Modern-day batsmen and flat pitches

[Avada Kedavra]

The other one that gets me, and it's something I've ranted about in the Ponting/Lara thread but not got any response to, is why there's an insistence that if two batsmen score the same number of runs, the better batsman is the one who scored against the good bowlers and kept getting out to the bad ones. Where does that idea come from, and why is it always accepted without question?

Interesting thought there, Uppercut. Would you rather excel in your calculus test and fail a second grade spelling test or vice- versa ?

 

[Uppercut]

Interesting though there, Uppercut. Would you rather excel in your calculus test and fail a second grade spelling test or vice- versa ?

It depends which was more useful to me in life. If I had ambitions to be a writer, I'd rather pass the spelling test. If I wanted to be a scientist, I'd rather pass the calculus test.

Bringing that back to cricket, assuming the end goal of helping your side win (or save) the match, do you think runs against Wasim+Waqar are inherently more useful than runs against Gough+Caddick? I certainly don't think one could make such a statement. It's a completely unrelated variable.

Or, bringing it back to PEWS's point, the ability to score runs on flat decks is infinitely more useful than the ability to score runs on seaming decks in this era- so why is the latter valued so much more highly?

 

[Avada Kedavra]

It depends which was more useful to me in life. If I had ambitions to be a writer, I'd rather pass the spelling test. If I wanted to be a scientist, I'd rather pass the calculus test.

Bringing that back to cricket, assuming the end goal of helping your side win (or save) the match, do you think runs against Wasim+Waqar are inherently more useful than runs against Gough+Caddick? I certainly don't think one could make such a statement. It's a completely unrelated variable.

Or, bringing it back to PEWS's point, the ability to score runs on flat decks is infinitely more useful than the ability to score runs on seaming decks in this era- so why is the latter valued so much more highly?

Well you certainly make some very interesting points. I'd say if you want to break it down to the barest essentials, then the guy with the highest average is the best batsman (everything else being considered equal) simply because he scores more between dismissals, and scoring more runs inevitably gives the team a better chance of drawing/saving the match.

The flat track argument IMO is overstated. Flat tracks have always been around, make no mistake. They were around in the 1930s and they are around now. And also, I find it amusing that a batsman is criticised for making runs on a flat track as he's supposed to prove himself in seaming conditions. Shouldn't the reverse apply for the bowlers ? Shouldn't the bowlers prove themselves on the very flat tracks that the batsmen make runs on ?

 

[Ikki]

Uppercut, have you got the standardised averages of Sachin and Ricky still?

 

[nightprowler10]

Good one PEWS. Seriously.

 

[Uppercut]

Uppercut, have you got the standardised averages of Sachin and Ricky still?

No, I didn't calculate them. I just posted their numbers relative to all cricket matches that took place in the duration of their careers and it was clear that Ponting's standardised average would be a point or two higher.

Of course, it in no way proves Ponting to be better than Sachin in any sense of the word, and I didn't mean it as such. The point was just that the effect of the flattening-out of pitches (which in truth turned out to be statistically minimal given the overlap in their careers) didn't hold much water when looked at impartially.

 

[aussie]

Well you certainly make some very interesting points. I'd say if you want to break it down to the barest essentials, then the guy with the highest average is the best batsman (everything else being considered equal) simply because he scores more between dismissals, and scoring more runs inevitably gives the team a better chance of drawing/saving the match.

The flat track argument IMO is overstated. Flat tracks have always been around, make no mistake. They were around in the 1930s and they are around now. And also, I find it amusing that a batsman is criticised for making runs on a flat track as he's supposed to prove himself in seaming conditions. Shouldn't the reverse apply for the bowlers ? Shouldn't the bowlers prove themselves on the very flat tracks that the batsmen make runs on ?

Yes, that has always been the case. Thats why for eg the West Indies at their peak & AUS with McGrath where able to bowl sides out on all surfaces.

 

[Richard]

England through the 90s say hi.

Yeah, those attacks of 1990/91, 1994/95, 1997 and 1998/99 were full of utter dunderheads weren't they?

Seriously, some Australians seem to judge the entire decade of Ashes series' by the first five Tests of 1993.

