Test innings between 13.5 and 60 overs - Sep2024 onwards

[meninblue]

So many instances of teams getting all out between 13.5 overs and 60 overs. imo the temperament of batsmen and shot selection are on a massive decline due to the impact of T20 format. I have only searched for tests played in very recent months. 16 such innings in such a short time period. So clearly this is just not the odd innings. Apart from the very high count of innings where teams cannot even survive technically 2 sessions of play, some even lesser than one and half session, the visual experience of watching test matches is that the batsmen are just not as capable. By no means I am saying that bowlers are not good and dont deserve to bowl teams out very quickly, but the frequency of poor test batting innings is apparently high. I am not expecting teams to bat for one and half day or 5 sessions anymore given the way how test innings are being played out and the temperament, shot selection and execution of test match skills are seen nowadays, but atleast don't let it fall to T20i and ODI level.

1st Test, Chennai, September 19 - 22, 2024
Bangladesh 149 in 47.1 overs

2nd Test, Kanpur, September 27 - October 01, 2024,
Bangladesh 146 in 47 overs

1st Test, Multan, October 07 - 11, 2024
Pakistan 220 in 54.5 overs

2nd Test, Multan, October 15 - 18, 2024
Pakistan 221 in 59.1 overs


1st Test, Bengaluru, October 16 - 20, 2024
Ind 46 in 31.2 overs

3rd Test, Rawalpindi, October 24 - 26, 2024
England 112 in 37.2 overs

2nd Test, Pune, October 24 - 26, 2024
Ind 156 in 45.3 overs


2nd Test, Chattogram, October 29 - 31, 2024
Bangladesh 159 in 45.2 overs
Bangladesh 143 in 43.4 overs


3rd Test, Wankhede, November 01 - 03, 2024
Ind 263 in 59.4 overs
NZ 174 in 45.5 overs

1st Test, Perth, November 22 - 25, 2024
Ind 150 in 49.4 overs
Aus 104 in 51.2 overs

1st Test, Durban, November 27 - 30, 2024:
SA 191 IN 49.4 overs
SL 42 in 13.5 overs

2nd Test, Wellington, December 06 - 10, 2024
NZ 125 in 34.5 overs

[bigfluffylemon]

Good stats MIB

As I said over on the NZ Eng thread, it's been a poor year for batters from most countries.

[Durhamfootman]

saves money on new balls, though

[meninblue]

Good stats MIB

As I said over on the NZ Eng thread, it's been a poor year for batters from most countries.

Thanks

Three more innings below 2 sessions.

2nd Test (D/N), Adelaide, December 06 - 08, 2024
India 180 in 44.1 overs
India 176 in 36.5 overs


2nd Test, Wellington, December 06 - 08, 2024
NZ 259 in 54.2 overs

[sussexpob]

I guess the problem with assessing modern day test cricket is, its easy to come to the end of an exceptional statistical era and see the return to norm as the exception. The big boom in batting post 2000 that lasted for a decade was the exception in test history - the return to the high 20s in 2020s is not in anyway historically poor, its just not the record breaking years of the recent past. And while 2010s was also run heavy, much of this is accounted for Australia and India's home form, which by any metric from history is the strongest sustained trend of form in test history with both teams averaging over 40 per home wicket for extended periods. This has in many ways hid the general decline, and now both teams are no longer sustaining it, the average has dropped across the board. I guess you could say the Bradman's era was a batting zenith as well, but Bradman adding 100 runs per test onto the end score over a normal, world class batsman in his place, actually skews the data - the Ashes was the majority of tests, and the difference between Bradman and the next best is the difference between having a normal year and not.

I think blaming batsmans approaches and T20 style playing is just an easy cop out explanation, if you ask me. While SRs have risen in test cricket, currently they are rather skewed by one side playing bazball slogging. Without England factored in, the SR in tests is about mid-50s in the 2020s.

