2nd Test

[John McKenna]

Geoff Boycott remarked yesterday that young Bairstow got out because there are no good fast bowlers playing county cricket anymore due to them all being on the international circuit. When Geoff was a lad he had plenty of practice against top-class fast bowlers playing for Yorks.

[Phil Neatherway]

And don't we know it!

[John McKenna]

Geoff makes his views widely known. What has remained a secret, until now, is that he was the only man ever to play cricket on the never-get-out baseball theory espoused above by Alex H.

[Alex Holowczak]

Batsmen score more runs now as they play more (as there are more countries to play, and it doesn't take 3 months to get to some of them).

I can believe this, but

Batsmen have higher averages because of covered pitches.

not this.

There are so many other variables:
(1) The quality of fielding. Since One Day cricket came along, the fielding levels have improved. These could have saved numerous runs from being scored.
(2) Running between the wickets. Since One Day cricket came along, batsmen have run between the wickets more successfully, and modern batsmen will score more runs with quick singles than those of 50 years ago.
(3) The pace of the game. Over rates have slowed from about 20 per hour to an expected 15 per hour. So a 5-day game, with 6 hours per day, would have 150 more overs to complete the match. (Going back further, there were timeless Tests.) There is a direct correlation between strike rate and batting average (strike rates are higher in List A/T20 than First-class, but batting averages are lower). With far more overs available for the game, batsmen could bat more slowly. By taking fewer risks, logically, this increases the batting average.

The quality of pitches is a variable in every batsmen's career, so it isn't necessarily true that this explains modern batting averages.

As an aside on this point, bowling averages seem to me to be much higher than they were even in the late 90s. Batting averages have risen accordingly. This was definitely post-uncovered pitches.

[Alex Holowczak]

Geoff makes his views widely known. What has remained a secret, until now, is that he was the only man ever to play cricket on the never-get-out baseball theory espoused above by Alex H.

The thing is that by not getting out in baseball, you automatically get to 1st base, which makes you more likely to score runs. This can be done by leaving four wide pitches, and walking to 1st. If this happens four times, a run scores.

In cricket, this doesn't hold. If a batsman leaves six balls to go through to the wicket-keeper, then he hasn't scored any runs. This can happen infinitely without scoring any runs.

[Paul Cooksey]

If a batsman leaves six balls to go through to the wicket-keeper, then he hasn't scored any runs. This can happen infinitely without scoring any runs.

Assuming there isn't an Akmal keeping wicket

[Neill Cooper]

Going back further, there were timeless Tests.

I had always thought there was only one 'timeless test' but this page implies there were three, two of which (including the Durban one I had previously heard of) had to be curtailed due to running out of time.
Perhaps World chess championship matches could be made to be timeless - so Anand and Gelfand would have had to carry on playing until someone won a (long play) game.

[Alex Holowczak]

Going back further, there were timeless Tests.

I had always thought there was only one 'timeless test' but this page implies there were three, two of which (including the Durban one I had previously heard of) had to be curtailed due to running out of time.

This is the famous Timeless Test: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/c ... 62657.html

There was a period when all Tests were timeless: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 95117.html

Hutton's 364 came in a timeless match: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62652.html

Perhaps World chess championship matches could be made to be timeless - so Anand and Gelfand would have had to carry on playing until someone won a (long play) game.

American sports don't like the concept of a draw. Deviating to baseball yet again, they just play on and on until someone wins. A game reached the 26th inning once. (There are 9 in a game.) In ice hockey, the NHL playoffs just have the equivalent of perpetual golden goal overtime. They've gone as far as 6 overtime periods once, making the match nearly three times as long as it was scheduled for!

[Michael Jones]

As an aside on this point, bowling averages seem to me to be much higher than they were even in the late 90s. Batting averages have risen accordingly. This was definitely post-uncovered pitches.

World class fast bowlers playing during the 1990s: Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Donald, Pollock, McGrath.
World class spinners playing during the 1990s: Warne, Muralitharan, Kumble, Mushtaq Ahmed.

World class fast bowlers playing now: Steyn, and at a push Anderson.
World class spinners playing now: Saeed Ajmal, and at a push Swann.

I think that explains the difference in batting averages... although you could argue it the other way, that mediocre batsmen in the 1990s made the bowlers look better, and better batsmen now are making the bowlers look poor.

[Paul McKeown]

I'm surprised people haven't also mentioned use of helmets making it safer to play more aggressively (batting and fielding) and heavier bats allowing more sixes and even more fours of the bat, innovative batting techniques (e.g. Pietersen's "dilscoop"), innovative bowling techniques (e.g. the "doosra") and the fact that bowler's these days seem to chuck the ball and bowl with bent arms more than traditionalists feel comfortable with. The game has changed dramatically over the last fifteen years and is much more difficult and requires much higher levels of skill, athleticism and mental toughness.

[Paul McKeown]

See the Cloggies beat Lancs in a nail-biter. Last wicket, two balls to spare... they now top their group!