but it will also result in more nicks, and the better the bowling, the more frequent the nicks will be - and inevitably the more nicks the fewer boundaries, because as has been observed countless times, no-one can score runs from the pavilion.

Bad bowling is indeed punished far more effectively at the present time than used to be the case, but to place that as the main reason for the substantial increase in scoring which begun in 2001/02 would in my view be badly mistaken.

 

[Burgey]

Aussie ^

Hayden had been out of form for nigh on 12 months before the Ashes series iirc. England executed its mints, I mean plans, to him well though, no doubt.

Point I think is that any player from any era will struggle against good fast bowling where the ball's moving late, be it in the air or off the deck. Those who've been conditioned to be more aggressive and to attack may well struggle more than those who let 60 balls per hour go in earlier eras where 210 in a day was an explosive day out at a Test match, usually through about 70 overs btw, as there were no over rate penalties.

These players, from whatever era, are products of their times. If guys came along and played as slowly as they used to, the captain would probably tell them to get a wriggle on. And tbf, they're probably good enough that they could do so. Except Boycott, he'd just tell the captain to **** off.

 

[fredfertang]

Except Boycott, he'd just tell the captain to **** off.

unless the captain was Closey

 

[NUFAN]

It isn't just about wide rubbish balls though - what is a rubbish delivery depends to no small extent on the nature of the bowling, which is influenced by the quality of the bowler and the pitch\ball. Playing at more wide balls will indeed result in more being smashed to the boundary rather than being dot-balls, but it will also result in more nicks, and the better the bowling, the more frequent the nicks will be - and inevitably the more nicks the fewer boundaries, because as has been observed countless times, no-one can score runs from the pavilion.

Bad bowling is indeed punished far more effectively at the present time than used to be the case, but to place that as the main reason for the substantial increase in scoring which begun in 2001/02 would in my view be badly mistaken.

For the record I agree completely with Goughy.

Richard, just because a chap hits a nice shot for 4 it doesn't mean it's bad bowling. How often do you see shots that go for 4 when you think, that really wasn't a bad ball at all.

Also, if a few captains bothered with someone at third man, I bet there would be a few batsman out there averaging less. You know the players like Katich who seem to make a stack of runs down there with ease!

The introduction of the brilliant UDRS should help bowlers heaps this decade too.

 

[Richard]

For the record I agree completely with Goughy.

Richard, just because a chap hits a nice shot for 4 it doesn't mean it's bad bowling. How often do you see shots that go for 4 when you think, that really wasn't a bad ball at all.

Not all that often really. As Kev said pretty much, it's simply a case of bad deliveries being punished more readily these days, but with that comes the fact that deliveries which look at first glance to be bad and are actually dangerous will cause a batsman's downfall more often. Bowlers have to be good enough, and possessed with the tools, to produce these though.

Also, if a few captains bothered with someone at third man, I bet there would be a few batsman out there averaging less. You know the players like Katich who seem to make a stack of runs down there with ease!

Agree with this completely, but people didn't suddenly stop posting third-mans in 2001/02. I've thought "FFS, put a third-man in" in more games of Test cricket than I can possibly remember as far back as I can remeber.

The introduction of the brilliant UDRS should help bowlers heaps this decade too.

Not sure it will TBH, a better system that gets more correct decisions and wastes less time would help more... but there we go.