Is 55SR representative of a self-destructive approach to the game? Because making a world XI of the last 25 years, the likes of Hayden, Sehwag, Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar (in that period), Gilchrist, Sangakarra, Michael Clarke, KP, Kohli, Smith, Root, Langer..... all batting at that mark or over. You want to go back a few years, Sobers, Viv, Chappell, Bradman... all do pretty well to. There is a larger proportion of legendary era defining bats that play aggressive relative to their era than defensive ones. Aggression historically pays.

At the end of the day, the difference between 285 and 300 all out doesn't really justify one era being terrible and another being perfectly good. And I dont think 55SR for everyone but England represents a game of reckless smashing. Most teams still play test cricket with patience

[meninblue]

I guess the problem with assessing modern day test cricket is, its easy to come to the end of an exceptional statistical era and see the return to norm as the exception. The big boom in batting post 2000 that lasted for a decade was the exception in test history - the return to the high 20s in 2020s is not in anyway historically poor, its just not the record breaking years of the recent past. And while 2010s was also run heavy, much of this is accounted for Australia and India's home form, which by any metric from history is the strongest sustained trend of form in test history with both teams averaging over 40 per home wicket for extended periods. This has in many ways hid the general decline, and now both teams are no longer sustaining it, the average has dropped across the board. I guess you could say the Bradman's era was a batting zenith as well, but Bradman adding 100 runs per test onto the end score over a normal, world class batsman in his place, actually skews the data - the Ashes was the majority of tests, and the difference between Bradman and the next best is the difference between having a normal year and not.

I think blaming batsmans approaches and T20 style playing is just an easy cop out explanation, if you ask me. While SRs have risen in test cricket, currently they are rather skewed by one side playing bazball slogging. Without England factored in, the SR in tests is about mid-50s in the 2020s.

Is 55SR representative of a self-destructive approach to the game? Because making a world XI of the last 25 years, the likes of Hayden, Sehwag, Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar (in that period), Gilchrist, Sangakarra, Michael Clarke, KP, Kohli, Smith, Root, Langer..... all batting at that mark or over. You want to go back a few years, Sobers, Viv, Chappell, Bradman... all do pretty well to. There is a larger proportion of legendary era defining bats that play aggressive relative to their era than defensive ones. Aggression historically pays.

At the end of the day, the difference between 285 and 300 all out doesn't really justify one era being terrible and another being perfectly good. And I dont think 55SR for everyone but England represents a game of reckless smashing. Most teams still play test cricket with patience

The batsmen have started playing T20 shots and do not bother to leave the risky balls to the keeper. As a result shot selection is very probable to be wrong and collectively when players of both teams play such brand of cricket the test matches count ending within 3 and 4 days will keep on increasing. What is easily visible to the naked eye while watching matches over the years, also makes the explaination simple. Even in last few tests i watched, there were so many examples of rubbish T20 shots and approach and surely if i had noted the count would be very very high of bad percentile cricket and approach. No point keeping a track of it, that is a job for coaches of those teams. I would not want to make a simple thing complex for the sake of it. imo there is no need for statistics to see the difference in way batsmen are approaching test cricket.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Getting bowled out in 13 overs feels like something that might have happened in the Victorian era.

[Arthur Crabtree]

In 98, the Test between WI and England at Kingston was called off after ten overs because the pitch was so dangerous there was a risk of serious injury. England were only 3 down! But SL were all out in 13 overs.

[sussexpob]

The batsmen have started playing T20 shots and do not bother to leave the risky balls to the keeper. As a result shot selection is very probable to be wrong and collectively when players of both teams play such brand of cricket the test matches count ending within 3 and 4 days will keep on increasing. What is easily visible to the naked eye while watching matches over the years, also makes the explaination simple. Even in last few tests i watched, there were so many examples of rubbish T20 shots and approach and surely if i had noted the count would be very very high of bad percentile cricket and approach. No point keeping a track of it, that is a job for coaches of those teams. I would not want to make a simple thing complex for the sake of it. imo there is no need for statistics to see the difference in way batsmen are approaching test cricket.

Dare I say, you are making the fatal error assuming the change in the way the game is played is to blame, and that being aggressive in itself is inferior in terms of creating runs than it is to block and be cautious. That's pretty common, because most test cricket observers (including myself somewhat) have observation bias towards the game evolving, and want to believe that.

