ICC CHAMPIONS TROPHY - Group A: England v Bangladesh at The Oval on Jun 1, 2017 - ENGLAND WON

[undertaker]

The other night England were 6 for nothing, basically.. don't know how much the pitch had to do with it though

There was grass on it, and also the famous Lord's slope (which Rabada/Parnell were able to make good use of):

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-south-africa-2017/content/story/1100058.html

And surprise surprise, most times this has happened in the 21st century and the minute they don't get their beloved flat track to inflate their average, the batsmen complain ad nauseum. Cricket has already became way too much of a batsman's game, about time Eoin Morgan et al. suck it up.

 

[Bazal]

not with all the flat pitches going around these days. 300+ scores have increased substantially over the past few years.

Will be interesting to see if one of the curators in this tournament will have the balls to put a bit of grass on the pitch.

Nah I disagree. It's easier than it used to be no doubt, but 300 is still a fair line in the sand. It's the psychology of a run a ball chase, especially if you lose a couple of wickets early....

 

[Bazal]

There was grass on it:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-south-africa-2017/content/story/1100058.html

And surprise surprise, most times this has happened in the 21st century and the minute they don't get their beloved flat track to inflate their average, the batsmen complain ad nauseum. Cricket has already became way too much of a batsman's game, about time Eoin Morgan et al. suck it up

I watched the game, there wasn't a worrying amount of grass. It was an outstanding spell from Rabada and Parnell more than anything. They were brilliant early

 

[undertaker]

Nah I disagree. It's easier than it used to be no doubt, but 300 is still a fair line in the sand. It's the psychology of a run a ball chase, especially if you lose a couple of wickets early....

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/93518.html

Have a look at the years of all the successful 300+ run-chases.

Back in the 1990s, it was something outstanding, during 2000-05 it something very special to achieve, from 2006 onwards there's a huge increase in the number of successful 300+ chases, that now 350+ has become what 250+ was up to the early 2000s. The pitch plays a major role in this. The famous "438 match" was on a flat track that was flatter than the pancakes dished up at a McDonalds breakfast.

It will NEVER happen (given the organisers desire for more 4s/6s), but for ODIs, I'd like to see it go back to 220-240 as a par score and 250+ chases as a challenge. Fixing the pitch is a good starting point. Leave T20s for the slogathons, but the skill of developing an innings and working the field hitting 1s/2s/3s needs to be brought back in the 50-over format.

 

[Bazal]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/93518.html

Have a look at the years of all the successful 300+ run-chases.

Back in the 1990s, it was something outstanding, during 2000-05 it something very special to achieve, from 2006 onwards there's a huge number of successful 300+ chases that 350+ has become the new 300 (just like 55 has become the new 50 in test batting averages).

Stats can say whatever they like, 300 is still a fair psychological score in terms of a chase. Just because there are more successful chases of 300+ than there were 10-15 years ago doesn't make that any less true.

You lose a couple of wickets early or fall behind the rate and that pressure generates wickets without fail. Pitches mean that you are more likely to chase a big score, and more likely to set one that can be chased (where 15 years ago you might set 260 and lose) but 300 is still 300. Chasing is a whole different ball game to setting a target and scoreboard pressure is still a real thing.

England are favourites because of the opposition and the venue, but you can never write off a team that sets 300. Simple as that.

 

[Twizzle]

gee the Bangers throw up a lot of medium pace half volleys

 

[TheParraboy]

Stats can say whatever they like, 300 is still a fair psychological score in terms of a chase. Just because there are more successful chases of 300+ than there were 10-15 years ago doesn't make that any less true.

You lose a couple of wickets early or fall behind the rate and that pressure generates wickets without fail. Pitches mean that you are more likely to chase a big score, and more likely to set one that can be chased (where 15 years ago you might set 260 and lose) but 300 is still 300. Chasing is a whole different ball game to setting a target and scoreboard pressure is still a real thing.

England are favourites because of the opposition and the venue, but you can never write off a team that sets 300. Simple as that.

true

but I think what Undertaker was alluding to is that 300 these days not only is it run down more often, but not as scary or imposing as pre 2006. T20 would have played its part I imagine

Some games in ODIs these days ive heard captains say 270-280 is par score . You never heard that 10-15 years back

 

[Bazal]

true

but I think what Undertaker was alluding to is that 300 these days not only is it run down more often, but not as scary or imposing as pre 2006. T20 would have played its part I imagine

Some games in ODIs these days ive heard captains say 270-280 is par score . You never heard that 10-15 years back

Well it probably gets run down more because it gets set more often, as well. Some teams running down 270 or so ten years ago with plenty of balls left would have likely run down 300 if that was the target. And yeah I agreed that it gets run down more often, but it's far from an easy chase is the point. It's still a run a ball or more. That's hard to maintain for 50 overs.

I also reckon there's more pressure chasing 300 or so than there is chasing 350+, exactly because of that attitude. People don't think 300 is as tough a score to chase as it really can be. Where with 350 you feel like it's more of a long shot so you go out there with a bit more of a relaxed mindset.