Despite the era of flat wickets/T20s - Why have there been only 3 sub-40 ball 100s in intl. cricket?

[msb314]

Could it be because:

1) Most modern batsman don't have the patience to score at brisk pace of 100 runs or more?

2) Most modern batsman aim to play at a 90 SR or at most a run a ball in ODI's?

3) It still a very challenging feat to score a century off 40 balls or less? Keep in mind that on all 3 occasions (Afridi vs SL, Corey Anderson vs WI, ABD vs. WI) the opponents were all pretty much minnows

4) Any other reason?

Take your pick!

 

[marlonbrowndo]

3rd option

 

[Boi]

Sri Lanka - who were world champions at the time - were minnows?

 

[MMHS]

Mostly No. 1. Lack of defensive skills & ball selection. Scoring 35 of 12 needs blind swing, a bit of help from groundsman in terms of boundary size - you can ride with on your luck.

Scoring 100 actually requires to overcome first hurdles of batting - survival from a fatal mistake, because no matter what, it takes one ball to get out. Many batsmen can reach 25 ball 65; but then they are in the dilemma of playing for hundred or keep slogging. This is because power cricket doesn't develop the shot selection or placement & batsmen groomed in belters against machine sewan ball can't survive anything that's on perfect spot or doing slightly out of plan.

Apart from that, modern batsmen are spoon fed comfort - groomed in a care free attitude, therefore most of them crumble under any pressure - be it target or persistent quality bowling.

 

[f.b.m]

Back in the 1700s when true cricketers roamed the earth, batsmen would regularly score 14 ball centuries due to their superior defensive techniques.

On topic: Having a strike rate of 250+ while not being dismissed for 40 deliveries is extremely difficult. Not many batsmen actually set out to do this (i.e. all out attack with 12-13 overs left in the game) although they probably should, especially in T20s.

 

[kingusama92]

#3.

Has nothing to do with shoddy defensive techniques.

You need the right mindset going in, a full selection of attacking shots, a flat wicket, inferior/out of form bowlers, and below average fielding to make it work.

If one of these is missing, you'll run out of deliveries or get out.

That's why it's such a rare accomplishment.

 

[msb314]

Mostly No. 1. Lack of defensive skills & ball selection. Scoring 35 of 12 needs blind swing, a bit of help from groundsman in terms of boundary size - you can ride with on your luck.

Scoring 100 actually requires to overcome first hurdles of batting - survival from a fatal mistake, because no matter what, it takes one ball to get out. Many batsmen can reach 25 ball 65; but then they are in the dilemma of playing for hundred or keep slogging. This is because power cricket doesn't develop the shot selection or placement & batsmen groomed in belters against machine sewan ball can't survive anything that's on perfect spot or doing slightly out of plan.

Apart from that, modern batsmen are spoon fed comfort - groomed in a care free attitude, therefore most of them crumble under any pressure - be it target or persistent quality bowling.

Good post but I would argue most day batsman are better equipped to handle pressure i.e. IPL, ICC tournaments etc.

Also all 3 sub-40 ball centuries have come whilst batting first.

 

[Muhammad10]

Most players don't last long enough when they go in with an all-out attack mindset, which is obviously necessary if you want to score a hundred within 40 balls.

I remember McCullum seriously threatening to get a ton within 35 or so balls before he got out in this match: http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8039/scorecard/656415/New-Zealand-vs-England-9th-Match,-Pool-A

 

[Suleiman]

Has nothing to do with flat pitches the or "t20 era". Afridi made his before all that.

All you need is a mediocre opposition generally speaking like Afridi had SL at the time, Corey and ABD both had pathetico West Indies and you're set. Ofc it's a high risk scenario because you have to rely on clearing the ropes consistently for 30 to 40 balls so usually one delivery will have your name written on it, so mostly we don't see anything, and you may also play a dot or a few. When it works then it's generally your day.

 

[kingusama92]

Has nothing to do with flat pitches the or "t20 era". Afridi made his before all that.