Is I mentioned, in the last 10 years India and Australia had home batting form that is unprecedent in the history of the game. One or two downturns in key players, and that record breaking form has ended. But how, in the grand scheme of a whole decade, has the approach worked?

In the last decade, in years India bat over the average current strike rate for the 2020s..... average wickets of 40, 67, 52, 32, 40 and 47...... 67 in a year is all time best stuff. Anything over 40 is extremely rare in the history of the game. 32 is above average. When India bat below the SR55 mark average.... 29, 29, 25 with average decreasing with SR.... Conclusion ..... when India go bazball in recent times they are historically unstoppable. When they defend, they are below average to bad. Australia.... pretty similar. England ... went from historical lows in batting at timid rates to now world leading batting averages at extremely high ones.

You can look at this in anyway you want I guess. For me, it shows that teams when on form or players not in decline can attack incredibly effectively, and that when they are not they tend to try to grit it out. But we shouldnt confuse 36 year olds like kohli, Sharma or Smith getting to the end and becoming poor, or Marnus finally having a bad year or two after averaging 60 as some generational problem with batting.

[sussexpob]

Drop in pitches also cause very natural and specific trends in pitches. When Australia first used one in a test match, Glenn McGrath had insane figures on a pitch that was barely playable quality (was literally something like 35 overs bowled, 10 wickets for 25 runs and 25 maidens). Drop in pitches seem to be quite lively when they first come in, and then afterwards become lifeless - which was the general trend in Australia. It got to the point of that Melbourne test match on the flattest pitch known to man vs England recently, and they changed the pitches again.... and then they have become much more lively again...

The Perth pitch for instance was recently changed, and it was quick, bouncy and the ball was bouncing all over from minute 1.... (and I said this on the match thread), lets see Boycott survive to 90mph plus bowling on that for much longer.

NZ is the best example of drop in pitches, and how its completely changed the whole fundamentals of the game. From pretty much the minute they put them in, for the first time in test history you see a consistent trend of 1st innings scores being lower than the 2nd, and that trend has lasted now a long time.

Why? Well they use a type of clay heavy soil in nz for their drop ins. It shrinks and expands a lot with moisture, and as pitches uncovered lose moisture over a game, the clay shrinks and compacts. The pitches therefore become harder and more compact and even...... and in the first innings you benefit from more live grass for movement. That is just one variable, and you see the effect of it very pronounced. So yes, you can say that the average batting score or length of innings in recent times has gone down slightly, but to state with any confidence its one particular thing when the data points to the opposite, and there are many, many variables in play... its not a sensible conclusion. Another variable for instance.... which other decade did warm up games for away teams cease to exist? Where batsman play so much top level cricket (while bowlers get rest)?

Honestly, I reckon if you teleported someone like Dave Warner to the pancakes of the late 2000s, he'd have looked like Bradman. And I would love to see Boycott batting out 300 ball innings when hes playing a 5 test ashes series all in back to back matches, as starting only 3 days after he got back from a 8 week tour of Pakistan.

[meninblue]

The batsmen have started playing T20 shots and do not bother to leave the risky balls to the keeper. As a result shot selection is very probable to be wrong and collectively when players of both teams play such brand of cricket the test matches count ending within 3 and 4 days will keep on increasing. What is easily visible to the naked eye while watching matches over the years, also makes the explaination simple. Even in last few tests i watched, there were so many examples of rubbish T20 shots and approach and surely if i had noted the count would be very very high of bad percentile cricket and approach. No point keeping a track of it, that is a job for coaches of those teams. I would not want to make a simple thing complex for the sake of it. imo there is no need for statistics to see the difference in way batsmen are approaching test cricket.

Dare I say, you are making the fatal error assuming the change in the way the game is played is to blame, and that being aggressive in itself is inferior in terms of creating runs than it is to block and be cautious. That's pretty common, because most test cricket observers (including myself somewhat) have observation bias towards the game evolving, and want to believe that.

Is I mentioned, in the last 10 years India and Australia had home batting form that is unprecedent in the history of the game. One or two downturns in key players, and that record breaking form has ended. But how, in the grand scheme of a whole decade, has the approach worked?

