Double centuries per year

[FaaipDeOiad]

I was having a look at some stats today and had a look at the number of double centuries scored in various calendar years. I think this is perhaps the best indication I have seen so far of exactly how much flatter pitches have become since the end of the 90s.

From 1980 to 1989, 35 double centuries and no triples were scored.
From 1990 to 1998, 32 double centuries and 4 triples were scores.
From 1999 to today, 70 double centuries and 4 triples have been scored, in just 6 and a half years. Between 2002 and today, 46 doubles and 4 triples have been scored. The only year in double figures before 2002 was 1999, with 10 doubles in the year. In 2002 there were 12, in 2003 and 2004 there were 14 each, including two triple centuries last year, and by just mid-April this year we have already seen 6.

Part of this can be attributed to an increase in test cricket and the inclusion of Bangladesh, but not most of it. It's a truly remarkable indictment on the preperation of pitches today.

 

[deeps]

yup the pitches are very batsman orientated, and it is not a good thing for the future of cricket. The quality of bowling is going to rapidly decrease, as no1 will have played a green top and will not know how to exploit the conditions.

We've seen players from the past have to face top quality bowling, and make scores... If you think back, you can think of many many bowlers that were great... Of the current bunch of bowlers, who would be remembered as great in 50 years time? Mcgrath, Warne, muralitharan...........

In steve waughs almost 20 year career, he made 15 of his 32 centuries after 1999. His first years were spent batting like greats in Ambrose and Walsh, and other speed demons from west indies, as well as wasim and waqar, donald and pollock in their prime and to a lesser extent gough and caddick etc.

Now people like Hayden come along, and are making 380 against nothing bowlers and gettin big credit for it. Inflated averages etc. 20 years ago, not many batsman would have an average of over 50, but now it's becoming common.

There is a reason why many batsman failed earlier in the careers and are very successful now..and it is not just because they have become more wise...

 

[a massive zebra]

I'd say it was more an indictment on the lack of quality bowlers around ATM, and a reflection of the increasingly popular mistaken belief that pace alone is better than accuracy and movement. All the great bowlers - Ambrose, McGrath, Murali, Warne, Akhtar and Walsh - have lower Test bowling averages in the 21st century than the 20th. That kind of destroys your pitches argument.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'd say it was more an indictment on the lack of quality bowlers around ATM, and a reflection of the increasingly popular mistaken belief that pace alone is better than accuracy and movement. All the great bowlers - Ambrose, McGrath, Murali, Warne, Akhtar and Walsh - have lower Test bowling averages in the 21st century than the 20th. That kind of destroys your pitches argument.

There is something of a drop off in quality bowlers as well, certainly, but if pitches were anything like what they were in the 90s today, you would see a lot more bowlers considered "good". Given that most people assess quality based on statistical record, and that all bowlers bar the absolute cream of the crop will have a poorer statistical record on flat wickets than not. Bowlers who rely on moving the ball a large amount have a very hard time of it these days, simply because almost no pitches allow it. A "good" spinner these days can average in the 30s, and many of the solid middle-of-the-pack bowlers tody like Vaas, Ntini, Hoggard, Kasprowicz etc have far poorer records today than they would if they had played in the early to mid 90s. Conversely, someone like Craig McDermott would not have had anything like the level of success he did if he played in the modern era on flat wickets, simply because he wasn't an all-time great, just a good bowler. When can you remember in the 80s or 90s there being whole series of nothing but dead flat wickets like we saw in Australia for the Indian tour in 03/04 or any number of other series one could name? The standard in pitches is MASSIVELY lower than it was even 10 years ago.

Besides, we are talking about an increase from around 3.5 double centuries a year for two decades up to over 10 in the last half-decade. A reduction in bowling stocks alone won't allow for that.

 

[Will Scarlet]

I think all of the following contributed to the increase in double centuries:

- Inclusion of BAN and ZIM
- Significant increase in bowlers' workloads due to increased one day cricket
- Significant increase in bowlers' injuries due to above
- Severe criticism from the public and cricketing officials (who prefer to see large scores) if seaming wickets are prepared
- Strength of the Australian batting line-up
- Faster scoring inspired by OD cricket allowing players to achieve higher scores in the same time-frame

 

[age_master]

Lack of quality bowlers and pictehs that are good to bat on for 4 days per test.

