Discussion in 'International Game Day' started by TheParraboy, Nov 16, 2017.
Fair play to Sharma. Flat deck or not 3 double hundreds in One Day Internationals is bloody special.
Oh yeah the bowling was poor, no doubt, but almost 400 poor?
Rohit wasn't smashing those deliveries Jayasuriya or Afridi style, a lot of them just lazily pinged off the bat and sailed for six. A low full toss generally needed a real thump to get that elevation.
But now we're talking about bats and ground sizing rather than the man himself, I may not like him as a batsman but you play with the cards you're dealt.
Good to see the 6s still flow since bats got forced to be made smaller.
Nice. Team India gets rolled and then a part of the Sunil Gavaskar State Highway is craned in for Rohit Sharmas pleasure.
Can we, tomorrow though?
One big difference I note about wickets these days is the flatness. Wickets used to stay low or rear up if you put effort in. It's to me as a former bowler more threatening if you can get variable bounce. Just an inch here or there.
Oh theres definitely more roads prepared now as groundsmen have further mastered their art, most notably in England 2015 on.
Theres also more cricket - which leads to further rest and rotation of best strike bowlers outside icc tournaments. Even Aus has been playing some pie chuckers like Scott Boland at times.
The bowling attack that R Sharma and Kohli received in Aus a couple of years ago was very weak bar the Duke and they cashed in. Last year Guptil smashed a century full of 6s in Aus with the rest of time wilting to Starc, Haze and Cummins. Smith and Warner et al blasted for Straya in the series, tho.
But even then there flat odi wickets and Scoop edge bat tech 40 years ago. Range hitting, intro'd after Aussie saw Kleusner training at the 99 world cup, then t20, has been instrumental in more batsmen going aerial.
Bowlers, bowling allrounders, and wicket keepers are typically much better batsmen these days than in earlier eras too. They have more time to train and improve their games as pros.
Think of all the massive 2015 world cup scores. Think of all the ball swinging wickets for Starc, Boult and Southee. The spinners had a lot of success as well. Tahir and DV had great campaigns. I think Morkel had a strong campaign too and he's a bounce seamer. 2011 world cup won by India largely on the back of Yuvraj Singh's bowling - does not seem too flat to me. 2007, Gilly smashed SL, but McGrath was enormous for Aus all campaign.
Pakistan won the Champs Trophy this year in England and their batting is bog ordinary if not very weak. But their seam attack is very impressive with a stack and a new star found of 140km plus swing and seam bowlers just plowing through the opposition. They just thrashed SL in an odi series to nil and it wasn't through Pakistanian batting strength.
Weak bowlers are targetted cannon fodder these days. Theres no more room for the likes of Viv Richards to regularly bowl 10 overs for 40 runs in today's game. Theres no room for NZ to play 4 dibbly dobblies in Aus or Ind (or even at home) and restrict a team to 200 or 220. As it should be.
Also the likes of Butler, Miller, Maxwell, Munro types - they'd be dropped 30 years ago for a single "what was that" slog, switch, reverse type batting dismissal. Now they just need to get a big score each series and they're free to play their way and be continually picked despite a low average but at a high sr.
Could this have been done 30 years ago? Well if Greatbatch at 1991 World Cup since emulated by Tendulkar and Jaya (and Kalu) is anything to go by. Yes. Greatbatch went after the WI quicks and smashed 6s. Excessive caution imo previously stalled the evolution, now its more "moneyball" type thinking in approach with statistical risk far more acceptable in the pursuit of winning with a big score posted. T20 has lessened this caution by posting 180 to 200 scores so often. 200 to 220 in 50 overs is more difficult to explain as a par score when the same or weaker teams are regularly posting 20 runs less in 30 overs less with wickets in hand.
But pre Greatbatch - with 2 men out - why was not every team going over the top in the opening powerplay? Cos all the pitches were more lively? Or cos the batsmen were scared of being dropped if dismissed?
I think there's a lot of fans, like myself, who appreciate that Kohli is a very very good batsman and a critical wicket but note the opposition bowlers and how easy batting was for all if not just Indian players involved in the game. My eyes roll back when someone says he's better than Viv Richards when Kohli lacks a power game until he gets past 100 in odi or about 70 or 80 in t20. But my eyes roll back equally when someone tells me Bevan was better than ABDV.
Kohli is definitely a more complete and in recent times a better batsman than a slugger like Gayle is now. But sluggers have a big role to play in winning LIMITED overs cricket. And the Amlas, KWs and Kohlis have found ways to get their sr up to keep closer pace to them. And the sluggers who look like they will nick off or lbw at any time roll the dice in a calculated manner and seek to send anything length to full on off over the sightscreen. Think Gayle, Finch, Guptil, Lynn, Buttler, Hales. They won't let bowlers bowl at them. They'd rather risk getting out swinging.
You're a Martin Crowe fan. Read his writings on limited overs cricket. He used to dislike it in the 1980s cos of the limited factor. He hated getting out and wanted to bat time. Then once he was captain, he started to really grasp it. He did the best bat opening to give himself the best chance at the most balls. Then decided to drop back down but have a slogger in the opening power play. His rate of scoring from 92 until retirement was at vastly higher sr than his career. He was smashing it in India in his final series on one knee. He also developed the cricket max idea as he fully embraced the potential of limited overs cricket. Batsmen, coaches, selectors, just took a long time to grasp the limited overs aspect for fear of looking foolish and losing their jobs in failure. The difference between Viv in the 1980s and Kleusner in 1999, is most batsmen knew that they were nearly, if not as talented - with the bat than Kleusner. Plus Tendulkar, Jayasuriya, Mark Waugh et al opening in the powerplay had been plonking for years now post Greatbatch with the field up, why not take on the field out?
