Skip to main content

Has ODI batting really changed in the last decade?

Apart from the fact that there is a massive overdose of meaningless matches, the reason that I have almost completely tuned out of watching ODI cricket in recent times is that there isn't much variability to the quality of cricket. Its as if each match/series is played from a selection of four or five templates with a pinch of variation here and there. The format has gone completely stagnant and as a viewer/follower its really hard to get excited about most contests. Sport is at its best when three ingredients come together - 1) A sense of occasion/context (which is why marquee Test match series, the football World Cup, and the Grand Slams in tennis are always worth following), 2) A battle (preferably equal) of both skills and wills, and 3) An ever increasing quality quotient. The third aspect is probably the hardest in cricket (and in football) given that so much of the game depends on individual ability (as opposed to technology which makes comparisons across eras in say tennis, nigh on impossible). Nevertheless, the least that can be hoped for is that stagnation is held at bay. And in ODI cricket (particularly in batting), we seem to be nearing that precipice.

Sample the stats below from the last ten years (2002-2011) -


The above spans across a period covering three World Cups and so it would be reasonable to expect that the game has moved along in terms of the impact batsmen are having? The stats however present a different picture. All of the stats above covering quantity of runs scored, frequency of significant individual scores, proportion of big scoring shots, and overall scoring rates, are pretty much static. To paraphrase Shane Warne's cheeky comment about Panesar, its as if the same match has been played 1442 times. Not quite but you can see what I meant earlier about the format going stagnant. And while its true that numbers will not always tell the full story of how playing styles and strategies have evolved, they cannot be said to be completely misleading either.

The one heartening statistic though from the last two years is that we seeming to be heading back to a period of a healthier mix of classic Test match batsmen tasting limited overs success. The list of top batsmen (by batting average) who scored more than 1000 runs since Jan 2010 includes Amla, Cook, Trott, Misbah, and Strauss in the top ten. And neither Michael Clarke nor Jacques Kallis would feature in most people's list of "ODI-batsmen-I-would-pay-money-to-watch". Moreover, Amla, Cook, and Strauss are all striking at well over 90 runs/ 100 balls so even the usual complaint of sluggish scoring can't be lodged. Comparing this with the previous two year period where Chanderpaul was probably the only member of the top ten (Kallis again and possibly Salman Butt in a stretch case) who can be put down as a true old-fashioned Test match batter. The likes of Amla and Cook have proved that its not about style and appearances but the willingness to adapt thinking and following it up with the hard work that counts. More power to them and here's hoping its not a false dawn.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...
1 comment
Read more

The Ashes part deux: series preview

While I admire the honest, outspoken style that Ian Chappell has in his commentary and writing I don't find myself agreeing with his views very often. This latest piece on ESPNcricinfo is an exception though. In what is a faintly ridiculous set of back to back Ashes series (to accommodate an ODI World Cup of all things), the build-up to the second round has been laughable almost. Anyone who hasn't followed the game for a few years might be forgiven if they thought that the Australian domination from the 1990s and early 2000s has continued and that they will win in a canter again. For a team that's lost seven of their last nine matches (and it should have been eight really), that's quite a good turnaround on paper (and digitally). The reality though is that unless they show a drastic improvement (especially in terms of scoring runs) and England have a bit of a shocker, its going to be well nigh impossible for Australia to win back the urn. Despite putting Buffoon Bo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Quick singles: Why the double standards?

I'm no fan of David Warner's but for once, I'm firmly and squarely on his side . Sportspersons are probably treated the most unfairly by public opinion (and often the media) whenever they are involved in pay disputes. "Oh, look these millionaires are complaining about not getting paid enough" seems to be the gist of the general reactions. I find this attitude inexplicable at best and grossly hypocritical if I'm feeling less charitable. Like the rest of us, all athletes have the right to fight for what they think they should be paid. That is the fundamental part. In addition (and unlike many of the rest of us), most sportspersons operate in the knowledge that they only have a short period available as a performer, and therefore only a short period to maximise earnings. Most people that I know would behave exactly the same as Warner and his colleagues are doing. So why all the hue and cry?
Post a Comment
Read more