Of the all the batsmen to have played more than 20 innings across Test cricket’s 138-year history just 43 boast an average over 50.
In each decade there has been a very select group of batsmen who have been members of the 50-plus club.
Across the 1970s and 1980s, for example, there were just five batsmen who averaged more than 50 – Greg Chappell, Javed Miandad, Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Allan Border.
Gary Sobers did too, however he retired in 1974.
Roll the clock forward a few decades and it is a very different story. In the last 15 years we have seen an explosion in the number of batsmen who have averaged 50-plus.
In the last five years alone we have seen eight players head into retirement with a 50-plus average: Kumar Sangakkara (57.4), Jacques Kallis (55.4), Sachin Tendulkar (53.7), Rahul Dravid (52.3), Mohammad Yousuf (52.3), Ricky Ponting (51.8), Michael Hussey (51.5) and Shivnarine Chanderpaul (51.4).
Added to that list are long-term players who are still in action like Younis Khan (53.9), AB de Villiers (52.1) and Hashim Amla (51.7).
Some of those 43 who average more than 50 are currently playing and a long way from retirement – Steve Smith (56.1), Joe Root (54.9) and David Warner (51.3), to name three. Others have recently retired just shy of the 50-run mark – Mahela Jayawardene (49.8), Virender Sehwag (49.3), Michael Clarke (49.1) and Misbah-ul-Haq (48.9).
In short, the game has moved inexorably in favour of the batsmen in recent times.
Two of the major developments to aid the batsmen’s lot have been the advances made in bat technology and the roped off boundaries, which on grounds like the MCG can in places shorten the boundary by up to 15 metres.
Mistimed shots with old-fashioned bats that would see a batsman caught are nowadays often caught by the crowd.
The arms race has been all one way, too. While the batsman’s weaponry has been pretty much allowed to develop unhindered the bowler’s weapon has remained unchanged for decades.
The old 5.5 ounce (156 gram) cork-filled, twine-wrapped and leather-bound hand-stitched projectile has remained in vogue while bats have become bazookas and grounds have shrunk. One could also argue that batsmen friendly pitches greatly outnumber the often seen green tops of yesteryear.
While a 50-plus average put a player in rarefied air the same applied to bowlers who averaged under 25. Yet while so many batsmen continue to head north of 50, fewer and fewer bowlers are operating under 25.
The MCC is largely responsible for the swing in the balance of power. The question is, will they do anything about levelling the playing field?
In some ways the pink ball experiment at the Adelaide Oval may help. It is generally perceived that the bowlers will be the beneficiaries of the different ball.
Anecdotally it swings more and then when it darkens and the seam discolours it is difficult for batsmen to pick the spinners. But that in itself is going to be of only limited value.
It is unlikely that Test cricket will move rapidly to a situation where the bulk of matches are played as day-nighters and in some parts of the cricketing world atmospheric conditions do not favour such a transition.
Aside from putting in place a halt to bat development and issuing a set of standards with respect to the depth of the bat a move should be made immediately to pushing back the ropes to a standardised distance from the fence, one that allows for player safety only.
It may also be time to look at the number of overs that need to be bowled before a new ball can be taken. Currently that number stands at 80. Perhaps a reduction to something like 65 overs would be preferable.
There would be times when captains would not avail themselves of the earlier opportunity should their pace bowlers be producing threatening reverse swing or their spinners making the most of the conditions with an older ball. However, the prospect of being able to ‘rearm’ 15 overs earlier would often be valuable.
How often do we hear commentators saying on the opening day of a Test, when the bowling side has struggled for wickets and bled runs, that they should take the second new ball only a few overs before stumps so they could use it primarily the next day with a rejuvenated pack of bowlers?
Yet if there was an option to reload at 65 overs the fielding side would have close to a full session to try and get back into the game.
Too often nowadays the team that wins the toss and bats is accorded a massive advantage by setting up the match on an often benign surface.
Surely something has to be done to try and bring the balance of the game back to a more even keel. For over the past decade the pendulum has swung way too much in favour of the batsmen.
