Main reason for increased batting averages 2001-2011

[Black_Warrior]

It is a combination of factors...mainly the retirement of some great fast bowlers around the same time in the late 90s, early 00s and the pitches overall becoming slightly flatter.

 

[Black_Warrior]

+1
Exactly what I was going to say, so many people like to automatically say pitches, but Mcgrath's average actually improved in the 00's, also Murali, Warne and Steyn hasn't done too poorly either.
Actually the derth of quality fast bowlers has probably made life easier for a Steyn, as batsmen are so spoiled by the nonsense they face normally that there is a shock , and a needed adjustment when they actually face quality bolwers.
If one wants to use the pitches argument, then the Sub-Continent would be the place to look, but even in the 80's, Indian pitches were roads and that hasn't changed, just that Sri Lanka has joined the party as well.

Indian and Pakisani pitches were always roads..they havent changed but what we are seeing now are some flat pitches in places like West Indies, Australia and South Africa which wasn't the case even in the 90s. I mean there was a match in West Indies where 3-4 Bangladeshi batsmen scored centuries..can you imagine that in the 90s?
and no its not just because the West Indian bowlers sucked..Bangladesh have collapsed against far worse West Indies bowling attacks in their own home conditions..

 

[morgieb]

I don't really buy that you can just have a decade of crap bowlers across the board, personally. It's far more likely that bowling was just more difficult; probably for a combination of reasons.

Then why did all the guns still have similar (if not better) performances?

The only one I can think of that genuinely declined in the 2000's that wasn't old was Pollock.

It's definitely got less flat in Australia (probably because of the weather) since the 2000's, but everywhere else...

 

[Prince EWS]

Then why did all the guns still have similar (if not better) performances?

The only one I can think of that genuinely declined in the 2000's that wasn't old was Pollock.

It's definitely got less flat in Australia (probably because of the weather) since the 2000's, but everywhere else...

One could definitely just argue that they happened to peak then. One could also argue that it was harder to develop good bowling skills in the 2000s for whatever reason; or that the skills that were being developed by bowlers and taught by junior coaches just didn't translate to Test cricket very well. Or the opposite to any of those things with batting.

It's probably the way I rate cricketers in general that gives me such trouble with the "crap bowling" theory, because to me your quality is relative to the mean standard of the rest of world cricket. It basically excludes the possibility of a crap era from ever actually happening, and for good reason IMO. Your relative quality to the rest of world cricket at any given time is precisely what your value to your side is in that discipline and it's what you should be judged upon. If the rest of the world is struggling more than in previous/future years with a discipline there's more than likely a reason for it; even if it's just the ebb of flow of the game's evolution and the differing rates of adaptation. Even if not; best in the world is still best in the world regardless of fanciful cross-era comparisons that fans like to do.

 

[silentstriker]

The sample size of 'great bowlers' is so small though that 2-3 retirements could very easily move up the averages by a significant percentage with there being no other changes. And such retirements did indeed happen right around the time in question.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

And those that were great in the 90s generally continued being great (McGrath, Pollock).

Agree with most of your post but not the part in bold. Pollock was an effective throttler in the noughties, but severely lacked the penetration that a great bowler ought to have. By and large, Ntini and Steyn and even people like Nel have been greater threats than Shaun Pollock.
30-8-61-2 are good figures in my book; but that's not exactly my idea of a great fast bowler who can run through sides (seemingly at will). Just like Ambrose from 1996 up to his retirement wasn't a great bowler, IMHO!

 

[Xuhaib]

Agree with most of your post but not the part in bold. Pollock was an effective throttler in the noughties, but severely lacked the penetration that a great bowler ought to have. By and large, Ntini and Steyn and even people like Nel have been greater threats than Shaun Pollock.
30-8-61-2 are good figures in my book; but that's not exactly my idea of a great fast bowler who can run through sides (seemingly at will). Just like Ambrose from 1996 up to his retirement wasn't a great bowler, IMHO!

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

127 wickets @ 19

 

[Black_Warrior]

Agree with most of your post but not the part in bold. Pollock was an effective throttler in the noughties, but severely lacked the penetration that a great bowler ought to have. By and large, Ntini and Steyn and even people like Nel have been greater threats than Shaun Pollock.
30-8-61-2 are good figures in my book; but that's not exactly my idea of a great fast bowler who can run through sides (seemingly at will). Just like Ambrose from 1996 up to his retirement wasn't a great bowler, IMHO!

Ambrose was great till he retired..but agree about Pollock lacking penetration during the last few years.

 

[sunilreddy]

Rise in global temperature

 

[GIMH]

Phil Tuffnell plays his last Test in August 2001. September 2001 (as is widely accepted on CW) batting becomes easy.

Um...I got this

 

[Uppercut]

It was all a ten-year-long prank to annoy Richard imo.

 

[GIMH]

Seemed to work tbf given his 7 posts in 2 years