 

[Matt79]

How many tests dis those awesome bowlers over that period win? I'm not saying they were uniformly diabolical, but they were clearly a grade below the great attacks of the period.

 

[TT Boy]

Exactly. All well and good doing historical revisionism but I lived in the 1990s, watched cricket and England for the better part of the decade were utter ****.

 

[Richard]

How many tests dis those awesome bowlers over that period win? I'm not saying they were uniformly diabolical, but they were clearly a grade below the great attacks of the period.

How on Earth is how many Tests England won remotely relevant? Whoever was playing, Alderman\Hughes\McDermott\Reid\McGrath\Fleming\Gillespie\etc. were better. Sometimes far better.

You appeared to be suggesting they were routinely diabolical - constantly equable to the likes of the attacks Australia faced from India in 2003/04 or West Indies in 2005/06. They weren't. Mostly the attacks England put on the park in the 1990s were able to cause significant problems to the Australian batsmen, and had catching been of a better standard a few more games might have been won. But they were not up with Australia's attack - ever - because throughout the decade Australia's attack was a superlative one.

 

[Richard]

Exactly. All well and good doing historical revisionism but I lived in the 1990s, watched cricket and England for the better part of the decade were utter ****.

Rubbish. England were in the 1990s exactly what they've been in the 2000s - often very poor and occasionally, very briefly, outstanding when all the bits clicked into place. Historical revisionism is responsible for thinking England were diabolical and that the 2000s have been some sort of wonder-age where all has come right again. There were only ever very brief times in the 1990s where England were utter no-hopers. If you want a time where England were no-hopers look at 1986-1989.

 

[aussie]

Rubbish. England were in the 1990s exactly what they've been in the 2000s - often very poor and occasionally, very briefly, outstanding when all the bits clicked into place. Historical revisionism is responsible for thinking England were diabolical and that the 2000s have been some sort of wonder-age where all has come right again. There were only ever very brief times in the 1990s where England were utter no-hopers. If you want a time where England were no-hopers look at 1986-1989.

Preach it bro. When you see blokes Bell & Cook continue to struggle, it makes you appreciate how really good Atherton was & that Hick probably played in the wrong era. He would have been a nice FTB today.

 

[ret]

+1 to the thread .... Nice work!

 

[tooextracool]

It depends which was more useful to me in life. If I had ambitions to be a writer, I'd rather pass the spelling test. If I wanted to be a scientist, I'd rather pass the calculus test.

Bringing that back to cricket, assuming the end goal of helping your side win (or save) the match, do you think runs against Wasim+Waqar are inherently more useful than runs against Gough+Caddick? I certainly don't think one could make such a statement. It's a completely unrelated variable.

Or, bringing it back to PEWS's point, the ability to score runs on flat decks is infinitely more useful than the ability to score runs on seaming decks in this era- so why is the latter valued so much more highly?

I would think that there are few players in the history of the game who failed extensively on flat tracks while succeeding often on seamer friendly tracks. The point that I would make is that a player who can score runs on *both* (Lara, Waugh, Dravid, Ponting etc) is a better player than a player who can only score on flat decks (Hayden, Youhana, Smith, Tendulkar).

The other more interesting point perhaps is that, if a person averages 75 odd on flat tracks but consistently struggles in bowler friendly conditions (with an overall average of 50 odd), would he better than someone who averages 50 odd while scoring in both bowler friendly and non-bowler friendly conditions (without being prolific in either)?
There are some here on CW who would pick the former, and I suspect that you would be one of them. Personally, I would pick the latter because IMO batsmen who score more runs in bowler friendly conditions invariably win more games than batsmen who score runs in non-bowler friendly conditions who really play out more draws irrespective of the era. Furthermore, I believe that for every 1 batsman in the side who scores runs in flat batting tracks there are usually 4-5 others who could do the same even if they are not as prolific. However, for every 1 batsman that scores in seamer friendly conditions, the odds are that there are only 1-2 other players on average per side who are capable of doing the same.

