batting averages/ pre 1990

[distributer of pain]

batting averages/ pre 1990

whats your thoughts on batting averages say pre 1985, with all the favourable circumstances batters have got in the last 20yrs, with smaller grounds (ropes), much better quality bats, the bouncer rule, better protective gear, and probably marginaly better pitches (debatable), my point is do you think these favours the batsmen have recieved have added to their avarages compared to yesteryear players, if so by how much, im thinking it has to be at least 3-4 runs to a batsmen averaging 50. and also ball tampering which dosnt happen anymore with the standard of the TV cameras, i reckon this must have been rife in the 1970s/ early 80s, just another thing todays batsmen dont have to put up with. anything you take off todays batsmen for the favours they have gotton recently you can add on to yesteryear players, it was a much harder game back then. and maybe you could take a point or 2 off todays bowlers avarages as well as they have to adapt to all of these better batting conditions. who said its a batsmen game. lol

 

[Mousey]

Re: batting averages/ pre 1990

Yeah, well I reckon a player who averages 50+ these days would have only averaged 45+ before the introduction of such rules and conditions.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Re: batting averages/ pre 1990

The smaller grounds are only really an issue in Australia. Few other countries used the fence as the boundary on a widespread basis. Some did at spme grounds, or parts of grounds, but it was really only Australia that had the fence as the boundary as a default situation.

Bats have improved a lot in that time, this is probably the main factor. Pitches have got better for batting as well, but not by all that much (other than Melbourne, which was a keeper killer in the early 80s).

Zimbabwe and Bangladesh boost the averages of some players as well. Sri Lanka did the same for a while in the 80s, but from memeory played fewer Tests - even as a proportion of the Tests being played.

 

[distributer of pain]

Re: batting averages/ pre 1990

The smaller grounds are only really an issue in Australia. Few other countries used the fence as the boundary on a widespread basis. Some did at spme grounds, or parts of grounds, but it was really only Australia that had the fence as the boundary as a default situation.

Bats have improved a lot in that time, this is probably the main factor. Pitches have got better for batting as well, but not by all that much (other than Melbourne, which was a keeper killer in the early 80s).

Zimbabwe and Bangladesh boost the averages of some players as well. Sri Lanka did the same for a while in the 80s, but from memeory played fewer Tests - even as a proportion of the Tests being played.

i agree 100%, i think bats are miles better then they were, i didnt think about the minnow countrys either, good point.

 

[DoubleO7]

Re: batting averages/ pre 1990

The smaller grounds are only really an issue in Australia.

New Zealand have the smallest grounds in the world.

http://content.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/395394.html

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Re: batting averages/ pre 1990

New Zealand have the smallest grounds in the world.

Cricinfo - Venues where watching cricket could be a health hazard

Yes, but they were before 1990 (as the cut-off used in the thread). I was referring to the fence being the boundary in the past, and grounds which are now much smaller than previously. That difference is greater in Australia than elsewhere.