The evolution of LOIs in your lifetime

[Bolo]

Are we separated twins or something? We seem to agree on almost every cricketing opinion.

True, our opinions tend to align ridiculously often. I think it's because both of us tend to base our opinion less on what we have watched than the typical CW poster. You do it mostly based on your age (not having seen that much). I do it because I distrust the perception behind optics.

 

[ankitj]

Perhaps Warne in 99' matches him.

Not many seem to remember that DeSilva was MoM in both semi and final of '96 world cup. Same as Warne in 99.

 

[trundler]

Not many seem to remember that DeSilva was MoM in both semi and final of '96 world cup. Same as Warne in 99.

My follow-up comment names him tho.

 

[harsh.ag]

Agree entirely. I think the 3 of them are just about as far ahead of Tendulkar as he is of whoever the number 5 bat is as well.

 

[harsh.ag]

Has anyone managed a better all round performance in a WC than Dilshan vs Zimbabwe in 2011? 144 and 4-4.

 

[honestbharani]

Gary Gilmour

 

[TheJediBrah]

Has anyone managed a better all round performance in a WC than Dilshan vs Zimbabwe in 2011? 144 and 4-4.

Probably most players who had a decent performance against a team that wasn't a minnow tbh

Seriously though in terms of raw stats though it would be hard to beat. Batting average for the match / bowling average for the match = 144. That's got to be a record.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah that 2 new ball thing is bizarre and needs to be changed. What a farce. Change the product not the rules.

It's definitely an issue that it helps the batting team too much, but ftr it was changed for a genuine reason. The old ball in ODIs was often garbage after 35 overs, soft and **** and made for a poor spectacle. I don't think it really reverse swung much very often either tbh.

 

[stephen]

Agree entirely. I think the 3 of them are just about as far ahead of Tendulkar as he is of whoever the number 5 bat is as well.

It would be easy to agree with you if Bevan didn't exist.

Bevan is unique in that he was able to average so much in the middle order. He won a heap of matches chasing when chasing (particularly under lights) was far harder than setting a total.

Many people forget that it's only in the last decade that chasing has been seen as the easier way to win.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I think the catalyst for chasing(belief in winning) was 434v438

 

[stephen]

I had a quick look at some stats on chasing vs setting a target (top 8 countries only) post 1979 when 20+ matches were played per year.

1986 was the best year to chase targets. Batting first saw 20 wins while chasing saw 37 wins! 1985 was the second best chasing year with 23 vs 39.

The best years for batting first were 1991, which saw 23 wins by the side batting first and only 14 by the side batting second. Next best was 1999 which saw 60 wins batting first vs 41 batting second.

Since 2000, 13 years have had a better win ratio batting second vs 4 years batting first. Three years in that period were even.

Before 2000, 8 years had a better win ratio batting first while 10 years were better for batting second. 3 years were even.

Undoubtedly batting second has become easier but it seems that chasing has always been slightly easier.

The total over all 2813 matches is 1300 wins batting first and 1379 batting second.

By decade first innings/ second innings (ratio) batting average/rpo:
1970s - 32/40 (.800) 25.21/4.04
1980s - 224/258 (.868) 28.37/4.47
1990s - 364/350 (1.040) 29.53/4.61
2000s - 395/421 (.938) 30.98/5.02
2010s - 285/310 (.919) 33.16/5.44

So while the conventional thinking of the 90s was right (it was better to bat first that decade), in every other decade it was easier to chase a total than set one.

Incidentally the change in bats and rules is clearly visible in the increased average and strike rates since 2000, particularly since 2010.

 

[stephen]

If Viv Richards played today instead of the 80s he'd average 55 and strike at 110, which is a higher average and strike rate than de Villiers and a higher strike rate than Kohli (averaging 3 less).

And those estimates are conservative since I was comparing based on 80s averages. Viv played a fair bit in the 70s as well.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It would be easy to agree with you if Bevan didn't exist.

Bevan is unique in that he was able to average so much in the middle order. He won a heap of matches chasing when chasing (particularly under lights) was far harder than setting a total.

Many people forget that it's only in the last decade that chasing has been seen as the easier way to win.

Bevan is in his own category a bit. Hard to compare to Tendulkar, Kohli etc. because he had such a different role. Likewise hard to compare him to current middle-order players/"finishers" because of the immense change ODIs have gone through since Bevan's time.

 

[Zinzan]

I can remember when ODIs first became a regular part of the Australian summer and 200 was considered a very good score, with 170 odd still often being competitive.

