Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11th May 2016, 12:31   #201
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
You can use stats to try and prove T20 cricket hasn't had an adverse on Test batting, or you can use your eyes, watch some games, and clearly see that few batsmen no longer have the ability to leave balls, no longer have the ability to restrain themselves from playing extravagant shots, and are no longer able to block it out. If today's batsmen were up against some of the great Test attacks, because let's face it, there's a shortage of great Test attacks as well at the minute, this would be highlighted much more.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 12:40   #202
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Literally no-one has said that.

You're going very Sir Virgs.
It's a very straw, straw man, isn't it? In that sense DL was correct in identifying there was something funny, he just didn't realise that it was his own predictability.

T20 has very obviously had an effect on test cricket, in fielding, declaration batting and chasing targets down in limited time on day 5, if nowhere else.

Looking at the last selected England test team, the players who also play international T20, Hales, Root, Stokes and Ali don't all bat like crazy men in test cricket just because they also play the shortest form and of course batsmen did get out playing attacking shots even before T20. Hales and Ali have, if anything, looked a bit too conservative in trying to build an innings recently, I'd say. Root has a very positive approach these days, more so than in his early career but if this is in any way T20 related then it's not done him any harm. Stokes could certainly be criticised for his test batting being too aggressive at times but then his successful test innings have, like Root's far more frequent big contributions, tended to be enterprising.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 12:51   #203
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
You can use stats to try and prove T20 cricket hasn't had an adverse on Test batting, or you can use your eyes, watch some games, and clearly see that few batsmen no longer have the ability to leave balls, no longer have the ability to restrain themselves from playing extravagant shots, and are no longer able to block it out. If today's batsmen were up against some of the great Test attacks, because let's face it, there's a shortage of great Test attacks as well at the minute, this would be highlighted much more.
I do use my eyes too. Building on FS' post, t20 cricket has also had a huge impact on the attitude and shot range/selection of modern batsmen. Extravagant shots will always look extravagant if they lead to dismissals but the development of reverse sweeps, switch hits etc combined with increased power and willingness to go over the top means that modern batsmen can score, and score quickly, in many more ways than ever before. It's a misnomer to suggest playing defensively is somehow the only measure of technique.

It's very possible that we don't appear to have many good attacks currently because the margin of error for bowlers is so much smaller than 30 years ago. Unless we invented a time machine we have no real way of knowing whether today's bowlers or yesteryears' are better. Saying all this, I think t20 is only one of several causal factors, others including the 50 over game, "better" wickets, bigger bats, protective gear and limits to bowling bouncers.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 12:54   #204
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
You can use stats to try and prove T20 cricket hasn't had an adverse on Test batting, or you can use your eyes, watch some games, and clearly see that few batsmen no longer have the ability to leave balls, no longer have the ability to restrain themselves from playing extravagant shots, and are no longer able to block it out. If today's batsmen were up against some of the great Test attacks, because let's face it, there's a shortage of great Test attacks as well at the minute, this would be highlighted much more.
The problem with this kind of approach is that it is entirely opinion based and frankly I see no good reason why I'd trust your opinion and DL's over say gbg's. It's inevitably very difficult to provide a robust data based proof of either argument given the complexities but your side of the argument has thus far not even tried to adduce any evidential backing in favour of bald restatements of preconceived notions backed if at all by some anecdotes. As gbg has already ably demonstrated, you can quite happily produce counter anecdotes, like McCullum's extremely long match saving and series winning innings against India when NZ looked all but certain to lose to set against his record thrash against Australia in his last test. That thrash didn't help to save a test but was in any case in a situation where the test was probably never going to be drawn after a flurry of early wickets on the first morning and could easily have helped NZ to win had Australia's batsmen not blunted the Kiwi attack with some rather conservative innings, in exactly the way they had also been criticised for not being able to do any more. A slow 50 instead would have left NZ far worse placed.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 13:15   #205
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
You can use stats to try and prove T20 cricket hasn't had an adverse on Test batting, or you can use your eyes, watch some games, and clearly see that few batsmen no longer have the ability to leave balls, no longer have the ability to restrain themselves from playing extravagant shots, and are no longer able to block it out. If today's batsmen were up against some of the great Test attacks, because let's face it, there's a shortage of great Test attacks as well at the minute, this would be highlighted much more.
I did use my eyes when watching those innings of Faf that I linked you too. Stats just support those now that they're in the past. I also used my eyes back before T20s when the belligerent, non-traditional likes of Hayden and Gibbs and then Sehwag were smashing test attacks about. What you're seeing now can just as easily be said to be an extension of that as much as T20.

