This is the easiest decade for batting

[barah_admi]

That is the claim I am making. Throughout the history of the ODI game, there has never been an easier time to bat than now, in the age of smaller boundaries, free hits, power plays, flat pitches and giant bats. Add to that subpar fast bowling and a lack of genuine pace bowlers, batsmen have never had it easier.

Looking at some stats might help, although I think the eye tells us more than numbers but I know people love these.

Top 5 highest averages from the 1970s (qualification 15 matches)
1. Viv Richards 73.58 (SR 87.08)
2. Glenn Turner 69.45 (SR 59.68)
3. Greg Chappell 54.05 (SR 74.05)
4. Ian Chappell 51.15 (SR 77.14)
5. Denis Amiss 47.72 (SR 72.48)

This was in the age of 60 over ODI matches, boundaries normally being the edge of the playing area and most importantly, no fielding restrictions. The numbers here are skewed by a very small sample size.

The 1980s (qualification 30 matches)
1. Zaheer Abbas 50.63 (SR 86.97)
2. Gordon Greenidge 47.78 (SR 66.72)
3. Graham Gooch 46.29 (SR 65.87)
4. Javed Miandad 46.24 (SR 69.55)
5. Viv Richards 45.94 (SR 91.61)

Fielding restrictions were first introduced in the 80/81 season in Australia, although there were more fielders allowed outside the inner circle than today.

Abbas' average could be considered truly great, and a real representation of what a 50+ average is, against some tough bowling, real pace, large boundaries and small bats. The strike rates of some of these batsmen are what you would expect in such an environment (by modern standards very slow) but it just shows how tough it was to score at a pace.

What Abbas and Richards managed to do is remarkable.

The 1990s (qualification 50 matches)
1. Michael Bevan 60.33 (SR 76.63)
2. Lance Klusener 46.43 (SR 93.36)
3. Martin Crowe 44.98 (SR 70.59)
4. Dean Jones 43.82 (SR 69.77)
5. Sachin Tendulkar 43.07 (SR 86.81)

Bevan's average is a stand out and may speak of his quality but it must be remembered he mainly batted at 5 or 6, with a lot of not outs, thus inflating the true worth of his average. The rest are in line with what was considered a great batting average for most of ODI cricket history, i.e. 40 or more. Klusener is of course another lower order batsman and then we have the remarkable Tendulkar (who played over 200 games).

Three of those five strike rates would now be considered pedestrian.

The 2000s (qualification 50 matches)
1. Mike Hussey 54.07 (SR 87.15)
2. MS Dhoni 50.82 (SR 89.59)
3. Darren Lehmann 48.46 (SR 83.11)
4. Jacques Kallis 47.05 (SR 73.28)
5. Michael Bevan 46.71 (SR 71.15)

Once again, the top averages list is dominated by numbers 5 and 6. Batsmen who have a chance of having a higher proportion of not outs than their top order counterparts. Strike rates have found their way into the 80s, which coincides with the post 2005 introduction of power plays, which implement further fielding restrictions. This was also the age in which true fast bowlers eventually left the game, with the battered and bruised Akhtar carrying the remnants of the pace legacy into the latter half of the decade.

The 2010s (qualification 50 matches)
1. AB de Villiers 64.20 (SR 109.76)
2. Virat Kohli 59.11 (SR 93.07)
3. Kumar Sangakkara 52.96 (SR 84.70)
4. Ross Taylor 52.66 (SR 83.50)
5. MS Dhoni 51.97 (SR 87.17)

Now we see the explosion of averages (there are a further 5 who average 50 or more and a further 7 who average 45+). Strike rates of 80+ have become common but would it be fair to say these batsmen are better than the likes of Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara and Viv? Or is it due to the fact that boundaries no longer even measure 65 yards, that free hits, power plays, two new balls and a dirth of fast bowlers has helped good batsmen look spectacular (Ross Taylor) and great ones look unstoppable (AB and Kohli)?

