The Modern Day Batsman Issue

[Teja.]

"A batsman's job - or responsibility if you like - is to find a technique that optimises his scoring in his own era; not develop a technique that'd work in any era at the expense of maximum output in current conditions just to satisfy people who wish to compare him with former players." - PEWS

I strongly subscribe to this school of thought and believe that a batsman's technique is a product of the cricketing environment that they grew up in. Rating a batsman by mentally transporting him to a different era with the same technique- without accounting for the environment which led to him using the said technique- and then saying he'd get score sweet FA if he played in that era is just wrong, IMO. What is more important is that the batsman works out a technique that is best-suited for run-scoring in his era.

The 00s has been by far the most batsman friendly decade in the last half century which is mainly due to the increasing number of flat decks in the world. The techniques of the batsmen of the 00s obviously are affected by this and revolve around, and rightly so, optimization of run-scoring in these circumstances.Believing that Viv Richards/Ken Barrington would average 9000 today and Sehwag would average 12 in the 80s is a joke IMO.The odd failure in a bowling friendly deck is largely irrelevant IMO, which is an extreme rarity these days, in comparison to their performance in the 99 other flat decks while judging the worth of a batsman.

Would like to hear people's thoughts on this issue.

 

[vcs]

The 00s has been by far the most batsman friendly decade in the last half century which is mainly due to the increasing number of flat decks in the world.

Some would argue it's the bowlers who deserve more sympathy TBH.

Personally, I'd just like to see a lot of variation in the playing surfaces all over the world. If, as I'm hearing here, Aussie wickets aren't as quick and bouncy anymore as they used to be, that's a bit of a shame. Subcontinental wickets have stayed pretty much the same in my lifetime as far as I can recollect, bar Pakistan which seems to produce a lot of roads nowadays.

 

[robelinda]

I might get slammed for saying this, but I believe Sachin is so good that I wonder why he doesnt average a LOT more than everyone else. His technique is excellent, its been hardened by the 90's bowlers, why doesnt he average 65+ or over 70? Been thinking it for years, I cant think of many reasons why he cant be miles above other batsmen, yet apart from a few good years the last 10 havent stood out from the pack very much. Same applies to Laxman, only just this year his average is getting towards 48 and 49, for someone so good to have gone the whole 00's not crossing 50 permanently while guys like Jayawardene just cruise past is a mystery. Was it a batting decade or not?

 

[GotSpin]

Sympathy for the batsmen? They've never had it so easy. While I think it's wrong to just 'transport' a player from one era to another and say he'd fail, it's no stretch to suggest batsmen nowadays have things a lot easier.

 

[Teja.]

The Sympathy I was referring to was from critics/posters tbh.

Since it's leading to misinterpretation, I'd be thankful if a mod changes the title to 'The Modern Day Batsman Issue"

 

[Jono]

Haha was about to say you're going to be grilled on the 'sympathy' term, ignoring the rest of the point you were making lol.

It's the CW way

 

[Prince EWS]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/45054-modern-day-batsmen-flat-pitches.html

TBH.

 

[Teja.]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/45054-modern-day-batsmen-flat-pitches.html

TBH.

[/Thread]

Greatest post of all-time tbh.

 

[andyc]

Thread renamed. Agree totally with the opening post, though. A firm believer that, by and large, if you were a good batsman in this era, you'd be a good batsman in any other era as well.

 

[Prince EWS]

[/Thread]

Greatest post of all-time tbh.

My lack of professional media employment precludes it from being a great post as I wouldn't have been able to submit it in the 1970s or 1980s.

 

[JBMAC]

I believe if you can compare batsmen of different eras providing you saw them both "in the flesh" so to speak That way you are at least comparing "apples with apples". You are basing your comparison on what you actually saw NOT on contemporary media reports

 

[Teja.]

My lack of professional media employment precludes it from being a great post as I wouldn't have been able to submit it in the 1970s or 1980s.

 

[G.I.Joe]

My lack of professional media employment precludes it from being a great post as I wouldn't have been able to submit it in the 1970s or 1980s.

Wouldn't have mattered tbh. All the real writers use typewriters and typesetting, none of this pansy word processor and bulletin board crap.

 

[Faisal1985]

I would tend to agree.

IMO, a great batsman is one who adopts to the situation well and scores according to the situation. If a batsman like Tendulkar batted during the time of Viv and co. I am certain that he would be still just as great as he is now because he has the quality to adopt to the situation and change his game accordingly. Obviously we can't go back in time and make this era's batsmen bat, but we can always see how certain batsmen play in different conditions. The ones who are able to change their technique and execute the strokes as such are indeed those who would have been equally as great. I can say this about batsmen such as Lara, Sachin, Ponting etc.

 

[aussie]

I believe if you can compare batsmen of different eras providing you saw them both "in the flesh" so to speak That way you are at least comparing "apples with apples". You are basing your comparison on what you actually saw NOT on contemporary media reports

Right on old fella...

 

[Uppercut]

"A batsman's job - or responsibility if you like - is to find a technique that optimises his scoring in his own era; not develop a technique that'd work in any era at the expense of maximum output in current conditions just to satisfy people who wish to compare him with former players." - PEWS

:

 

[zaremba]

I believe if you can compare batsmen of different eras providing you saw them both "in the flesh" so to speak That way you are at least comparing "apples with apples". You are basing your comparison on what you actually saw NOT on contemporary media reports

Playing devil's advocate, one might say that what you're really comparing is the apple you're eating now with an apple you remember eating 30 years ago. Which is a very tricky comparison indeed...

 

[Teja.]

Playing devil's advocate, one might say that what you're really comparing is the apple you're eating now with an apple you remember eating 30 years ago. Which is a very tricky comparison indeed...

Very good point.

 

[Ikki]

TBF, I am not sure I'd even agree with it being more easier to score runs in this era than say the 60s for example. I think batsmen these days have maximised their run-scoring through their stroke-play. They take more calculated risks and they're paying off. Because, really, they're actually getting out faster these days (SRs of bowlers are going down).

 

[Uppercut]

I think there's a lot of truth in that but the opportunity to play in such a manner is itself an advantage borne of, amongst other things, better coaching attitudes, better bats and a vast amount of shorter-format cricket in which to harness such skills.