I also think you're significantly undervaluing the talents of bowlers like Anderson, Broad, Steyn, Morkel, Harris, Johnson and more over the last few years who a lot of these batsmen have faced. Maybe not "at this minute" with some of those retired or about to, but certainly in parallel with T20's rise.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 13:20   #206
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
I do use my eyes too. Building on FS' post, t20 cricket has also had a huge impact on the attitude and shot range/selection of modern batsmen. Extravagant shots will always look extravagant if they lead to dismissals but the development of reverse sweeps, switch hits etc combined with increased power and willingness to go over the top means that modern batsmen can score, and score quickly, in many more ways than ever before. It's a misnomer to suggest playing defensively is somehow the only measure of technique.

It's very possible that we don't appear to have many good attacks currently because the margin of error for bowlers is so much smaller than 30 years ago. Unless we invented a time machine we have no real way of knowing whether today's bowlers or yesteryears' are better. Saying all this, I think t20 is only one of several causal factors, others including the 50 over game, "better" wickets, bigger bats, protective gear and limits to bowling bouncers.
Exactly. Scoring rates were already increasing in test cricket prior to T20.

I think T20 has increased the speed of change but it is something that was already happening.

In the 80s the average stay at the crease was 68 balls.

In the last 10 years the average stay at the crease has been 64 balls but they've scored an extra 2 runs.

In most cases I'd take the extra 2 runs over the extra 4 balls.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 13:36   #207
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
The problem with this kind of approach is that it is entirely opinion based and frankly I see no good reason why I'd trust your opinion and DL's over say gbg's. It's inevitably very difficult to provide a robust data based proof of either argument given the complexities but your side of the argument has thus far not even tried to adduce any evidential backing in favour of bald restatements of preconceived notions backed if at all by some anecdotes. As gbg has already ably demonstrated, you can quite happily produce counter anecdotes, like McCullum's extremely long match saving and series winning innings against India when NZ looked all but certain to lose to set against his record thrash against Australia in his last test. That thrash didn't help to save a test but was in any case in a situation where the test was probably never going to be drawn after a flurry of early wickets on the first morning and could easily have helped NZ to win had Australia's batsmen not blunted the Kiwi attack with some rather conservative innings, in exactly the way they had also been criticised for not being able to do any more. A slow 50 instead would have left NZ far worse placed.
There is no definitive proof either way, some will say that T20 has had a negative impact, others won't. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. That said, there certainly seems to be more collapses nowadays, and how many tight Test matches have their been in recent years, certainly less than there used to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
I did use my eyes when watching those innings of Faf that I linked you too. Stats just support those now that they're in the past. I also used my eyes back before T20s when the belligerent, non-traditional likes of Hayden and Gibbs and then Sehwag were smashing test attacks about. What you're seeing now can just as easily be said to be an extension of that as much as T20.

I also think you're significantly undervaluing the talents of bowlers like Anderson, Broad, Steyn, Morkel, Harris, Johnson and more over the last few years who a lot of these batsmen have faced. Maybe not "at this minute" with some of those retired or about to, but certainly in parallel with T20's rise.
But innings that AB and Faf played are becoming much less common. Broad and Anderson and Steyn and Morkel are good partnerships, but not both team have lacked a top quality spinner to back them up recently. Harris and Johnson were good on certain pitches, but I'm not sure if they will be remembered as particularly outstanding bowlers.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 14:01   #208
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
There is no definitive proof either way, some will say that T20 has had a negative impact, others won't. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. That said, there certainly seems to be more collapses nowadays, and how many tight Test matches have their been in recent years, certainly less than there used to be.



But innings that AB and Faf played are becoming much less common. Broad and Anderson and Steyn and Morkel are good partnerships, but not both team have lacked a top quality spinner to back them up recently. Harris and Johnson were good on certain pitches, but I'm not sure if they will be remembered as particularly outstanding bowlers.
To be fair, a week ago you didn't even seem to be aware of these types of innings that occurred recently. Those were only examples, but not the only ones as others have shown with more examples and stats that cover more than mere anecdotes and feelings.

As for the bowlers' goalposts, South Africa haven't had a quality spinner since readmission, Anderson/Broad did have Swann and Harris/Johnson will be remembered as outstanding, though for a limited period (which happened to coincide with T20).