 

[Zinzan]

I think all of the following contributed to the increase in double centuries:

- Inclusion of BAN and ZIM
- Significant increase in bowlers' workloads due to increased one day cricket
- Significant increase in bowlers' injuries due to above
- Severe criticism from the public and cricketing officials (who prefer to see large scores) if seaming wickets are prepared
- Strength of the Australian batting line-up
- Faster scoring inspired by OD cricket allowing players to achieve higher scores in the same time-frame

Agreed, not to mention that overall pitches suit batsmen much more than in the 80s and 90s

 

[C_C]

Batting has always progressed at a slightly faster pace than bowling...if you look right back from the 1900s, you will see more high scores in each decade save the 70s-90s...in a sense, the 70s to 90s were an aberration.
Contribute that to flatter pitches and lack of quality bowlers and its runs galore.

 

[Scallywag]

I think the batsmen of today are a class above the batsmen of the 80's and 90's.

 

[Swervy]

yup the pitches are very batsman orientated, and it is not a good thing for the future of cricket. The quality of bowling is going to rapidly decrease, as no1 will have played a green top and will not know how to exploit the conditions.

We've seen players from the past have to face top quality bowling, and make scores... If you think back, you can think of many many bowlers that were great... Of the current bunch of bowlers, who would be remembered as great in 50 years time? Mcgrath, Warne, muralitharan...........

In steve waughs almost 20 year career, he made 15 of his 32 centuries after 1999. His first years were spent batting like greats in Ambrose and Walsh, and other speed demons from west indies, as well as wasim and waqar, donald and pollock in their prime and to a lesser extent gough and caddick etc.

Now people like Hayden come along, and are making 380 against nothing bowlers and gettin big credit for it. Inflated averages etc. 20 years ago, not many batsman would have an average of over 50, but now it's becoming common.

There is a reason why many batsman failed earlier in the careers and are very successful now..and it is not just because they have become more wise...

mmm...well I dont really see a problem with bat dominating ball so long as we continue to get result matches. The number of drawn games has fallen dramatically over the last few years...which suggests that teams are taking 20 wickets in a match more often than they ever have done. Batsmen these days hit the half hittable ball, years ago, any amount of risk was eliminated by leaving the ball alone. This has meant strike rates for batsmen have risen...but I would actually say that maybe a bowlers strike rate (ie balls per wicket) is probably the same as it always has been, or maybe even improved slightly.

Batsmen may take a few more risks these days,which might mean wickets are taken more often, but to be honest I think 20 years ago (or longer) batsmen just werent as aggressive as they could have been, so batsmen probably batted for the same amount of time back then, but just didnt cash in as much.

I dont know the reason for this, however I think these days, teams are more likely to attempt to win games...a few years ago, teams tried to aviod defeat, if the by-product of that was victory, then that was a bonus..therefore we get more runs per over,with the same number of wickets taken.

And that for me is fine..its more entertainment for the crowds, which encouurages more people to play. Test cricket is all the better for it.

I dont think a rise in averages for batsmen and bowlers is really down to one particular thing though...I think the lack of top quality pace bowling these days is blown a bit out of proportion,outside the WI's in the 80's there werent really that many very good pace bowlers in the world.....I dont think pitches are THAT MUCH flattter than they have been previously, I think we probably see less 'green top' pitches, but really there werent that many bacthen...I do think we also underplay how good the batsmen are these days, I think we are in a time , which in say 30 years time, we will look back and think how lucky we are to have been able to watch all these great batsmen.

Deeps , you say that the quality of bowling will decrease if no-one gets to play of green tops...not true...pitches heavily favouring fast bowling do no-one any favours...bowlers dont have to work for wickets. The only way to increase bowling standards is to play on good pitches, pitches with a bit of pace, which will encourage faster bowlers who bowl it in the right places, and encourage batsmen to go for their shots and make runs

 

[Adamc]

Perhaps a more accurate way of displaying the same information.

Double centuries by Tests played:

#1-#200: 17
201-400: 41
401-600: 21
601-800: 35
801-1000:22
1001-1200: 25
1201-1400: 22
1401-1600: 34
1601-1748: 39

My counting may be a little bit off but you get the point. Double-century rates are as high now as they ever have been, but it's not as dramatic as many people seem to think. If you compare it to Tests #800-1400, the change is stark, but prior to that, 30-40 double centuries per 200 Tests was not uncommon.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Batting has always progressed at a slightly faster pace than bowling...if you look right back from the 1900s, you will see more high scores in each decade save the 70s-90s...in a sense, the 70s to 90s were an aberration.
Contribute that to flatter pitches and lack of quality bowlers and its runs galore.