In the last decade, in years India bat over the average current strike rate for the 2020s..... average wickets of 40, 67, 52, 32, 40 and 47...... 67 in a year is all time best stuff. Anything over 40 is extremely rare in the history of the game. 32 is above average. When India bat below the SR55 mark average.... 29, 29, 25 with average decreasing with SR.... Conclusion ..... when India go bazball in recent times they are historically unstoppable. When they defend, they are below average to bad. Australia.... pretty similar. England ... went from historical lows in batting at timid rates to now world leading batting averages at extremely high ones.

You can look at this in anyway you want I guess. For me, it shows that teams when on form or players not in decline can attack incredibly effectively, and that when they are not they tend to try to grit it out. But we shouldnt confuse 36 year olds like kohli, Sharma or Smith getting to the end and becoming poor, or Marnus finally having a bad year or two after averaging 60 as some generational problem with batting.

Virat is not as good as Joe Root in tests. Virat has been awful in tests in last 4 years out of 5. imo surely 31 is not end of test career for specialist batsmen at least in India. He is 36 now, his horrible form started when he was 31 years, His fall is not for one odd year.
Since 2020 the averages of Virat in test format are as follows:
2020 - 19.33
2021 - 28.21
2022 - 26.50
2023 - 55.91
2024 - 21.25

Rohit Sharma, well I would not even keep him on par with Gautam Gambhir in tests. Gauti, Ajinkya, Saurav and Virat were all better batsmen than him, let alone comapring him with Sehwag, Sachin, Rahul, Chet and VVS. He is lucky to be in test team thanks to Mumbai lobby and captaincy.

-------------------------

I don't say being agressive on bad balls is wrong. A bad ball has to go for 4 or 6. Problem is that the batsmen are trying to hit good balls for 4 and 6. Technique and awareness of off stump, the understanding of the line and length is also not there. Patience and temperament is also another factor. Apart from these there could be other factors as well which I am not aware of. They want to hit reverse sweeps for 4 and 6. It works but i wonder when they cannot play sweep or normal test cricket shots/stuff properly how probable are they to play reverse sweep and other risky shots.

[sussexpob]

Rohit Sharma, well I would not even keep him on par with Gautam Gambhir in tests. Gauti, Ajinkya, Saurav and Virat were all better batsmen than him, let alone comapring him with Sehwag, Sachin, Rahul, Chet and VVS. He is lucky to be in test team thanks to Mumbai lobby and captaincy.

If you wanted to take India's best team from the 2000s era vs their last ten year best available team based on playing at home.

Jaiswal averages more than Sehwag
Murali Vijay averages more than Gambhir
(Note - the overall opener performance irrespective of partnerships in the last 10 years is 3-4 runs more than in matches Sehwag played, so whoever you pick as the pair, the modern pair are better.... and weirdly, Gambhir's poor average of 27 is included in that figure).
Pujara averages more than Dravid
Kohli averages more than Tendulkar
Sharma averages more than Laxman (although its almost even)
Pant averages more than Ms Dhoni
Shubman Gill averages slightly more than Ganguly

So yes, the recent retirements, injuries to pant, and loss of form from two older players in terms of home test output is arguably the most devastating talent drain a team has ever sustained. You bemoan falling scores from the team, but what you are actually bemoaning is essentially the most successful batting line up of all time at home coming to the end of a sustained decade long hotstreak as the team falls apart with retirements and age.

You can say this is all down to modern day cricketers coming in to replace not being to standard. Well, do you remember that period around 2011 to early 2013 when the retirements were coming in and Tendulkar, Sehwag and Laxman's high scoring days were passed them?

4-0 loss in England. Two tests by an innings, one by 300 runs, one by 200 runs...... one of the objectively worst tours a side has ever played in England

4-0 in Australia. Guess what? Two losses by an innings, one by 300 runs, one by 115.... Almost as abject.

2-1 at home to England for the first and only time in decades.

You can expect exceptionally historical run heavy sides to lose most of their talent and just continue smashing runs. Even your yardstick team for measuring it got battered in the same transition situations.

