• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Causality in batting easiness

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's a pretty observable fact some eras, especially the 20s, 40s and 00s saw higher batting averages than others. The general factors you'll hear about this are that there were no great bowlers (especially fast bowlers) or that pitches were flatter. I'd like to see some discussion over the causes of such eras.

For example, the one about great bowlers. It is conceivable that there were fewer great bowlers in a given era, and this made life easy for the batsmen. But could it possibly be the other way round? Perhaps said era has many great batsmen who made life difficult for the bowlers, who then appear worse in comparison. Maybe there is just some random variation, and at some times you'll get more great bowlers of a given style and in others batsmen.
Perhaps there is a third factor influencing both - I think very few would disagree with the assertion that the current era has seen fewer truly fast pitches, especially in WI and Aus. But on the other hand one could argue that more recent pitches in India have been more bowler friendly than in, say, the early eighties.

So what do you think is the biggest influence?
 

Flem274*

123/5
all of the above to varying degrees, and people will take the parts that suit to build the narrative they want.

for example i could build a narrative that the west indian quicks, hadlee, imran etc benefitted immensely from favourable decks, biased umpiring, ball tampering and a dearth of great batsmen so they weren't actually that good and their numbers are as inflated as 00s batsmen are. people pull a less extreme version of what i just wrote for 2011-20. spicy decks, chucking, not many great batsmen etc

the extreme of this narrative building is 'the batsman cannot be too good for the bowler'.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's a pretty observable fact some eras, especially the 20s, 40s and 00s saw higher batting averages than others. The general factors you'll hear about this are that there were no great bowlers (especially fast bowlers) or that pitches were flatter. I'd like to see some discussion over the causes of such eras.

For example, the one about great bowlers. It is conceivable that there were fewer great bowlers in a given era, and this made life easy for the batsmen. But could it possibly be the other way round? Perhaps said era has many great batsmen who made life difficult for the bowlers, who then appear worse in comparison. Maybe there is just some random variation, and at some times you'll get more great bowlers of a given style and in others batsmen.
Perhaps there is a third factor influencing both - I think very few would disagree with the assertion that the current era has seen fewer truly fast pitches, especially in WI and Aus. But on the other hand one could argue that more recent pitches in India have been more bowler friendly than in, say, the early eighties.

So what do you think is the biggest influence?
Most likely it's somewhere in the middle. People probably underrate some batsmen from these eras because the bowlers weren't as good, without taking into account that the batsmen being better might have had a big influence on the bowlers being perceived as not as good.

Speaking for the 00s, I think there really were more flat wickets than other decades which would have affected this, especially in the subcontinent.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Most likely it's somewhere in the middle. People probably underrate some batsmen from these eras because the bowlers weren't as good, without taking into account that the batsmen being better might have had a big influence on the bowlers being perceived as not as good.
I put it the way I did because I think that people are a bit more inclined to give bowlers slack for bullying weak opponents than batsmen, except for Trueman against India.

Speaking for the 00s, I think there really were more flat wickets than other decades which would have affected this, especially in the subcontinent.
I'm not sure that's really true, I think Australia was just as responsible. Taking the top eight teams the batting average in Asia was 33.1 and Australia 34.06 in the 00s. Both saw matches with lots of good to great batsmen in this era. They do both have an enormous jump from nineties (29.89 and 29.26 respectively) as well.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
the extreme of this narrative building is 'the batsman cannot be too good for the bowler'.
Think this comes about because bowlers only need one good ball to get even a set batsman, so against good bowlers on even slightly helpful pitches, the batsman's stay is always on the rocks

Unless, of course, it's something like Sachin reading Warnie off the hand.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I put it the way I did because I think that people are a bit more inclined to give bowlers slack for bullying weak opponents than batsmen, except for Trueman against India.


I'm not sure that's really true, I think Australia was just as responsible. Taking the top eight teams the batting average in Asia was 33.1 and Australia 34.06 in the 00s. Both saw matches with lots of good to great batsmen in this era. They do both have an enormous jump from nineties (29.89 and 29.26 respectively) as well.
Sure, but from memory Australian wickets seemed even flatter if anything in the 10s
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sure, but from memory Australian wickets seemed even flatter if anything in the 10s
Well the 00's aren't the 10s though. The top 8 averages for the 10s are 31.92 and 33.85 for Asia and Australia respectively. A slight decline, but when you remember how bad teams are at touring these days you might be right, but it's hard to tell. On tours on flattish pitches like England in '17-18 and especially South Africa in India last year you have to ask whether the batting self-destruction and bowling impotence cancel each other out.
 

cnerd123

likes this
I feel the cricket meta game is a real thing. A certain idea catches hold of everyone in the professional cricket environment and suddenly you see it taking effect everywhere. Certain techniques, ideologies, strategies, etc.

I think that extends to phases where bat dominates over ball and vice versa. Everything goes in cycles. We had a period of bat dominating ball, so the natural correction towards the other end was inevitable. Bowlers got smarter, pitches got spicier, batsmen got lazier. A generation of legendary batsmen left and a generation of to-become great bowlers emerged. 3 formats of the game and hectic schedules had their effect on the mindset of the batsmen.

We'll see a correction towards batsmen again eventually.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well the 00's aren't the 10s though.
Yes that is what I was saying. I'm probably remembering mostly the mid-10s, ie. 2014-2017, where we got a lot of terrible roady roads and massive scores.

I feel the cricket meta game is a real thing. A certain idea catches hold of everyone in the professional cricket environment and suddenly you see it taking effect everywhere. Certain techniques, ideologies, strategies, etc.

I think that extends to phases where bat dominates over ball and vice versa. Everything goes in cycles. We had a period of bat dominating ball, so the natural correction towards the other end was inevitable. Bowlers got smarter, pitches got spicier, batsmen got lazier. A generation of legendary batsmen left and a generation of to-become great bowlers emerged. 3 formats of the game and hectic schedules had their effect on the mindset of the batsmen.

We'll see a correction towards batsmen again eventually.
A fascinating theory tbh. Didn't realize you were capable of such imagination and insight.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
all of the above to varying degrees, and people will take the parts that suit to build the narrative they want.

for example i could build a narrative that the west indian quicks, hadlee, imran etc benefitted immensely from favourable decks, biased umpiring, ball tampering and a dearth of great batsmen so they weren't actually that good and their numbers are as inflated as 00s batsmen are. people pull a less extreme version of what i just wrote for 2011-20. spicy decks, chucking, not many great batsmen etc

the extreme of this narrative building is 'the batsman cannot be too good for the bowler'.
Yeah, and there's a degree to which being extremely good and successful ends up diminishing your own achievement too. For example, if a batsman is sufficiently dominant to ruin the records and reputations of the people with the misfortune of bowling at them, all of a sudden those runs aren't as valuable because they came against sub-par lol-you-kids, even though if not for that batsman's existence they'd have comparable numbers to extremely good bowlers.
 

Top