Test XI for The Last Quarter Century

[Mr Miyagi]

I don't think that's mathematically possible, unless you think there has been a significant reduction in the number of run outs.

Run outs have icnreased.

HALF the career highest average batsmen have played this year.

It is possible and I explained it.

Records | One-Day Internationals | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo

 

[Starfighter]

Run outs have icnreased.

HALF the career highest average batsmen have played this year.

It is possible and I explained it.

Records | One-Day Internationals | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo

Ahem, if bowling averages have remained the same and runouts have increased then batting averages must therefore decrease as a consequence. Yet you proposed that they are increasing. The maths doesn't work.

 

[cnerd123]

The ***iness of cricket has traditionally been in it's flaws

Batsmen who don't have absolutely perfect techniques, but play with that flare about them
Bowlers with curving, leaping, twisting, athletic runups and actions - not bio-mechanically perfect ones
Cricketers who just generally don't make the best possible decision in every moment of the game, but the ones who dip into their craziness and sometimes let the adrenaline or momentum carry them towards success (Shahid Afridi you ***y ***y beast)
Fielders and keepers who move elegantly and dive to complete catches that would have been easy if they just moved their feet a bit earlier or anticipated the ball the way they should have

All of this is what we're losing with cricket. Plus with more optimal skills, fitness and equipment, comes less flying stumps and less extravagant strokes to send the ball to the fence. Increasing professionalism means less daring strategies and less characters on the fields.

It's just the way the world and society has been moving as a whole. Add in a good dose of nostalgia, and it's easy to see why we think limited overs cricket just isn't what it used to be.

But personally, I quite like it. It's more tightened up. More disciplined. More drilled. More pace, more power, more athleticism. More cleverness. More subtle variations, deft touches into gaps, pinching ones and sprinting twos. Smart and Strong is the new ***y. Ironically enough I feel modern day ODIs are now more in the mold of the two ODI ATGs - Sachin and McGrath. Ruthless shot making, mixing power with precision, with dabs of cheekiness? Rutheless line and length, elaborate plans and subtle variations? These two men were ahead of their time, and set the blueprint for what modern ODI cricket has become.

I think it's great tbh.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ok

 

[Bolo]

Run outs have icnreased.

HALF the career highest average batsmen have played this year.

It is possible and I explained it.

Records | One-Day Internationals | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo

Batting and bowling averages are not independent. One does not change without the other changing, with the exception of things like runouts.

What is possibly changing is that the average of specialist batsmen could be increasing. they are getting out quicker though, so tailenders bat more, which keeps the batting average static.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Run outs have icnreased.

HALF the career highest average batsmen have played this year.

It is possible and I explained it.

Records | One-Day Internationals | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo

Dude I'm pretty sure that's mathematically impossible. Bowling averages and batting averages can't vary separately, unless 1) run outs, or 2) wides & no balls change significantly.

The only way batting averages could theoretically increase significantly while bowling averages stay the same would be if either:
- The rate of run outs dropped massively, or
- The rate of no-balls and wides dropped massively

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Ahem, if bowling averages have remained the same and runouts have increased then batting averages must therefore decrease as a consequence. Yet you proposed that they are increasing. The maths doesn't work.

Maybe it doesn't appear to you to work. How often are the middle and tail batting today as against yesterday?

Today's batsmen at the top order are making more runs before they get out. Bowlers are batting more often these days and getting out. So the bowlers benefit here.

 

[cnerd123]

I disagree. Batsmen get too much value for their shots now. You don't have to centre it at all and don't have to put in anywhere maximum effort to get six. Meanwhile what would otherwise be bad balls are often as or more valuable than good balls from a bowling perspective. That soul-sucking short of a length bowling is a hideous blight.

Haha I quite like it.

This is what I mean tho - I feel we just need things to stabilize w/regards to bats, boundary sizes and fielding regulations for a while. Give bowlers time to figure out the levels of discipline needed, the kinds of fields they will set and plans they will bowl too. And there will always be an element of luck to ODIs, but given enough time we'll see bowlers adapt and overcome

This year's IPL was a great example of that IMO, from whatever I watched.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Maybe it doesn't appear to you to work. How often are the middle and tail batting today as against yesterday?

