The World Has Forgotten How To Bat
 

Pretty much every test side has fallen in a heap lately. Even South Africa are prone to a good lollapse when they get in the mood. This is at a time too when a lot of the best batsmen of the late 90s and the first decade of the 00s are either retired or entering their final years. In the past few tests we've seen England and India demolish each others batting in different tests, Australia and South Africa do the same, and New Zealand and Sri Lanka took it to even more hilarious heights with only one 300+ score being posted in the series, and that was on a first innings road against an attack which left it all to Herath for the most part.

We've also seen a rise in the overall quality of young pace and spin stocks. There aren't any spinners in the Warne or Murali class at present, but the spin stocks are more evenly spread. Almost everyone has a tweaker who varies between very good and at least dangerous on their day. Likewise while in the 00s Australia and South Africa had their mitts on all the great quick bowlers, now we're seeing almost every test side producing some pace bowling depth. Even sides who traditionally don't have as many good quicks as spinners like India have produced guys like Yadav who looks a real asset.

You expect sides like Australia, New Zealand, and to an extent India, who have relatively less experienced top order batting to sustain some speed wobbles at test level, but the likes of South Africa, England and Sri Lanka, all with very established batting line ups, have been getting rolled for low scores, especially the top orders (yes I did catch the test today, but Australia have had their moments with the ball in this series). While a fair share of the collapses have been on seamers or turners, a fair share of roads (Adelaide, Colombo) have seen recent Lollapses as well.

So, do you put this down to an influx of new batsmen all at once, better bowlers, more favourable pitches or a mix of all three? If a mix (I anticipate this to be the most common answer), what are the proportions in that mix?

It certainly makes for awesome viewing.

edit: I didn't include West Indies v Bangladesh because I haven't watched a ball and only followed it loosely on cricinfo. All I remember is NUFAN tasting it, so I'd be keen to hear the pattern there.

Mindset. Batsmen are more attacking than before. The idea of leaving the ball isn't as familiar to them. Even the most defensive batsmen going around are prone to poking and playing at deliveries they could be leaving. It is also easier to tempt then into going for the big shot or attacking strokes than before.

Batsmen batting with less restraint is definitely one of the factors IMO.

I think if you look at sides at present if there is a bit in the pitch for the bowlers then the bats just aren't good enough. Australia fail miserably against decent pace bowling of late and England have had a horror year against spin and been saved by two batting masterclasses by KP. As for the rest they have all succumbed at various times, maybe this is the legacy of T20 as players just hit/slog through the line on good batting tracks but as soon as there is something there for the bowlers the technique and patience isn't there to overcome it and ride it out like good players used to.

Can't really slag India off too much as they are in a real transition period like the Aussies were 5 years ago so you will always get the odd bizarre performance in their position ( though a couple of the established names are letting them down ) and it won't be long till Sri Lanka will be in the same boat as they have a fairly old batting line up. Seems amazing that the most consistant side in recent times appear to be Pakistan, the Jekyll and Hyde of cricket have been good for far too long. Need something to laugh at from them soon.

People like Warner and Alviro Peterson (and Sehwag on more than the odd occasion, though he has the record to back him up unlike the other two) have no business playing in Test sides tbh. It's a five day game and while one can make allowances to an extent for scoring fast and demoralizing the opposition, the primary job of the opener has always got to be to grind it out. These guys might be gifted strokemakers but their mental build is just not suited for long form cricket.

The batting mindset is certainly very different today. I wouldn't say whether its 'better' or 'worse', seems kind of stupid. This is just a different era.

Modern bats make attacking batting so much easier, therefore there's more value in expansive strokeplay than there used to be. This has changed the mindset of batsmen in tests.

That said, there's no reason why a modern batter can't play responsibly and in an old fashioned manner. Just look at Faf at Adelaide. And he's a fella whose spent most of his time playing the shorter stuff

Overall I find the 'things were better in my day' argument pretty tiresome. Good bowling still exists, and in cricket you just need ten deliveries to roll a side. Collapses are going to happen. No need for all this hyperbole

Top order from majority is in rebuilding phase or consists of players who are just finding their way into test cricket. I can think of only Cook, Smith and Amla from all the nations' top three bat who are consistent and in good form atm.

Think every side is just ridiculously inconsistent at batting and bowling right now, I mean we have had some bizarre sessions in this SA v Australia series. Think there are an awful lot of talented cricketers out there but no one looks like they can really string it together for a reasonable length of time, I mean this South Africa side is good for sure but there are times when they look seriously good.

you have nailed it imo.

I think a lot has changed by how we watch cricket. Even the most T20-hating and test-loving cricket fan has probably been influenced by fast run scoring.

Furthermore, it seems to be planted in the watcher's mind that openers not only must be fast scoring, but also must be top scorers. Whereas there is some common sense cricket idea that an opener should also simply take off the shine of the new ball.

One of the most, imho, silly discussions of recent times, has been about Shane Watson, as an opener. If one takes a look at his strike rates at Tests, ODIs & T20s, one cannot deny that he has simply understood how each format should be approached. Watson has terribly few centuries, yet not too many low scores. If you have this guy in your test line-up anyway, and you have a choice to put in him in on any number from 1 to 6, and you know he won't score big, but won't get out for a few either, it only makes sense to use him as an opener.

On the other hand, I've always wondered why Michael Clarke & Chiv Chanderpaul come in at 5.....

I tend to agree, yet there is a very strong arguement against a part of your post.

The England horror year against spin was about Strauss, Cook, Trott, Bell, and Prior. Arguably not about Pietersen and his two masterclasses. Yet, these players are hardly involved in T20s.....

yeah the young generation is pathetic, t20 sucks, old dudes ftw etc

I blame Sehwag. His game changing approach to test cricket single handedly made it ok for a raft of openers to follow suit. If you give me the choice of someone who will score 20(60) or 30(30) I know who I am picking in a test. But peeps such as Tamim have been influenced into thinking otherwise. I think it is all down to the openers really. You need to get a good start.

I'd pick 30(30) tbh

I knew you would. And so would Tamim, McCullum, Warner, and Dilshan.

cricket is all about runs and I'm quite happy taking someone who averages 30 over someone who averages 20, the strike rate doesn't even come into consideration when making a choice like that.

maybe you'll need the guy who bats slowly to grind you out some draws, someday, but in the end it's all down to runs for me.