2nd ODI: New Zealand v Australia at Wellington on Feb 6, 2016

[Pete Cash]

A shot off the middle in the olden days will go quite a distance too but what when the ball isn't middled in an older bat compared to a modern one ?

 

[Pete Cash]

Basically and I think most people would agree that there isn't much hitting room to be dragged out of the "sweet" spot of the bat from the one Bradman used. A good solid wack with his bat is going the distance.

Even now bats will be made (at the elite level) to be as heavy as a batsman is capable of swinging with a full range of movement. That is as you say simple physics but with improvements of weight distribution there is more bat for ones dollar.

Warners bat is heavier than Richards and Warner is likely stronger (as a professional athlete) but he has a much larger surface area to work with.

 

[Pete Cash]

I know this forum likes to hark back to the olden days but there is one very obvious consideration here. Maybe batsmen are just better at hitting sixes now.

 

[Bazal]

I know this forum likes to hark back to the olden days but there is one very obvious consideration here. Maybe batsmen are just better at hitting sixes now.

I also agree with that. There's less fear in the batsmen. But I do think a lot of that comes from the bats. Not that I think that's a bad thing....

 

[Pete Cash]

Interestingly that article said there is a real fear that bats will be synthetic over the coming decades because of Willow shortages. That will be interesting.

 

[Pete Cash]

I want to start a thread on "modern batsmen" one day because its an interesting topic. I think batsmen have adapted to the state of the modern game really well. I don't know if we should mock batsmen for it. Pro sportsmen will just do what needs to be done to be successful. If they are going to play on a lot of flat wickets they might as well just pick the length of the ball and play a shot. Why not right ?

I honestly think any increase in average is mostly from the tailenders all being good now. Its still the same X percent of batsmen averaging over 50 as always (besides a few decades here and there). Nobody averages over 60. Its just on a pitch that suits they will give the ball a good hitting.

 

[Bazal]

I want to start a thread on "modern batsmen" one day because its an interesting topic. I think batsmen have adapted to the state of the modern game really well. I don't know if we should mock batsmen for it. Pro sportsmen will just do what needs to be done to be successful. If they are going to play on a lot of flat wickets they might as well just pick the length of the ball and play a shot. Why not right ?

I honestly think any increase in average is mostly from the tailenders all being good now. Its still the same X percent of batsmen averaging over 50 as always (besides a few decades here and there). Nobody averages over 60. Its just on a pitch that suits they will give the ball a good hitting.

Absolutely. I don't believe that bats are the only reason. I think they give the batsmen a lot more than they used to, but I also think you've got pitches as a factor, shorter boundaries, higher confidence in the batsmen themselves. Players are simply much more willing to try and hit a six these days, they back themselves....and I would back most of them to have better eyes than almost all the players that came before them. The eye on guys like Warner and Rohit is ludicrous.

I think that tail enders need to be reasonable batsmen these days, too. You expect the tail to at least be able to support a batsman, where in the past a bowler was a bowler and if he could bat a bit it was a bonus. I think the major difference is strike rates. Blokes average 45, but they score at 120....

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

Go to bed Bazal, that wall is going to leave a mighty lump if you keep bashing against it.

 

[hineyrulz]

Is there a game on Tomorrow somewhere???

And as someone who sold cricket bats for a living for 5 years the bats somehow improve yearly.

I bought a magnificent players bat in 2011, best bat I had ever owned by far. I bought another players bat 6 months ago and it doesn't even compare. Amazing just amazing, it's 2 pound 8 and about 7 inches wide.

It's scary to think what guys like Viv and Botham would do with the bats of today.

 

[JJ]

Viv would be scary because he was so much better than his peers - his record then was better than pretty much everyone's now, on average and strike rate. There is no question that these bats allow batsmen to get away with poor shots - Warner's crappy wofts outside off are a classic example - instead of coming off the edge meekly to point or gully they clear the 30m circle and go for 3-4

I can only assume you never saw Viv - he was an immensely powerful man, and his batting was, well, I really just don't see anyone comparable

 

[Pete Cash]

Here is a hot tip for you JJ he wouldn't do it if he couldnt get away with it. Batsmen have adapted to the modern game. I know you enjoy harking back but if Viv was around today he would be the best batsman but he too would be picking the ball up on its length and just belting it....like all the modern batsmen do because that is the best way of dealing with the modern game.

