Why This Is The Greatest Era Of bowling In Last 60 Years

[shortpitched713]

I'm not totally convinced by @Narayana 's argument, btw, but at least the pro bowlers argument actually has an argument and mechanism.

Many of you anti-batsmen posters are just asserting without an argument or evidence , @PlayerComparisons @kyear2 in particular.

 

[Spark]

I'm not totally convinced by @Narayana 's argument, btw, but at least the pro bowlers argument actually has an argument and mechanism.

Many of you anti-batsmen posters are just asserting without an argument or evidence , @PlayerComparisons @kyear2 in particular.

Just look at the techniques. Look at how many batsmen just square up for fun off the back foot. Why? Because they bat with a more open stance compared to a traditional side on stance... because they grew up batting that way, because that's how you need to bat to be able to access the onside easily for power hitting.

It's definitely had an impact. Outside of the generational freaks i.e. Smith, it's a really difficult way to bat if the ball moves at all off the straight.

 

[Coronis]

Finally @Coronis , the concept of "batsmen can only push the run rate and can't grind out and defend in long innings" is a trope at least as old as limited overs cricket itself. I don't see any special reason to think that it is the case only very recently, especially when T20 was around a good decade+ before 2018.

Maybe instead batsmen are, get this, simply finding the go slow and methodical approach to batting to yield worse results, and thus eschewing it for that reason. Which to me seems to indicate a universally more incisive bowler that he is facing (somewhat supporting Narayana's mechanism of more bowling depth, can't see through a rough patch against the ace bowlers because the next best bowler can be just as hard to keep your wicket against).

1) I never said it was the only reason. More bowler friendly pitches - or you could say result oriented pitches have become common. Perhaps even partially due to the WTC.

2) You don’t see an immediate change. These are players coming through now who have had T20 shown to them as kids/teens and in fact for many, may have been the majority of their exposure to cricket. In fact the shorter formats have become more attractive due to the money players are able to make from them, i.e as we have seen multiple players favour T20 and ODIs over tests and thus, would specialise in technique that works in those formats. For people who have grown up on seeing T20 cricket and likely modelling and emulating their batting based on it, doesn’t it seem more likely they would now have a harder time adjusting for longer formats?

 

[shortpitched713]

I do think we overrate techniques from the 80s and 90s a bit here but there are systematic reasons to believe they've declined tbf. Innovation is great but it's only recently had any impact at all in the Test arena in a positive sense.

Which are what exactly? Having more shots somehow makes you mentally weaker? Because that seems to be the idea behind the "T20 ruining cricket" crowd.

Or maybe it's the TikTok brain rot? Good thing Donald Trump is here to take care of these youngsters with the ticking and the tocking and the bipping and the bopping. /s

 

[Spark]

Which are what exactly? Having more shots somehow makes you mentally weaker? Because that seems to be the idea behind the "T20 ruining cricket" crowd.

Or maybe it's the TikTok brain rotation? Good thing Donald Trump is here to take care of these youngsters with the ticking and the tocking and the bipping and the bopping. /s

See the post I just made. Techniques have changed to optimise towards power hitting, that's simply obvious especially if you observe what coaches are encouraging at junior levels. But for most human beings, that means they're less able to cope with movement because they square up.

 

[shortpitched713]

1) I never said it was the only reason. More bowler friendly pitches - or you could say result oriented pitches have become common. Perhaps even partially due to the WTC.

2) You don’t see an immediate change. These are players coming through now who have had T20 shown to them as kids/teens and in fact for many, may have been the majority of their exposure to cricket. In fact the shorter formats have become more attractive due to the money players are able to make from them, i.e as we have seen multiple players favour T20 and ODIs over tests and thus, would specialise in technique that works in those formats. For people who have grown up on seeing T20 cricket and likely modelling and emulating their batting based on it, doesn’t it seem more likely they would now have a harder time adjusting for longer formats?

Agreed on point 1. This isn't a batsman or bowler favored argument though.

Point 2 I think is very arguable. In this case, I think you could test it by looking at the correlation between percentage of T20 domestic cricket compared to FC compared to Test batting performance, for players with the same number of Tests. I haven't done those numbers, but I suspect such an exercise is as messy as it's always been, with some great FC players unable to translate their game as well as others just trying to get a bag with domestic T20. Generally though there was and always will be a level of specialization for some players who are better at one or another format. One could argue this specialization is even greater now than it's ever been. None of this to me indicates that the players playing today are less adaptable than players past for the longer format.

 

[shortpitched713]

"Actually X only looks good because everyone is secretly bad" is a line I've seen trotted out since I joined this forum. Others add "except the 2005 Ashes, pinnacle of cricket quality" as well.

Cricket is strongly controlled by the environment it is played in. When I first got into cricket, test pitches were more homogenous than they were now in an attempt to ensure games lasted 5 days. This led to a boost in batting averages.

These days, boards just want to win. Compare the Indian and NZ decks of 2009, 2013 and 2010 in bilaterals compared to those of 2020 and 2024 (or the 22 or 16 tours). The former were flat and easier for the opposition to adjust, the latter were teams wanting to ensure home advantage.

We want to believe all players matter more than they do but ultimately if you want to know the trend of a game, look at the ground and sky.

Agreed, I think the conditions factor into things more than any other single factor, with bowler improvement coming in second to that as a factor.

 

[shortpitched713]

Just look at the techniques. Look at how many batsmen just square up for fun off the back foot. Why? Because they bat with a more open stance compared to a traditional side on stance... because they grew up batting that way, because that's how you need to bat to be able to access the onside easily for power hitting.

It's definitely had an impact. Outside of the generational freaks i.e. Smith, it's a really difficult way to bat if the ball moves at all off the straight.

Eh, I don't see a particular reason that players wouldn't be practicing using a stance that helps them in the conditions they need to face, but maybe this is just my own experience of opening my stance helping my batting game (not just on the on side, btw getting cleaner contact and better at dealing with movement to the offside as well, maybe easier to keep a still head too idk).

 

[Spark]

Eh, I don't see a particular reason that players wouldn't be practicing using a stance that helps them in the conditions they need to face, but maybe this is just my own experience of opening my stance helping my batting game (not just on the on side, btw getting cleaner contact and better at dealing with movement to the offside as well, maybe easier to keep a still head too idk).

It's because they've been taught to bat that way since they were kids. Difficult to adjust something so fundamental to your game on the fly - again, unless you're Steve Smith.

Like I do think bowling and conditions have played by far the largest factor, on the occasions we do see more "normal" batting-friendly conditions around we also see more normal scoring patterns. But I'm not a huge fan of a lot of the techniques I'm seeing these days; though it isn't as simple as just "T20 ruined it all". What's missing is not really the blockers, there are still those, it's the guys who can bat at a decent tempo and rotate strike etc, scoring freely without necessarily hitting boundaries.,

 

[shortpitched713]

I might also have a bias in favor of bowlers, because generally that's the direction that innovation in the game has come.

Bowler Improvise, Adapt, Overcome. Batsmen get rule changes and more armor and protection (nothing wrong with this btw). Even the one change of DRS that has favored bowlers isn't so much a change as the lifting of the veil of subjective favor that umpires have been giving to bats over the years above and beyond the actual rules (which they still tend to do more often than not in umpires call decisions and unchallenged calls more often favoring batsmen, imo).