 

[Uppercut]

There's a link between how useful runs are and how difficult conditions are. Obviously a century in a 200 plays 200 match is worth more to the side than one in a 400 plays 400 game. That said, seaming decks are now so uncommon that ability on them is only rarely relevant. The best players now are the ones that score consistently on the flat/reasonably flat decks that are now the norm.

There are a hundred definitions of flat. Sri Lankan batsmen are labelled flat-track bullies for only scoring at home when Sri Lankan wickets are statistically the best for bowlers in the world. Australians receive the same criticism on pitches sub-continental batsmen have nightmares about. All these players are guilty of is mastering batting in the specific pitches they most often play on.

Anyway, that's not quite what I was asking. I was asking about the quality of bowler, not of pitches. Why is averaging 75 against Australia and 25 against New Zealand inherently more worthy of respect than the other way round? In the case of a team like Pakistan, runs against New Zealand are probably more useful because they're more likely to swing the result- away to Australia this winter they're likely to lose anyway. What's the deal with that?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Think it's a bit unfair when you name players individually at the start of the post to only include 1 Australian.

This decade they've been the single biggest collection of home flat track bullies going.

edit: Also, subcontinental batsmen get a raw deal when we think of flat track bullies. The reason subcontinental batsmen find batting easier in the subcontinent is because they're used to the pitches and conditions. If batting in the subcontinent was as easy as it's made out to be, then you'd get far more non subcontinental batsmen making stacks of runs at ridiculous averages than we see currently.

It's Australia, not the subcontinent, which has been the home of the flattest pitches this decade.

 

[tooextracool]

Anyway, that's not quite what I was asking. I was asking about the quality of bowler, not of pitches. Why is averaging 75 against Australia and 25 against New Zealand inherently more worthy of respect than the other way round? In the case of a team like Pakistan, runs against New Zealand are probably more useful because they're more likely to swing the result- away to Australia this winter they're likely to lose anyway. What's the deal with that?

For the very same reason for which you have already answered in your question previously:

There's a link between how useful runs are and how difficult conditions are. Obviously a century in a 200 plays 200 match is worth more to the side than one in a 400 plays 400 game.

Take the England team for example. Odds are that you'd expect every one of the top 7 including Bell/Bopara and Cook to score runs against NZ. However, you would not expect them to succeed consistently against Australia. Which is why someone like KP scoring runs against a top team like Australia is far more important than KP scoring runs against NZ. Because KP's failure against NZ is hardly of any importance to the side, if he doesn't score runs, heck even the likes of Swann and Broad can be expected to score against their bowling attack. A KP failure against Australia however, is in all likelyhood, likely to cost the team the entire series however.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

This thread is pretty great. Very well conceived argument and well put as well.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The other more interesting point perhaps is that, if a person averages 75 odd on flat tracks but consistently struggles in bowler friendly conditions (with an overall average of 50 odd), would he better than someone who averages 50 odd while scoring in both bowler friendly and non-bowler friendly conditions (without being prolific in either)?
There are some here on CW who would pick the former, and I suspect that you would be one of them. Personally, I would pick the latter because IMO batsmen who score more runs in bowler friendly conditions invariably win more games than batsmen who score runs in non-bowler friendly conditions who really play out more draws irrespective of the era. Furthermore, I believe that for every 1 batsman in the side who scores runs in flat batting tracks there are usually 4-5 others who could do the same even if they are not as prolific. However, for every 1 batsman that scores in seamer friendly conditions, the odds are that there are only 1-2 other players on average per side who are capable of doing the same.

I agree with all that, but I think the discussion becomes a bit more interesting when you're asking about a situation where the batsmen who can score runs in both conditions without being prolific is somewhat less successful overall. It's fine to say that player A who averages 50 and scores runs in all conditions is overall a more valuable player than player B who averages 50 but scores all his runs on roads, but what if the second guy averages 55, or 60? There's a certain point at which the weight of run scoring from player B becomes more significant than the occasional gritty 75* out of a team score of 140 that wins a test.

I wouldn't argue that Sehwag is a better batsman than Waugh based on that, but I do think it's an interesting point to raise in response to the usual arguments that essentially assume 99% of the runs Sehwag scores are irrelevant.