[sussexpob]

In many ways its the same with Australia. Lose Warner, Khawaja is 37 and starts to decline, Smith is the best player of his generation but is clearly now in decline, Marnus was the top averaging player in the world until last year and is in bad form.

Skip to a time a few years back when all of these players were on form and younger, then you have again one of the most formidable batting units to play in the history of the game when going to OZ... they all average plus 50, some over 60 at home. But in 2024, they no longer do. You don't find a top 4 averaging a combined 58 runs just lying around on a tree. Again, that is history....

Waugh team ended.... Australia lost 4 out of 5 following Ashes
Bradman's invincible team ended? Australia lost 4 series in a row in the 50s.

Its the natural cycle of teams

[meninblue]

Rohit Sharma, well I would not even keep him on par with Gautam Gambhir in tests. Gauti, Ajinkya, Saurav and Virat were all better batsmen than him, let alone comapring him with Sehwag, Sachin, Rahul, Chet and VVS. He is lucky to be in test team thanks to Mumbai lobby and captaincy.

If you wanted to take India's best team from the 2000s era vs their last ten year best available team based on playing at home.

Jaiswal averages more than Sehwag
Murali Vijay averages more than Gambhir
(Note - the overall opener performance irrespective of partnerships in the last 10 years is 3-4 runs more than in matches Sehwag played, so whoever you pick as the pair, the modern pair are better.... and weirdly, Gambhir's poor average of 27 is included in that figure).
Pujara averages more than Dravid
Kohli averages more than Tendulkar
Sharma averages more than Laxman (although its almost even)
Pant averages more than Ms Dhoni
Shubman Gill averages slightly more than Ganguly

So yes, the recent retirements, injuries to pant, and loss of form from two older players in terms of home test output is arguably the most devastating talent drain a team has ever sustained. You bemoan falling scores from the team, but what you are actually bemoaning is essentially the most successful batting line up of all time at home coming to the end of a sustained decade long hotstreak as the team falls apart with retirements and age.

You can say this is all down to modern day cricketers coming in to replace not being to standard. Well, do you remember that period around 2011 to early 2013 when the retirements were coming in and Tendulkar, Sehwag and Laxman's high scoring days were passed them?

4-0 loss in England. Two tests by an innings, one by 300 runs, one by 200 runs...... one of the objectively worst tours a side has ever played in England

4-0 in Australia. Guess what? Two losses by an innings, one by 300 runs, one by 115.... Almost as abject.

2-1 at home to England for the first and only time in decades.

You can expect exceptionally historical run heavy sides to lose most of their talent and just continue smashing runs. Even your yardstick team for measuring it got battered in the same transition situations.

Jaiswal averages more than Sehwag - There is long way to go before I would compare Yashasvi with Sehwag.

Murali Vijay averages more than Gambhir - Gauti was better test batsman imo that Murali Vijay.
(Note - the overall opener performance irrespective of partnerships in the last 10 years is 3-4 runs more than in matches Sehwag played, so whoever you pick as the pair, the modern pair are better.... and weirdly, Gambhir's poor average of 27 is included in that figure). But yes, there is a worthy comparison.

Pujara averages more than Dravid - Rahul was better imo but Chet was quality too. Tough to be in Sehwag, Rahul, Sachin, VVS level. Nevertheless, better than Gauti and Saurav. Chet was the one who became the next pillar of Indian batting lineup followed by Virat. Only two Indian batsmen will look better than Rahul when compared in tests: Sunny and Sachin.

Kohli averages more than Tendulkar - Virat is not in Sachin's level imo, he showed promise but is on severe decline too early at 31 years and can't be there with him, but certainly gets in the playing 11.

Sharma averages more than Laxman (although its almost even) - In tests I would not even compare Rohit and VVS in my lifetime, let even place him in VVS level. Rohit was not even Mumbai Ranji teams test batsman. He won't be in India's best playing test 11 in the one that I would make.