All you need is a mediocre opposition generally speaking like Afridi had SL at the time, Corey and ABD both had pathetico West Indies and you're set. Ofc it's a high risk scenario because you have to rely on clearing the ropes consistently for 30 to 40 balls so usually one delivery will have your name written on it, so mostly we don't see anything, and you may also play a dot or a few. When it works then it's generally your day.

All three matches had flat pitches. It's not a reach to suggest that's a factor.

PAK put up 371 in the 90s. That's nuts.
NZ put up 283 in 21 overs.
SA put up 439.

All three matches had 2+ centurions: Afridi + Anwar, Ryder + Andersen, and ABD + Rossouw + Amla.

 

[Rayyman]

[MENTION=137804]msb314[/MENTION]

You do realize that 2 out of the 3 sub-40 ball-100s have come in the last three years right?

 

[Chief Destroyer]

"Flat wicket era" in ODIs started in the 90s. This 300+ era started in 2012 when two new balls rule was introduced and outfielders reduced to 4 which increased the number of boundaries in the middle overs.

 

[msb314]

[MENTION=137804]msb314[/MENTION]

You do realize that 2 out of the 3 sub-40 ball-100s have come in the last three years right?

Yes but none since January 2015.

ABD is already an ODI ATG so him achieving such a feat does not surprise me - question is why haven't others joined the party yet?

 

[msb314]

Most players don't last long enough when they go in with an all-out attack mindset, which is obviously necessary if you want to score a hundred within 40 balls.

I remember McCullum seriously threatening to get a ton within 35 or so balls before he got out in this match: http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8039/scorecard/656415/New-Zealand-vs-England-9th-Match,-Pool-A

Oh yes I remember this game!

England just did not post high enough of a total for BMac to take a bit more time lol

Also, Martin Guptill scored a 30 ball 93 against SL.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/11202/scorecard/914209/New-Zealand-vs-Sri-Lanka-2nd-ODI

 

[Rayyman]

Yes but none since January 2015.

ABD is already an ODI ATG so him achieving such a feat does not surprise me - question is why haven't others joined the party yet?

And it took 18 years for the second one to occur. Don't expect regular occurrences of such rare feats.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Because it's an insanely difficult thing to do.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Over aggressiveness

 

[msb314]

Over aggressiveness

That is partly true - many have gotten close to a record or a sub-40 ball century but perished trying to hit out.

 

[msb314]

Because it's an insanely difficult thing to do.

True but with the odds so heavily stacked in favor of batsman nowadays - I would have expected more to have accomplished this feat.

 

[Gilly]

Batsmen scoring sub 40 ball hundreds are taking a risk and the key to batting is to manage your risks. Chances of scoring a 60 ball hundred which is more than sufficient for a winning total compared to the chances of scoring a sub 40 ball hundred.

 

[Gilly]

True but with the odds so heavily stacked in favor of batsman nowadays - I would have expected more to have accomplished this feat.

Truth be told it is reckless batting, career ending after a few attempts.

 

[Tusker]

Back in the 1700s when true cricketers roamed the earth, batsmen would regularly score 14 ball centuries due to their superior defensive techniques.

pure gold !! )

 

[Haz95]

Back in the 1700s when true cricketers roamed the earth, batsmen would regularly score 14 ball centuries due to their superior defensive techniques.

But cricket originated in the 1850s #awks.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

But cricket originated in the 1850s #awks.

Actually it was much earlier then that, check it out here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cricket_to_1725

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cricket_(1726–1763)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cricket

 

[Haz95]

Actually it was much earlier then that, check it out here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cricket_to_1725

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cricket_(1726–1763)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cricket

Yes, the concept was around quite a fair bit before but If am not wrong, the first ever international game was in 1840/1850.

 

[jusarrived]

Back in the 1700s when true cricketers roamed the earth, batsmen would regularly score 14 ball centuries due to their superior defensive techniques.

Nailed it .

 

[Slog]

SL - the world champions at the time - were minnows when Afridi scored that century?

 

[Slog]

Murali and Vaas were in SL bowling attack

 

[msb314]

SL - the world champions at the time - were minnows when Afridi scored that century?

They were rubbish for the most part.