So what do you consider, Roarers, would be some ways of bringing the game of Test cricket back to a more even duel?
Johann
Guest
I was talking about the silly shots they played to get out.
RussNev
Guest
Let us remember that the ball has to strike the batsman in line to be given out LBW, so it is difficult to bring the ball in from wide out (off or leg) and achieve an LBW as the angle would preclude any fair decision. Let's look at just quick bowlers. I have umpired 100s of games where RH quicks (over the wicket) to LH bats and LH quicks (over the wicket) to RH Bats or RH quicks (around the wicket) to RH bats and very rarely LH quick (around the wicket) to LH bats. In all these scenarios I have seen good length deliveries not wide of the stumps angling/seaming into the stumps striking the batsman on the pads in line and the result - Not Out and frequently a leg bye. In short the bowler has beaten the bat, the ball was going on to hit the stumps. The fielding restrictions of two behind square leg helps negate negative bowling and this law could be extended to restrict fielders behind a line coming from the the stumps at the bowlers end. There have been many former test bowlers and well respected cricket scribes and commentators who have criticised this law. I believe it was Bradman that suggested it's inclusion into the law book and he wasn't a bowler. So perhaps a little more tact and respect for others opinions (if put in an articulate, respectful manner) wouldn't go astray. Yours is the first time I have heard anyone try to defend this law at any length and am still not convinced. Working the ball off the pads down to fine leg is one of the easiest and prolific shots in cricket so I don't agree with these arguments of less time to play around the legs or the blind spot a batsman has just outside leg stump. I will add here that I played cricket for some 30 years and was for most of that time an opening batsman, I hated getting out LBW and I never thought I was out. But if a more even contest is required then we need to even up the ledger. As an umpire I agree that giving LBWs is probably the most difficult thing to do. My idea is if the ball has struck the pads in line, then it has to be hitting part of the middle stump, i.e., middle & off, middle, or middle & leg, if not I believe the umpire is guessing. However I don't think scrapping leg-byes is such a problem, leg-byes make up about 5% or less of the runs in most cricket, that doesn't represent too many times to tell the batsmen to go back to the other end and signal to the scorers. Further more all other sundries represent a a fault by the bowling team, except leg byes which the bowling team is penalised for defeating the batsmen. After all the main object of this game is for the bowler to hit the stumps and the batsmen to hit the ball with the bat, so if the batsman is preventing the bowler hitting the stumps by not using his bat in the process (irrespective of which side of the wicket the ball bounces) surely common sense says tough batsman you're out. On your bike sunshine!!
ajay dandriyal
Roar Rookie
field ?? doesn't matter only thing that matter most these days- PITCH pathetic waca and today terrible Nagpur pitch what's going on ?
rasty
Guest
How about keeping the old ball and the new ball. You could have a paceman steaming in from one end with a hard shiny ball and at the other have your tweeker wreaking havoc? Would keep the batsman guessing.
b
Guest
A guaranteed result isn't interesting, an unknown result is interesting. Watching teams bat, and bat can be quite interesting, especially when they earn it, which has happened in the past. But even on the last two roads it was more interesting than watching teams collapse and the test being over in a day or two. That's boring, it's nothing but a bowling highlights package.
b
Guest
Exactly, the current process of bat making is not going anywhere, until something better comes along. Restricting the edge size would only change the design.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Meanwhile, India have produced spinning minefields in a win-at-all-costs approach to the Test series against South Africa. This current pitch in Nagpur is so bad that even the Indian journalists were slamming it midway through day one, by which time there were pronounced footholes and dust flying everywhere. This says it all about the state of the pitches in that series: Prior to the series, Imran Tahir, Simon Harmer and Dean Elgar had a combined bowling average of 50+ in Tests. Yet in this series, against the spin-adept Indian batsmen, they've run amok, taking 26 wickets at an average of 16. The last time India played SA in Nagpur they produced a fair track which offered a bit of assistance to the quicks and Steyn took 10 wickets and routed India by an innings. India have reacted to that drubbing by doctoring up a Nagpur pitch so devilish that even the lamest of spinners are unplayable.