How much damage to the reverse sweep being regularly played did Gatting in the 1987 World Cup final do? It wasn't even a full blooded attempt at a reverse sweep, more of a paddle. Now there's switch hits, scoop shots and the audacious sweeping of fast bowlers to fine leg like ABDV does so often (and even KW has emulated several times that I've observed). This is nothing like a Steve Waugh 49th or 50th over slog sweep over mid wicket or if the bowler was fast he's often be seen backing away and giving himself room to over point that was the limit of impressive batting innovation in the 1980's.I'd have said better protective gear was a factor, but I have recently been watching S Waugh pull medium pacers in a yellow cotton cap, and RJ Hadlee bat hatless in games from 86 to 1990. Plus by the 1980s protective gear was good enough for people to play the Windies in tests still. Although the seam attack in both mentioned occasions was an Indian one.
While the smaller boundaries holds water as a partial reason in Australia, no doubt, in NZ with no Lancaster Park, no Carisbrook, Eden Park pitch rotated and getting less games, our boundaries have been getting bigger with more games at proper Ovals. It still rains 6's. But even in Australia, the ball is sailing into the crowd and the upper decks, rope be damned.
I have read Punter and many more from the era of World Cup 1999 to t20, opine that the 6 hitting at the end of the innings started with Kluesner and his range hitting, working out which boundaries he felt comfortable of clearing with ease. For many of his shots, the rope is redundant. As it is too for the modern player who has bulked up in the gym. Seen BMac's physical build development throughout his career as he searched for more power in his shots? Weight training has meant long levers are not necessary. Although Gayle clearly has profited on both. Take a look at the players for most teams, there's far less lean and wiry batsmen. And some of the lean and wiry like Kohli, are still definitely in the gym, even if its for increased stamina and fitness as his body is not receptive to increasing mass muscle. So even those who lack the physical power of a slugger, are working on increasing stamina. Even the bowlers too look like they lift more heavy things in a gym than previous eras. Crowe has also written on batsmen and power development through weight training in a difference of modern era to his for batsmen. Crowe in his era focused on cardio, in today's era, he'd prolly lift a few more heavy things. Do we really want to penalise modern batsmen for being stronger, fitter or both than they were in the 1980's? Do we really want to penalise them more for training better with practicing new shots and range hitting to see what boundaries that they can clear? Or do we want to see more bowlers execute a yorker on call like Bumrah Starc and Malinga do. Do we want to see more slower balls executed with excellence like Mustafizur does. Do we want to see more leggies like R Khan bamboozle the opposition. And see more allrounders like Shakib and Stokes amaze us with all round games? Bowling averages have remained more or less the same since the vast increase in runs, so more wickets are falling per ODI match now.
What I think is needed now is a generation of bowlers who can stem an onslaught with yorkers, cutters, slower ball bouncers and an arsenal of deliveries, and I doubt that Gavin Larsen types will be the answer in stopping a batsman in full flow. Why can so many batsman play the switch hit well, but so few bowlers execute a yorker with a high degree of execution like Bumrah, Starc and Malinga? Sure the yorker is a hard ball to bowl, but it can be trained. But serving up full tosses and half volleys to a set batsman on over 100 after the 40th over in today's odi game, the batsman will look to and most often plonk it for 6. He's ready, trained, physcially able and eye in to do so. And he has a licence to do it from his coach and selectors. And don't bowl a dibbly dobbly or part timer at him today unless the bowler has an arsenal of variations and ton of guile. Todays batsmen won't let a dibbly dobly or part timer go for 4 to 4.5 runs an over like most 80s batsman did.
Hope you enjoy reading the above Ifaeta. You and I may disagree on the comparative weighting on certain points and factors. But I think the 11 batsmen in any team have upped the ante in limited overs cricket evolution. The bowlers are taking more wickets than before as a result of this, but now a high quality death bowler(s) is essential to try and stop a set batsmen onslaught in full flow. Missing yorkers and one pace, won't pay dividends today. In fact - it will oft see a team hit out of the game today.
Starc's Bumrah's Malinga's yorker execution and Mustafizur's cutters in the future will no longer be the exception, but the norm or more and more batting records will tumble.
Oh and I think this sustained trend of more and more leggies and fingrr spinners with carom balls and far more variations tha before will likely continue as a counter to this raised ante level of batting. The ability to spin both ways helps to stop a batsman premeditating and charging the bowler.
And if teams rest their premier bowlers for a JAMODI due to so many more games played today - they do so appreciating the risk that the pie chucker replacement could well get tonked.
Had to get him started eh
Heh. Whats a cricket season without yet another odi batting evolution debate?
Decider time, Sri Lanka batting first and moving along ok at 45-1 after 7
This Bumrah bowling action really does look daft, but hey whatever works.
India pretty dominant after one bad game
Yeah, I mean like it or not they are more or less invincible at home at the moment. They get the luxury of a massive home stretch and lots of Sri Lanka matches, but wins are wins.
Separate names with a comma.