Cook will overtake Tendulkar

[express bowling]

58 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Not better ability as stroke players, just better bats.

IMO what has improved batting averages the most is the desire to make tests last whole 5 days. 

 

Better ability as stroke players stems more from playing T20s and developing the mindset as well as the confidence  to play  more as well as a wider range of strokes.  A good example would be  Kallis'  batting style pre and post T20 era.

 

As far as I know, test matches are getting over quicker nowadays ( significant  % increase in  test matches which have yielded results from the '80s to the '10s )  primarily due to modern batsmen losing the mindset to stay at the crease without scoring much.

Edited December 21, 2016 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, kosingh said:

Don't we have more results in tests now than years ago? That is, a higher percentage of tests were lasting 5 days before without producing a result. 

Yes, though that is largely due to minimum 90 overs/day and tight enforcement of the rule. When you bowl more, you get wickets more (this is different at getting wickets cheaper or quicker in terms of cricket play). Ergo, you win/lose more. 

 

Used to be days even in the mid-late 90s when fielding captains on day 4 could dawdle around and end up bowling 75 overs in the whole bloody day. 

Even in India, spinners like Kumble version1 (early to mid 90s), Raju, Chauhan, etc. would take ages to set the field every 3-4 balls to stall defeats. Enforcement used to be irregular till the early 2000s, sometimes captains just got a 'warning'. Well who cares about warnings. 

 

What we are missing from cricket these days, are more minefields or utter green tops, where you have two options : go for your shot and be 'shot out' for ~100-150 or play patiently, stick around at 2 or 2.5 RPO and you may get to 250-275 'par I1 score'. 

But then again, today's batsmen don't have the defensive technique generally speaking to 'ride out the storm and wait for bad balls'. Even Kohli struggles with this. We've seen many a time, for e.g., Tendy, even at his prime/early days, 'shut shop, wait for lose balls' and grind out 'Dravid-esque' centuries. So end result would probably be a 2.5 days tests, with scores ranging from 100-150 for all innings. 
 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

Better ability as stroke players stems more from playing T20s and developing the mindset as well as the confidence  to play  more as well as a wider range of strokes.  A good example would be  Kallis's batting style pre and post T20 era.

 

As far as I know, test matches are getting over quicker nowadays ( significant  % increase in  test matches which have yielded results from the '80s to the '10s )  primarily due to the batsmen losing the mindset to stay at the crease without scoring much.

Bhai, first step in mindset of a batsman, is how good you feel about your edges. With modern bats, 50% of edges will be runs or misses. After all,bat maketh the batsman. 

I agree, to some extent batting collapses have engineered more results these days because of batsmen's inability to play defence for long. 

And there is some truth to the better developing stroke play but again, it comes down to the asymptotic nature of excellence. Kallis is a rare example of the 'stout defence, wait for lose ball without much stroke play borefest' batsman evolving into a 'stout defence but aggressive mindset, try to dominate bowlers when they are just introduced or bowling crap' but still, by no means, a scintillating stroke-playing run-machine. More due to his evolution into learning how to rotate strike. Like Dravid. 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

I will say this though: it is easier for batsmen to get going these days compared to 20 years ago but it is also harder for them to blaze away either. Used to be days when Australia would pack a 7-2 field with just 2 men on the offside boundary, beat the edge/take the edge/sneak one in through the gates all day at one end and Tendulkar/Lara are set, they are middling every ball and every other strike is going for a boundary. 

Fielding has improved a lot, especially in the infield. Today's batsmen have to work harder for their runs, as their boundary shots 'get cut short' in the infield far more frequently than before.

 

As with things, some things have become easier for the players, some things, harder. In the batting department, it has IMO, taken away more from the defensive side of the game. Bowlers are less able to defend. batsmen are less able to defend. In this result oriented era, for example, how often have we seen a team defend 4th inning targets <200 ? Sure, they are always rare, but every 2-3 years, one of the bowling powerhouses of the 70s,80s,90s would defend a 150-200 4th innings target with great aplomb. Either they will or reduce the other side to furiously backpedal its way to 120/6 for a draw. 