b
Guest
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about test cricket? Also when I compared Rodgers and Maxwell I was comparing style, not batting position. Although, Maxwell did bat at three in test cricket didn't he? ;)
b
Guest
Dom, It might make a little difference to pitch preparation, but it won't do anything to the real problem of doctoring pitches, which is preparing pitches to negate the oppositions strengths. That kind of doctoring works no matter who wins the toss because it is done for the game, not an innings.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Well, Sunni has a lovely voice and uses the English language well but he's a paid up schill for the BCCI so you can pretty much disregard most of what he says. If only our drongos on nein who fulfill the same role had as much command of English as he has.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Chanderpaul not a great? He played in a god awful team for most of his career. Scoring tons whilst all about you flee makes him a real great to me.
Brett McKay
Expert
Ultimately though Spruce, the MCC are just the custodians of the Laws. The ICC run the game internationally, using the MCC rules. There really isn't any confusion..
Steve
Guest
Just to chime in gents, You can pay $700-$900 for the top of the range cricket bats and without maintenance a season and a half is a realistic time frame. The real value for money is in the $200-300 range. While performance isn't quite as extreme, they can last considerably longer and still perform beyond the capabilities of a high end bat from 15 years ago.
Kris Swales
Expert
The pitch resembles something I used to long jump into at high school.
JohnB
Guest
Re the LBW rule proposal, that was tried in the Shield in what must have been the early 80s, since I can recall Bob Holland getting a wicket that way. There was still some restriction on it (which frankly I can't remember now) so that not every ball hitting the pads outside leg could be out. The telling thing is, the experiment only lasted one or at most 2 seasons.
Andy
Guest
Ok weight was the wrong word, the edges are what annoys me.
JohnB
Guest
Brett, my playing days ceased a couple of years back (and at a level and in a place at which $700 would have paid for all of the kit being used, plus been expected to contribute a good deal of the post match beer) so I have no idea what is now the norm in most cricket in Australia. Surely they still make more durable bats and most cricketers below say second or third grade club level would use them? I could well be wrong, in which case I'll do my curmudgeonly "back in my day" "more money than sense" routine. I think you could come up with a bat profile with a 30mm edge that still did most of what the unrestricted ones do - by, like the scoop bat in the past, moving away from the traditional profile. You can bet the manufacturers would be trying anyway, and wouldn't just abandon the "unpressed" bat and its benefits.
Simoc
Guest
This is another poor piece from Glen. Cast your long term memory back to the last Ashes series . Tests are getting results whereas 30 years back draws were common. The game has obviously moved on with video replays of all batsman , bowlers studied to bring up possible weaknesses. The worn out "it's a batsmans game " from your average commentater like Glen is playing to the weaker bowlers excuse bank. As the top bowlers like Broad and Johnson demonstrate occassionally. When they're onsong the batters fall in a heap. It has always been like that. The main difference is the quality of commentary is very poor in Australia.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Yeah, I probably overegged it - hadn't quite realized just how bad the pitch was. Just saw some photos of it. Eeeesh. You get my point, a low scoring tense game is more exciting than a run-glut, but you're right, this pitch is far beyond the point of competitive and has turned the test into a farce.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Oh I know – I’m just using this a scratching post now, it’s about all you can do when Don is off on one of his inane fanboy jaunts regarding the Marsh spawn. I think the problem everyone makes with Don is they take him seriously. You can’t argue with him rationally, because he doesn’t play by those rules. It doesn’t matter what factual arguments you assemble, Don will construct his own reality where his is the only voice of truth and dismiss your evidence based arguments without even acknowledging the possibility he may be incorrect. I don’t think he’s malicious, I think he’s just a bit delusional, and likes to wind people up. Sir Ross Lyon GCMG does have a nice ring to it. If he ever gets Freo to the promised land of the flag they’ll probably put a statue up of him atop Cantonment Hill.