 

[The Charlatan]

If Viv batted with modern bats, there'd be a 200m exclusion zone around the stadium. :lol:

 

[JJ]

Here is a hot tip for you JJ he wouldn't do it if he couldnt get away with it. Batsmen have adapted to the modern game. I know you enjoy harking back but if Viv was around today he would be the best batsman but he too would be picking the ball up on its length and just belting it....like all the modern batsmen do because that is the best way of dealing with the modern game.

Wasn't my point really, bottom line is with the old bats it wouldn't happen

Viv picked the ball up on a length and just belted it back then, with smaller bats and on wickets that did plenty

 

[JJ]

If Viv batted with modern bats, there'd be a 200m exclusion zone around the stadium. :lol:

and it would be a no-fly zone for aircraft

 

[Pete Cash]

Wasn't my point really, bottom line is with the old bats it wouldn't happen

Viv picked the ball up on a length and just belted it back then, with smaller bats and on wickets that did plenty

Your point is dumb harking back nonsense. back in my day yeah yeah grandpa.

Modern batsmen have adapted to what they have in front of them. There is no reason they wouldn't play differently if conditions were different. That is professionalism and t20 cricket for you.

However, and here is the facts for all the flat pitches and big bats and small grounds its still the same X percentage of people averaging over 50. Since test cricket started only 15 retired batsman have averaged over 55 from 20 innings. Only two of them are modern batsman Kallis and Sangakarra. The rest all played before 1980.

Now, unless you are a very old man you came of age somewhere in the 80s or 90s. So you are harking back to a statistical fluke in cricketing terms. It is the norm for batsmen to be averaging over 50 in the percentages that they do now. The only difference is how quickly they f**king score but hey less draws.

 

[JJ]

Your point is dumb harking back nonsense. back in my day yeah yeah grandpa.

Modern batsmen have adapted to what they have in front of them. There is no reason they wouldn't play differently if conditions were different. That is professionalism and t20 cricket for you.

However, and here is the facts for all the flat pitches and big bats and small grounds its still the same X percentage of people averaging over 50. Since test cricket started only 15 retired batsman have averaged over 55 from 20 innings. Only two of them are modern batsman Kallis and Sangakarra. The rest all played before 1980.

Now, unless you are a very old man you came of age somewhere in the 80s or 90s. So you are harking back to a statistically fluke in cricketing terms. It is the norm for batsmen to be averaging over 50 in the percentages that they do now. The only difference is how quickly they f**king score.

Many retired after their averages dropped below 55 (Viv and Ponting are two, Tendulkar and Dravid two more)

DO you disagree that Viv is the greatest ODI bat ever?

 

[Pete Cash]

Many retired after their averages dropped below 55 (Viv and Ponting are two, Tendulkar and Dravid two more)

DO you disagree that Viv is the greatest ODI bat ever?

He was obviously very good but its difficult to compare batsmen across eras, but what i find interesting is that he did the same thing you have a whinge about modern batsmen doing. He was very powerful and had a tremendous eye. Not a lot of footwork in a lot of his shots. He would clear his front leg driving a lot of the time for example.

 

[JJ]

He was obviously very good but its difficult to compare batsmen across eras, but what i find interesting is that he did the same thing you have a whinge about modern batsmen doing. He was very powerful and had a tremendous eye. Not a lot of footwork in a lot of his shots. He would clear his front leg driving a lot of the time for example.

Partly why his average dropped a bit - but he wasn't as loose in the fundamentals as many today

I use the Benaud criteria - if he was the best then, he'd be as good as any - beyond that he was the best by so much, it's hard to argue anyone is close - and as you point out, his game would cross over pretty well

Maybe I am old, but Viv was special, watch some clips, his power through the offside was phenomenal - and remember at his peak without helmets he was tearing apart the likes of Lillee and Thomson - Lillee wrote openly that Richards was the one that sometimes he felt completely helpless bowling to

 

[JW]

Khawaja in for Darsh Snr.

Zampa in for Faulks.

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/usma...tralia-new-zealand-second-odi-team/2016-02-05

 

[chigurh]

Don't rate Zampa all that highly, but he's not Boland or Stoinis so I can live with that call.

Usman in for Marsh had to happen, but by delaying the call for this long the hype has increased and now there's more pressure on Khawaja than there ought to be.

Anyway, there's no way the kiwis should drop this game.