[express bowling]

32 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Bhai, first step in mindset of a batsman, is how good you feel about your edges. With modern bats, 50% of edges will be runs or misses. After all,bat maketh the batsman. 

I agree, to some extent batting collapses have engineered more results these days because of batsmen's inability to play defence for long. 

And there is some truth to the better developing stroke play but again, it comes down to the asymptotic nature of excellence. Kallis is a rare example of the 'stout defence, wait for lose ball without much stroke play borefest' batsman evolving into a 'stout defence but aggressive mindset, try to dominate bowlers when they are just introduced or bowling crap' but still, by no means, a scintillating stroke-playing run-machine. More due to his evolution into learning how to rotate strike. Like Dravid. 

 

 

 

The effect of better bats is a no-brainer....but bats started to be thick and much more  " strokey " from 1996.  After that, there has been some improvement but the sharp improvement came from say 1994 to 1996/ 97.

 

The effect of bats would be a more pertinent issue while comparing a Gavaskar with a  Cook.

Edited December 21, 2016 by express bowling

[express bowling]

20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I will say this though: it is easier for batsmen to get going these days compared to 20 years ago but it is also harder for them to blaze away either. Used to be days when Australia would pack a 7-2 field with just 2 men on the offside boundary, beat the edge/take the edge/sneak one in through the gates all day at one end and Tendulkar/Lara are set, they are middling every ball and every other strike is going for a boundary. 

Fielding has improved a lot, especially in the infield. Today's batsmen have to work harder for their runs, as their boundary shots 'get cut short' in the infield far more frequently than before.

 

As with things, some things have become easier for the players, some things, harder. In the batting department, it has IMO, taken away more from the defensive side of the game. Bowlers are less able to defend. batsmen are less able to defend. In this result oriented era, for example, how often have we seen a team defend 4th inning targets <200 ? Sure, they are always rare, but every 2-3 years, one of the bowling powerhouses of the 70s,80s,90s would defend a 150-200 4th innings target with great aplomb. Either they will or reduce the other side to furiously backpedal its way to 120/6 for a draw. 

 

That is the issue.  There are too many factors which influence the outcome to arrive at a simple reason or reasons.

 

One thing  can be safely said though ...that a champion cricketer becomes one primarily due to his mindset.....will to succeed at all costs, do what is required to succeed  in his era,  adapt and overcome any weaknesses which has crept in his game etc.

 

A champion cricketer will become one in any era barring issues like a batsman having unusual fear of playing the cricket ball without a helmet will never succeed in the '60s and '70s etc.

Edited December 21, 2016 by express bowling

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, that applies to all top level players of all eras. 

IMO, this era's (post 2001) batting stats are inflated by 10-15%, bowling stats are depressed by 10-15%

But that doesnt mean that Stuart Broad would be a Curtley Ambrose in the 90s, it means that he would be averaging 26-27 instead of 29-30.

In the 90s, it was the other way round, especially for pacers.

but broad is not averaging 29-30. He is averaging 28 so that should be  more like 25 in that era according your reasoning.

[WC2011INDIA]

Records are meant to be broken. Doesn't make the one whose records have been broken any less of a being. 

[express bowling]

How does it matter  ?

 

Tendulkar's ability to play high quality pace, bounce, swing, seam as well as spin on tough tracks and performing consistently over so many years averaging almost 54 in tests .......will always bear testament to his high quality as a batsman....not his 15000+ runs.

 

It is immaterial who has the highest  number of runs or the highest number of centuries.

 

Cook does not have Tendulkar's quality no matter how many runs he scores.......and if  another batsman of a higher quality than Tendulkar comes  or has already come .....then it will be immaterial whether he scores 15000+ runs or 50+ centuries....he will still be held in a higher esteem by the cricket fraternity.

 

p.s - Most people rate Root much more highly than Cook.

Edited December 21, 2016 by express bowling