What's wrong in South Africa?

[Richard]

I mean, it's getting stupid now. We're just seeing so many absurdly high totals in ODIs at the moment.

Why?

It's not like the grounds are unusually small, it's not like it's all at one ground, it's not like anyone's gone out with a "we're gonna smack if from-ball-one" mentality in any game, there's nothing in common. Well, except good batting wickets and fast outfields, but they're certainly nothing unusual.

What's been going on of late?

[silentstriker]

Nothing, they are just preparing batting friendly tracks, to make sure all fifty overs are played out.

Thats how you can maximise your revenue, but making sure advertisers know that all fifty overs will likely be played.

[Goughy]

Obviously it is hard to know the exact reason but Ill offer a few potential reasons apart from the obvious smallish grounds and good batting conditions.

- SA was one of the 1st countries to accept 20/20 cricket. Pro 20 here is an established and important part of the domestic game and it has changed perceptions and attitudes on what is achievable when batting

- SA play with a number of aggressive, hard hitting middle/lower order allrounders. Guys like Kemp, Boucher, Pollock etc add explosiveness later in the order. However, maybe more importantly they give SA a very long batting lineup. This allows the top order to play with a massive amount of freedom as they know there is depth to come even if they get out. An issue Englands batsmen have struggled with until recently.

- Obviously oppostition teams know SA are capable of scoring big totals and they therefore have to pre-empt this SA batting onslaught which means they have to go hell for leather as well.

My 2 cents

[deeps]

I think this sums it up:

[Jono]

Look how small those ****ty grounds are though. They're really a disgrace IMO, people talk about sub-continent pitches and grounds, but these are much worse. At least conditions there often aid a lot of swing with the white ball early, and the pitch also helps spinners there.

From what I've seen from SA ODI cricket in the last year, its been pretty horrible.

Mind you, what that says about India's performance in their ODI series I don't know. I guess those pitches were more an exception to the rule.

But before the Indian ODI series started, people were talking about how the pitches would be bouncy and aid movement or whatever, and I reminded people of the Australia ODI series. Sure, at night batting can be hell, but that just makes it worse because in the day you can get 350, and then at night all out for 200 because the ball is swinging a mile, and the batsman are batting stupidly anyway because they're chasing 350.

The 434 chase could be excused because of a crap bowling attack, along with the small ground and flat track. However Pollock, Nel, Ntini and even Langeveldt and Kallis makes a good enough attack to not be hit for 350 runs.

[Richard]

I think this sums it up:

A big red X?

[Richard]

Obviously it is hard to know the exact reason but Ill offer a few potential reasons apart from the obvious smallish grounds and good batting conditions.

- SA was one of the 1st countries to accept 20/20 cricket. Pro 20 here is an established and important part of the domestic game and it has changed perceptions and attitudes on what is achievable when batting

- SA play with a number of aggressive, hard hitting middle/lower order allrounders. Guys like Kemp, Boucher, Pollock etc add explosiveness later in the order. However, maybe more importantly they give SA a very long batting lineup. This allows the top order to play with a massive amount of freedom as they know there is depth to come even if they get out. An issue Englands batsmen have struggled with until recently.

- Obviously oppostition teams know SA are capable of scoring big totals and they therefore have to pre-empt this SA batting onslaught which means they have to go hell for leather as well.

My 2 cents

All well and good where SA are concerned, but it's not been just them accumulating said massive scores, it's been opponents and (in the case of, for example, WC2003 final) neutrals.

And indeed, I'd say the problems started before Stuart Robertson's idea even came into existence.

[Richard]

Nothing, they are just preparing batting friendly tracks, to make sure all fifty overs are played out.

Thats how you can maximise your revenue, but making sure advertisers know that all fifty overs will likely be played.

And no-one else is doing that?

[Richard]

Look how small those ****ty grounds are though. They're really a disgrace IMO

I hear loads of talk about that, but I still don't actually know what the dimensions are.

Is anyone able to help-out there?

[PhoenixFire]

English wickets used for ODIs have generally become very flat, that's it too.

[silentstriker]

And no-one else is doing that?

Never said they aren't.....

[Ross Douglas]

I mean, it's getting stupid now. We're just seeing so many absurdly high totals in ODIs at the moment.

Why?

It's not like the grounds are unusually small, it's not like it's all at one ground, it's not like anyone's gone out with a "we're gonna smack if from-ball-one" mentality in any game, there's nothing in common. Well, except good batting wickets and fast outfields, but they're certainly nothing unusual.

What's been going on of late?

It's down to England not having been batting there of late.

[albo97056]

The lights arnt workin thats whats wrong

[Richard]

It's down to England not having been batting there of late.

As if it weren't already certain...

[Richard]

English wickets used for ODIs have generally become very flat, that's it too.

Indeed, and we've seen plenty of absurdly expensive bowling-figures (if only so far one game where stupid totals have been scored - like 320 off 40 in the final SL game last summer) in some games here in recent years.

Which makes me wonder - exactly what are the relative dimensions of our grounds relative to SA's?