Pant averages more than Ms Dhoni - Yes, this is the so called no-brainer selection. Rishabh has probably already played mor clutch knocks than Dhoni and by the time Rishabh end his test career, he looks like he play a few more clutch knocks. The way he has comeback after a major accident is a turnaround story and a motivational one. A fightback of iconic proportion out and inside of the cricket field after such a tragic accident. Nerves of steel really, pun intended.


Shubman Gill averages slightly more than Ganguly - Like I said before that there is long way to go before I would compare Yashasvi with Sehwag. Similary won't compares Shubman with Saurav yet.


My top 6 Indian batsmen * from those being discussed here would be

* = Not restricted to just performance and home. Judging players both home as well as abroad and many other factors, without considering the ability of Sehwag, Sachin and Saurav to bowl or fielding of Sachin or running between wickets of Sachin. Purely on performance delivered for Ranji team and India Test team.

Sehwag
Gauti
Chet
Sachin
Virat
VVS
Saurav as backup if any of these 6 batters are unavailable for any reason whatsoever

Rishabh - WK



All Indian star cricketers get this benefit and stretch their careers. But Sachin's bad patch did not start at 31 like Virat's. Sachin played for 24 years !! Virat has hardly played 13. Only one more year than half of what Sachin played. Sachin bowled in Tests as well as ODI, has enough wickets for a batsman who gets in top playing 11's. Virat is already struggling even though he has been a specialist batsman apart from the rare overs. In spite of tremendously less workload Virat though India's top 6 batsman has struggled even as a specialist batsman when compared to Sachin. Big names like Alaistair Cook and Michael Clarke looked like they would come near, but only Joe Root is really the likely one. No wonder, it is just not me but whole of India rates Joe Root higher than Virat in tests. Add Joe bowls as well and has more workload like Sachin used to bowl. The real challenger is one and only one. Joe Root. All of India likes him and he will get further immense respect when he really does what tempted many just to fall due to various shortcoming. I have seen KP get so much of fan following here, but praise for Joe Root is just going to be at another level in few years down the line and because he is just on the verge of doing the unthinkable. Like Sachin he is so simple, so down to earth, he really gets more liked for the way he plays the game. It is players like Joe who are worth watching today in tests. One of the rare, if not the rarest in the world of fancy T20i and franchisee cricket world. Yes, he played that horrible reverse sweep in India tour but for someone of that stature I would ignore the handful of mistakes in such a long career considering that others have done as many mistakes in one test series.

Personally I would prefer to see more players like Joe Root who are consistently performing over a long period. The only deserving test batsman who makes watching test batting satisfying and puts prize on wicket. The best of the best. If not for him, we would have been told test batsmanship is just not possible in the current era and mediocrity is the new norm. Lets accept mediocrity with a wide cheerful smile and with both arms widely stretched. Hug the mediocrity and cheer the T20i stars only, forget the test batsmanship and that tests are ending in 13.5 overs and 2 sessions. It is easy to get fooled by 22 karat gold thinking it is 24 karat gold, but after seeing batsmanship from FAB 4, the likes of Lara, Steve Waugh, Michael Clarke, Steven Smith, Hashim Amla, Alaistair Cook KP, Bell, Joe, Aravinda, Arjuna, Mahela, Sanga, Kallis, MoYo, Kane etc it is difficult to get fooled that getting out in 13.5 overs and unable to abt for two sessions just normal. The relay baton in marathon needs to be taken by others though as one simply is not enough and I hope there are many such batsmen like Joe from the recently playing to be in all test teams who makes us switch on the TV set and bring back the Sehwag, Sachin, Rahul and VVS days. Make us switch on the TV in anticipation a quality innings can happen this very innings. Now it is like why waste the time watching poor quality batting; there are more chances of team getting out in 2 sessions and test ending in 3 or 4 days. If performance is not there to see what remains in test match is flow of binary data of 0 and 1 from the stadium to your home location. Just bad data packets flowing here and there which does not meets expectation of watching a test match.

[meninblue]

Getting bowled out in 13 overs feels like something that might have happened in the Victorian era.

Less than Hundred batting innings scorecard.

A day will come we will have a batting innings which is less than that of Abu Dabhi T10 match