The first post-WSC summer, England refused to play with fielding restrictions, leading to Brearley placing every fielder including the keeper on the boundary to win a game. Of course, the Poms call that clever captaincy and merely playing by the rules to secure a win, yet a year later Chappell followed the rules in an ODI final and was roundly condemned for it.

That summer, the uniforms were white with a coloured stripe down the sleeves though England continued to play in all white, but by the next year with the Poms out of the way, the transition to coloured clothing was made in full.

At the start, the emphasis was still very much on building an innings, though tbf Tony Greig was banging on about accelerating from the get-go while the field was up from the beginning. First time I really saw it happen was Srikkanth in about 81 iirc. Then Jones came into the Australian side and his SR was comparatively high too.

Of course, Viv was around and he just ****ing bombed everything. Which everyone does now, but he stood out like dog’s balls at the time.

By the mid-80s, Waugh and O’Donnell has started bowling slower balls regularly which has become a standard tactic pretty much ever since.

England had Botham open out here in the 87 Perth Challenge, then SL changed pretty much for everyone with their approach in the mid 90s.

I admit I didn’t like too much tinkering with the restrictions and the flip-flopping between using one or two balls, but I guess it had to be done to give the fielding side a chance.

I’d say of the players I’ve seen play ODIs live, my XI would be

Sanath (5)
Tendulkar
Viv (7)
Kohli
ABdV
Dhoni
Symonds (6)
Wasim (3)
Warne (4)
Garner (2)
McGrath (1)

Gilchrist, Bevan and Ponting unlucky to miss.

And Ian Harvey of course

Been some wonderful players. I’ve been lucky to see them go around.

Shame you never got to see Murali

 

[Burgey]

Murali was trash here in every format. I didn't forget him, I omitted him.

 

[sunilz]

Agree entirely. I think the 3 of them are just about as far ahead of Tendulkar as he is of whoever the number 5 bat is as well.

Devilliers record till 2011 world cup: Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Kohli's record till 2011 World cup:
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Tendulkar's record till 2011 World cup:
All-round records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Their batting average and SR are not much different.


ICC ODI bowling ranking on the day Tendulkar attained peak ratings
ICC Player Rankings


ICC ODI bowling ranking on the day Devilliers attained peak ratings
ICC Player Rankings

ICC ODI bowling ranking on the day Kohli attained peak ratings
ICC Player Rankings

I think 2 of the above 3 batsmen have benefitted massively from change in ODI rules, extremely flat batting pitches and substandard bowling attacks. You are free to make ur own conclusion.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think anyone is ahead of Tendulkar yet. He scored huge runs, mostly in an era where batting was waaaaaaay less easy than it is now.

 

[Second Spitter]

It would be easy to agree with you if Bevan didn't exist.

Bevan is unique in that he was able to average so much in the middle order. He won a heap of matches chasing when chasing (particularly under lights) was far harder than setting a total.

Many people forget that it's only in the last decade that chasing has been seen as the easier way to win.

The Legend of Borevan lives on, on yet another forum.

 

[marc71178]

I don't think anyone is ahead of Tendulkar yet. He scored huge runs, mostly in an era where batting was waaaaaaay less easy than it is now.

Viv is for me.

 

[stephen]

I don't think anyone is ahead of Tendulkar yet. He scored huge runs, mostly in an era where batting was waaaaaaay less easy than it is now.

Viv.

Tendulkar is unquestionably the best man to open, Viv gets the number 3 spot, Kohli 4, de Villiers 5. As far as ODI batting is concerned the main questions surround the other opener/ all rounder/ finisher/ keeper balance you want in your side.

None of those 4 offer huge amounts with the ball and neither does Bevan (who slots in nicely at 6 otherwise). So the other opener+6+7 have to cover ten overs of bowling and the keeper.

Batting in ODI cricket is extremely position and team dependent. Would the current generation of English bats who are averaging 50 and striking at 100 be anywhere near as good if they had a weaker tail? Or were batting in more bowler- friendly conditions? Or had one new ball instead of two?

It's all very hard too say and era needs to be considered when looking at players. Bevan's 75 strike rate isn't great by today's standards but in the 90s was perfectly good for a middle order bat. Viv's strike rate and average looks good but not great by today's standards but he's the best batsman the game has seen.

Steve Waugh is an example of how much the game has changed. In the 90s he was one off the best batsmen in the world in ODI cricket. But his average and strike rate are 33@76, which would not get you a state gig these days, let alone an international one.

Thankfully test cricket has reigned in the excessive run fests. Hopefully ODI cricket can change to do so as well.

Interestingly, as a spectator at the ground, run fests are quite fun. But on tv I'd much rather watch good bowling performances.