Whereas previous decades had the pace, swing and reverse of the likes of Wasim, Waqar, Lillee, Imran, Marshall, Holding, Garner, Donald and co, now there are no quality fast bowlers to speak of. Maybe Hasan Ali can change that but has he ever showcased the sublime control of an Akram or a McGrath?

Not only that but the rate at which runs are now bring scored is truly remarkable, with SRs of 80-85 becoming more and more normal.

Spinners have found reincarnation but they are not the physical threat that fast bowlers can be and are all too often milked for runs or hit straight back on short boundaries. This is the age of feast for batsmen.

 

[WildSwing]

Abdv is truly a beast, to average 64 at a strike rate of 109 is absolutely ridiculous, he's easily the most talented batsman I've watched since sachin

 

[barah_admi]

Abdv is truly a beast, to average 64 at a strike rate of 109 is absolutely ridiculous, he's easily the most talented batsman I've watched since sachin

But would those numbers exist batting against Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Murali with boundaries almost to the edge of the playing area, no powerplays and no free hits with bats from the 90s?

I still think he'd be a terrific batsman but I highly doubt an average of 50+, let alone 60+ with a sr 109.

 

[Rishta Aunty]

The advent of T20 has transformed ODI batting though. Earlier a good ball on length is a good ball on length; you respect it and unless you can play a pristine backfoot punch, it was practically unscoreable. That's no longer the case. Batsman back themselves to pretty much hit any delivery for four, and often have an array of brand new shots to do that. Case in point being the scoop to a previously difficult to his low-full toss. Or the drop-and-run that's now visible.

Even the great bowlers that you mention would have struggled in the current conditions against a set of batsmen who have evolved the art of limited-overs batting. Also fielding standards have absolutely taken off; I see highlights of old matches and keep thinking that so many drops would be regulation catches today, and so many boundaries should have been fielded. So I have to say that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Batting was harder in the past in many ways, but batsmanship itself has evolved in ways that was not countenanced in the previous decades.

 

[CricFan2012]

Everyone already knew this.

Balance between bat and ball is needed

 

[CricFan2012]

The advent of T20 has transformed ODI batting though. Earlier a good ball on length is a good ball on length; you respect it and unless you can play a pristine backfoot punch, it was practically unscoreable. That's no longer the case. Batsman back themselves to pretty much hit any delivery for four, and often have an array of brand new shots to do that. Case in point being the scoop to a previously difficult to his low-full toss. Or the drop-and-run that's now visible.

Even the great bowlers that you mention would have struggled in the current conditions against a set of batsmen who have evolved the art of limited-overs batting. Also fielding standards have absolutely taken off; I see highlights of old matches and keep thinking that so many drops would be regulation catches today, and so many boundaries should have been fielded. So I have to say that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Batting was harder in the past in many ways, but batsmanship itself has evolved in ways that was not countenanced in the previous decades.

Great post.

This is why I think bowlers like Starc who have done incredible thus far should rightfully be rated higher than legends, at least once they retire.

Wasim had the advantage of a bowlers era, while Starc was disadvantaged in a batsman era, and if he retires with similar stats and achievements or even better, then easily GOAT

 

[Slog]

Every decade since 70s is apparently easiest for batting

Also Tests have been dying for 40 years

 

[Sachin136]

Averages going up isn't a good indicator. What if batting skill has gone up? If averages in domestic or club cricket are lower, does that mean it is harder than international cricket?

 

[Rahul1]

By this logic, Starc is a better bowler than wasim and waqar and akhtar.

 

[Hawkeye]

Batting has indeed become easier.

BUT

How batsmen approach hitting the ball, taking risks and non-defensive mindset has also changed.

It's not a single factor. We cannot say a quality batsman of today's era, like AB or Kohli will be inferior to the likes of Javed, Lara, Ponting, Saeed Anwar, Tendulkar.

Simple 1:1 comparison between different eras is tricky.

It's most likely a mixture of all: batting-friendly pitches, bowler quality, and the mindset to hit the ball.

 

[Chrish]

In test format, last couple of years have seen the highest standard of bowling since 90s IMO.