Today's batsmen at the top order are making more runs before they get out. Bowlers are batting more often these days and getting out. So the bowlers benefit here.

Oh god it's happening again. It doesn't "not appear to work". It's a mathematical impossibility. You can't argue against that.

I think you're getting confused with Rpo increasing & averages staying the same, which is a definite possibility. It's likely even. But batting averages and bowling averages simply can't vary significantly, independently.

 

[Burgey]

I think ODIs are just formulaic by nature. The problem doesn't lie in the formats, or rules, or bats or whatever - it's just what happens when you have an extremely professionalized sport with lots of money at stake. No one is going to be creative at the risk of losing. Everyone is just going to stick to the script so they don't get lambasted when they try a new approach and lose.

I honestly find ODIs to be exciting based on how closely fought the game is, independent of the runs being scored. The difference between 200 vs 200 and 350 vs 350 is simply that the bar has been shifted on what an 'acceptable' outcome is off one delivery. A single in the 350 vs 350 is as good as a dot ball in 200 vs 200. I just adjust my expectations accordingly and still enjoy the game.

The issue I used to have is that the bar for 'good' bowling has gotten so high - for a bowler to dominate a batting lineup, they can't just be a talented guy who bowls in good areas. Now you have to be a freak. Freakish pace, weird action, freakish amounts of spin. Something like that. And that's just so hard to find. Meanwhile the bar for a 'good' batsman has gotten lower, to the point we aren't really impressed by someone smashing a matchwinning 100 off 70 balls anymore. We're only impressed by consistency over the course of a series, season, year, or by showing up in a pressure scenario.

But I don't have that issue anymore - it seems that bowlers are learning how to be clever. Before if you got a wicket by someone slogging you to the deep, you kinda feel cheap. You didn't beat the batsman, didn't bowl a ball too good for him, you just got smacked and happen to have a fielder underneath it. Got lucky. But modern bowlers don't think that way anymore. They celebrate those wickets like their own. They have elaborate plans, tricks, subtle variations - they want batsmen to hit them to the fielder in the deep. Bats have gotten better, but so have fielders, and boundary catching today is at a whole new level. Bowlers are taking advantage of this.

So I think we just need to adjust our expectation of what good bowling is. A curving outswinger taking off a batsman's off stump is ***y as hell, but in today's cricket that is on par to a off cutter that gets mistimed to deep midwicket in terms of 'good' bowling. I think we're going to see a lot of inncouous looking spinners and seamers start to dominate in the years to come, and they'll rarely take aesthetically appealing wickets, and there will be a learning curve to start to appreciate these guys for the skill they really have, that isn't as obvious to the naked eye.

I'm going to quote this because it's the rarest of rare breeds - a good, well thought out ***** post.

 

[Starfighter]

Decade	Bat	Bowl	Runout %	Dis/match
80	26.43	31	12.7	13.7
90	27.08	32.5	12.9	14.1
00	27.85	32.39	9.7	14.2
10	29.49	32.98	8.4	14.5

So Miyagi's contention that there are more dismissals a match is correct, but his contention that there have been more runouts is incorrect, so therefore the steadying effect is fairly easy to explain.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Oh god it's happening again. It doesn't "not appear to work". It's a mathematical impossibility. You can't argue against that.

I think you're getting confused with Rpo increasing & averages staying the same, which is a definite possibility. It's likely even. But batting averages and bowling averages simply can't vary significantly, independently.

Well then - if bowling averages have only increased by 1.4% over 28 years, why have half the batsmen in ODI career highest averages played this year if batting averages are not going up ? I think batsman batting averages (for the top 5 batsmen at the very least) are on the increase.

Clearly bowlers are batting more often these days than before. Now you can make what you will of this phenom, I really don't want to have one our "pleasant" conversations again.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Decade	Bat	Bowl	Runout %	Dis/match
80	26.43	31	12.7	13.7
90	27.08	32.5	12.9	14.1
00	27.85	32.39	9.7	14.2
10	29.49	32.98	8.4	14.5

So Miyagi's contention that there are more dismissals a match is correct, but his contention that there have been more runouts is incorrect, so therefore the steadying effect is fairly easy to explain.

Run outs surprises me (also the level that they were previously). Thanks Starfighter.