Remember that my initial response to you was that I'm not sure that this so-called drop in test batting can be tied to T20 and seeing as this has been spoken of for decades, and we've also seen examples since of long test innings, I'm not seeing how it can be blamed.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 14:05   #209
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
To be fair, a week ago you didn't even seem to be aware of these types of innings that occurred recently. Those were only examples, but not the only ones as others have shown with more examples and stats that cover more than mere anecdotes and feelings.

As for the bowlers' goalposts, South Africa haven't had a quality spinner since readmission, Anderson/Broad did have Swann and Harris/Johnson will be remembered as outstanding, though for a limited period (which happened to coincide with T20).

Remember that my initial response to you was that I'm not sure that this so-called drop in test batting can be tied to T20 and seeing as this has been spoken of for decades, and we've also seen examples since of long test innings, I'm not seeing how it can be blamed.
I'm well aware that long Test innings have occurred recently. This is a fact. But it is my opinion that they now occur less regularly. Would Harris get into an all time Aussie XI?
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 14:08   #210
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
I'm well aware that long Test innings have occurred recently. This is a fact. But it is my opinion that they now occur less regularly. Would Harris get into an all time Aussie XI?
That's hardly a useful standard.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 14:22   #211
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
I'm well aware that long Test innings have occurred recently. This is a fact. But it is my opinion that they now occur less regularly. Would Harris get into an all time Aussie XI?
If Harris had been English he would have walked into the England team and Broad would have been first change.
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 14:37   #212
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
I'm well aware that long Test innings have occurred recently. This is a fact. But it is my opinion that they now occur less regularly. Would Harris get into an all time Aussie XI?
He's in the conversation.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 14:38   #213
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
If Harris had been English he would have walked into the England team and Broad would have been first change.
If Broad was Australian he would have walked into the Australia team. Ditto Anderson.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 14:43   #214
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
If Broad was Australian he would have walked into the Australia team. Ditto Anderson.
1. Australians don't walk
2. Anderson averages 38.44 with the kookaburra ball. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he would have been an automatic selection.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 14:54   #215
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
I'm well aware that long Test innings have occurred recently. This is a fact. But it is my opinion that they now occur less regularly. Would Harris get into an all time Aussie XI?
It's not an opinion, it's a hypothesis that has not been established, but could be through (lengthy) statistical analysis. And you'd need to establish that hypothesis as being true to then make the second hypothesis that the trend is down solely to t20 cricket. This would probably require expert analysis of cricket TV footage coupled with interviews with coaches and players and would even then likely be subject to much doubt and concurrent factors.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 14:55   #216
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
If Broad was Australian he would have walked into the Australia team. Ditto Anderson.
When Harris and Johnson and Siddle were in their pomp you could have easily have made a case for all of them ahead of A&B. Since the latter part of 2013 Broad yes in the case of Broad, not necessarily in the case of Anderson as gbg rightly points out.
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 14:57   #217
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 8,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
It's certainly amusing, though, that some seem to think there can be no influence from T20 on the way test cricket is played these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Literally no-one has said that.

You're going very Sir Virgs.
Heaven forfend and, as it was an inference, that nobody said that should surprise nobody!

Of course, a number of factors have shaped the way test cricket is played today, particularly the defensive aspects of the game. T20, however, has to be one of the most significant in this. It cannot be proved but few students of the game would disagree.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 15:01   #218
CDogg16
Established International
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
When Harris and Johnson and Siddle were in their pomp you could have easily have made a case for all of them ahead of A&B. Since the latter part of 2013 Broad yes in the case of Broad, not necessarily in the case of Anderson as gbg rightly points out.
Not Siddle.
CDogg16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 15:21   #219
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDogg16 View Post
Not Siddle.
Siddle was a fantastic bowler, and an especially good 3rd seamer up until the end of the 2013/14 Ashes when he got injured, lost a yard of pace and was never the same since. More than a little underrated.
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2016, 16:13   #220
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Siddle was a fantastic bowler, and an especially good 3rd seamer up until the end of the 2013/14 Ashes when he got injured, lost a yard of pace and was never the same since. More than a little underrated.
Siddle has a very similar career average and strike rate to Jimmy. Had to bowl a lot of his overs on flat wickets with the kookaburra too.

At their bests however, I'd take Jimmy.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:00.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org