SA/ Aus - ATG level attacks
India/ NZ/ Eng - Very good attacks at home

Even team like BD possess formidable spin stock at home. Not sure how to rate Pak as they barely play nowadays..

 

[Ab Fan]

We all know it.

Bigger bats, field restrictions, flat pitches.

But a champion in one era will remain a champion in every era.

 

[Send1983]

We all know it.

Bigger bats, field restrictions, flat pitches.

But a champion in one era will remain a champion in every era.

Still Sangakara is better than Sachin for folks here as he has better average than Sachin.

 

[big_gamer007]

The advent of T20 has transformed ODI batting though. Earlier a good ball on length is a good ball on length; you respect it and unless you can play a pristine backfoot punch, it was practically unscoreable. That's no longer the case. Batsman back themselves to pretty much hit any delivery for four, and often have an array of brand new shots to do that. Case in point being the scoop to a previously difficult to his low-full toss. Or the drop-and-run that's now visible.

Even the great bowlers that you mention would have struggled in the current conditions against a set of batsmen who have evolved the art of limited-overs batting. Also fielding standards have absolutely taken off; I see highlights of old matches and keep thinking that so many drops would be regulation catches today, and so many boundaries should have been fielded. So I have to say that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Batting was harder in the past in many ways, but batsmanship itself has evolved in ways that was not countenanced in the previous decades.

Top quality post, sums it up pretty nicely.

 

[Oligochaetes]

By this logic, Starc is a better bowler than wasim and waqar and akhtar.

And Rashid Khan is the best bowler in cricket history

 

[barah_admi]

Every decade since 70s is apparently easiest for batting

Also Tests have been dying for 40 years

I sense you're trying to be smart...it hasn't worked.

Averages going up isn't a good indicator. What if batting skill has gone up? If averages in domestic or club cricket are lower, does that mean it is harder than international cricket?

That's why you should read the whole post, I posted stats as one indicator but spoke about several other factors. The stats were simply there to back up the idea that it is easier to score on flatter pitches, against weaker bowling and very short boundaries, along with powerplays and huge bats.

By this logic, Starc is a better bowler than wasim and waqar and akhtar.

It is illogical for someone to state one thing and for you to state it means something entirely different.

Starc however, is one of the few ODI fast bowlers post 2010 (along with it seems Hasan and...well yeah) that may have been competitive in the era of the great pace bowlers. The Aussie certainly has showcased tremendous skill over a considerable period of time, can even reverse it (ahem) and bowls at times with genuine pace.

What he has achieved in an age dominated by batsmen is very impressive but that does not necessarily equate to him being better than Wasim and Waqar. Is he better than Akhtar? Now that's a battle.

 

[barah_admi]

Lots of talk about batting skills having evolved, maybe even bettered, which I do not entire disagree with. Switch hits are more common, shots over the keepers head etc etc BUT a good yorker is still a good yorker and probably the most difficult delivery to get away, yet how many bowlers these days bend their backs to bowl one? When they do it is closer to being a full toss or a wide yorker.

We just saw what reverse swing and pace from Hasan did to some of the best batsmen on the planet in the CT.

It is also important to remember that certain shots are played today with such ease because it is easier to either clear the boundary or for the ball to drop into empty space due to power plays and restrictions.

 

[barah_admi]

Just to add, not saying AB or Amla arent great batsmen, imo they are some of the finest ODI bats of all times but their numbers are inflated when compared to the likes of Tendulkar or POnting, due to the ease of scoring runs and the pace at which they are scored.

 

[RainMan_]

The advent of T20 has transformed ODI batting though. Earlier a good ball on length is a good ball on length; you respect it and unless you can play a pristine backfoot punch, it was practically unscoreable. That's no longer the case. Batsman back themselves to pretty much hit any delivery for four, and often have an array of brand new shots to do that. Case in point being the scoop to a previously difficult to his low-full toss. Or the drop-and-run that's now visible.