That's really not true at all. The 30s and the 50s had much higher scores than other decades in the 20th century. After the general improvement of pitch quality post WW1 and the increasing professionalism of the game, scores have varied up and down depending on the quality of the batting, the bowling and the pitches. The 30s for example had largely flat wickets and some fantastic batsmen, and while there were some good bowlers there was probably less overall quality compared to the huge reserves of batting ability. The 70s and 80s had some awesome bowlers, plenty of good batsmen but the overall quality wasn't as high as in some other eras, and pitches which in many parts of the world favoured bowlers more than other times. This century so far has very flat wickets, some great bowlers but not heaps, and some very high batting quality, hence the high scores.

Remember that the 70s to the 90s is 30 years... that's a long time in terms of the history of cricket to call an "aberration".

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Perhaps a more accurate way of displaying the same information.

Double centuries by Tests played:

#1-#200: 17
201-400: 41
401-600: 21
601-800: 35
801-1000:22
1001-1200: 25
1201-1400: 22
1401-1600: 34
1601-1748: 39

My counting may be a little bit off but you get the point. Double-century rates are as high now as they ever have been, but it's not as dramatic as many people seem to think. If you compare it to Tests #800-1400, the change is stark, but prior to that, 30-40 double centuries per 200 Tests was not uncommon.

Interesting stuff.

 

[Swervy]

Perhaps a more accurate way of displaying the same information.

Double centuries by Tests played:

#1-#200: 17
201-400: 41
401-600: 21
601-800: 35
801-1000:22
1001-1200: 25
1201-1400: 22
1401-1600: 34
1601-1748: 39

My counting may be a little bit off but you get the point. Double-century rates are as high now as they ever have been, but it's not as dramatic as many people seem to think. If you compare it to Tests #800-1400, the change is stark, but prior to that, 30-40 double centuries per 200 Tests was not uncommon.

the last category there though is on course for 54 double hundreds by the time it gets to 1800 tests, which is a huge amount relative to other times

 

[Glennw]

Hasnt Glenn McGrath got a d century yet?

 

[telsor]

Perhaps a more accurate way of displaying the same information.

Double centuries by Tests played:

#1-#200: 17
201-400: 41
401-600: 21
601-800: 35
801-1000:22
1001-1200: 25
1201-1400: 22
1401-1600: 34
1601-1748: 39

My counting may be a little bit off but you get the point. Double-century rates are as high now as they ever have been, but it's not as dramatic as many people seem to think. If you compare it to Tests #800-1400, the change is stark, but prior to that, 30-40 double centuries per 200 Tests was not uncommon.

A much better comparison than 'by decade'.

Also remember that during the early days, the pitches weren't covered, so you would expect fewer big scores.

Another point to remember is that current batsmen are full time sportsmen, and fitter than those of earlier eras, meaning they can keep going for longer. Big scores owe as much to endurance as skill.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Another point to remember is that current batsmen are full time sportsmen, and fitter than those of earlier eras, meaning they can keep going for longer. Big scores owe as much to endurance as skill.

Donald Bradman passed 200 twelve times in his 29 centuries, as well as two triples and a 299, and Walter Hammond seven times in his 22, and both retired before 1950. The only other player to have hit 7 doubles is Brian Lara. Surely this flies in the face of the claim that modern cricketers are more capable of the necessary endurance for a long innings?

 

[vic_orthdox]

while i'm not saying its solely responsible, surely you can say that it means that players not as good as bradman hammond or lara are managing to make double hundreds because they have the fitness levels to maintain their standard of play for longer, something not apparent in players of earlier eras. taking individual players and quoting their stats proves that these two players may well have been very fit, (even though they are two of the most naturally gifted players in history, as well as lara), but overall players of this generation are fitter than those preceding, therefore able to bat/concentrate for longer periods of time, therefore helping them make bigger centuries.

 

[Jason_M]

There's too many of them today.

Pitches are more batsmen friendly and the bowling stocks around the world are poor. Matthew Hayden's 380 was a disgrace to cricket, thank god it was broken.