 

[cnerd123]

I don't get this dynamic - Mr Miyagi disagrees with everyone and makes assertions without providing evidence for it, and then everyone else goes and does the work to get the numbers to prove him right/wrong.

If someone is going to take a stance they should be the one providing justification for it, not the people disagreeing with him. And this is happening a lot recently. The most Mr. Miyagi ever does is type a query into Statsguru.

IDK why but this really really annoys me.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Oh god it's happening again. It doesn't "not appear to work". It's a mathematical impossibility. You can't argue against that.

I think you're getting confused with Rpo increasing & averages staying the same, which is a definite possibility. It's likely even. But batting averages and bowling averages simply can't vary significantly, independently.

Decade	Bat	Bowl	Runout %	Dis/match
80	26.43	31	12.7	13.7
90	27.08	32.5	12.9	14.1
00	27.85	32.39	9.7	14.2
10	29.49	32.98	8.4	14.5

So Miyagi's contention that there are more dismissals a match is correct, but his contention that there have been more runouts is incorrect, so therefore the steadying effect is fairly easy to explain.

Hey Jedi Brah - see that batting average increasing there at at a faster rate than the bowling average

Thank you Starfighter

 

[Starfighter]

Run outs surprises me. Thanks Starfighter.

I think it shows that all you need to do is check facts rather than going by memory, because the counter-intuitive can happen. I think what's going on here is that it's easier hitting boundaries with modern bats and field dimensions, so batsmen don't need to take as many risks running. This is a chart of the 4/3 ratio for tests in Aus. Not exactly related, since this is about ODIs, but the change would be similar. Despite the increase in fielding standard batsmen are at less risk of getting run out than ever, because hitting fours is that much easier.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I don't get this dynamic - Mr Miyagi disagrees with everyone and makes assertions without providing evidence for it, and then everyone else goes and does the work to get the numbers to prove him right/wrong.

If someone is going to take a stance they should be the one providing justification for it, not the people disagreeing with him. And this is happening a lot recently. The most Mr. Miyagi ever does is type a query into Statsguru.

IDK why but this really really annoys me.

Well I as right again. So really JediBrah should have been trying to prove me wrong.

But I am appreciative to StarFighter for sharing this information with everyone.

What do you want the forum to be *****, a battleground of people doing oneupmanship, or people sharing knowledge and thoughts?

 

[cnerd123]

I think it shows that all you need to do is check facts rather than going by memory, because the counter-intuitive can happen. I think what's going on here is that it's easier hitting boundaries with modern bats and field dimensions, so batsmen don't need to take as many risks running. This is a chart of the 4/3 ratio for tests in Aus. Not exactly related, since this is about ODIs, but the change would be similar. Despite the increase in fielding standard batsmen are at less risk of getting run out than ever, because hitting fours is that much easier.

I also think that since it's not as easy to hit the ball to the deep and run 2/3 anymore, batsmen don't really try as much. Before the fielders were slower, didn't throw as well, boundaries were bigger, and generally the ball wouldn't travel that quick to the fielder, so players probably took on more risks to turn around and come back for a 2nd/3rd. Now days I don't think anyone really tries that (and it's why Kohli and Dhoni stand out so much when they do so)

Now it's more binary. 2s and 3s are just rarer overall.

 

[Starfighter]

I don't get this dynamic - Mr Miyagi disagrees with everyone and makes assertions without providing evidence for it, and then everyone else goes and does the work to get the numbers to prove him right/wrong.

If someone is going to take a stance they should be the one providing justification for it, not the people disagreeing with him. And this is happening a lot recently. The most Mr. Miyagi ever does is type a query into Statsguru.

IDK why but this really really annoys me.

It annoys me too. I use statsguru too, but I take the numbers and do the maths tediously to tease out relevant figures.

Well I as right again. So really JediBrah should have been trying to prove me wrong.

But I am appreciative to StarFighter for sharing this information with everyone.

What do you want the forum to be *****, a battleground of people doing oneupmanship, or people sharing knowledge and thoughts?

You're only partially right.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I think it shows that all you need to do is check facts rather than going by memory, because the counter-intuitive can happen.

I wasn't going by memory, I just made a bad bet. Happens sometimes.