Even the great bowlers that you mention would have struggled in the current conditions against a set of batsmen who have evolved the art of limited-overs batting. Also fielding standards have absolutely taken off; I see highlights of old matches and keep thinking that so many drops would be regulation catches today, and so many boundaries should have been fielded. So I have to say that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Batting was harder in the past in many ways, but batsmanship itself has evolved in ways that was not countenanced in the previous decades.

Excellent post.

I also don't like this old is gold nonsense .

 

[Rishta Aunty]

Great post.

This is why I think bowlers like Starc who have done incredible thus far should rightfully be rated higher than legends, at least once they retire.

Wasim had the advantage of a bowlers era, while Starc was disadvantaged in a batsman era, and if he retires with similar stats and achievements or even better, then easily GOAT

Top quality post, sums it up pretty nicely.

Excellent post.

I also don't like this old is gold nonsense .

Thanks peeps! I can't help but feel that our opinions on how sports were better in the past are heavily influenced by nostalgia. See that with Football as well when people question if Messi and Ronaldo compare to the past greats. It's easily clear that they would be GOATs in any era.

 

[Prince of Pakistan]

Made easy by the ICC with their ridiculous new rules in favour of the batsmen.

 

[Majid Khan]

It certainly is the easiest decade for batting given that everything is in batsmen’s favour including flat wickets, most teams have very ordinary bowling attacks due to lack of quality fast bowling and preference these days for so-called all rounders ahead of specialist spin bowlers. On top of that with all the promotion of T20 cricket , batsmen are scoring more quickly even in tests.

So on the other hand, this fact also tells you how mediocre and ordinary you must be as a batsman to still be averaging 30 odd like Hafeez or Shezad having played regular cricket in this era..

Hafeez batting against the quality of bowling and difficult batting conditions in 90s, 80s or 70s - would expect his batting average to be no more than a quarter of what it is now, between 8 and 10 if he is lucky.

 

[AMSS]

The period from mid 2000 to start of this decade was the easiest. Batting has actually gotten tough last few years. This is just a hunch but any decade wise stat of runs scored per wicket should tell us the full picture.

 

[barah_admi]

Thanks peeps! I can't help but feel that our opinions on how sports were better in the past are heavily influenced by nostalgia. See that with Football as well when people question if Messi and Ronaldo compare to the past greats. It's easily clear that they would be GOATs in any era.

This isn't a discussion on which era was best, I'm actually not one of those "old is gold" all the time sort of guys BUT there is absolutely no denying it is not only easier to score runs but the pace at which they are scored.

Why do you think power plays, shorter boundaries, two new balls and free hits were introduced for? The ICC has openly stated they were there to increase the number of runs scored. It is just facts, with an environment purposefully orchestrated by the ICC to ensure more runs and more boundaries.

None of this is to state the top modern batsmen are bad but so many batsmen averaging 50+ after 50 ODI games does not mean they are all unstoppable boundary hitters. It also makes me imagine what would happen if a Viv or a Sanath were transplanted into this era. They would clean up all around.

Made easy by the ICC with their ridiculous new rules in favour of the batsmen.

Exactly.

It certainly is the easiest decade for batting given that everything is in batsmen’s favour including flat wickets, most teams have very ordinary bowling attacks due to lack of quality fast bowling and preference these days for so-called all rounders ahead of specialist spin bowlers. On top of that with all the promotion of T20 cricket , batsmen are scoring more quickly even in tests.

So on the other hand, this fact also tells you how mediocre and ordinary you must be as a batsman to still be averaging 30 odd like Hafeez or Shezad having played regular cricket in this era..

Hafeez batting against the quality of bowling and difficult batting conditions in 90s, 80s or 70s - would expect his batting average to be no more than a quarter of what it is now, between 8 and 10 if he is lucky.

Bit unfair to bring up Hafeez in this.

 

[Prince of Pakistan]

In fact the two new balls rule in many ways killed the charm of ODI cricket. Reverse swing and spin used to be the attraction of the format (especially in Asia) but now its all about boundaries and centuries. The format has become very predictable.

Instead of improving the game in general the ICC has only managed to make it a batsman's fest. Every phateechar player averages at the least 35 + these days.