Have batsmen gotten better or have bowlers gotten worse?

By Adrian Meredith

We all know the stats, but here is a rough rehash:

1877 (test cricket started) - batting average was 20-25 per batsman

1930 (Bradman's time) - batting average was 30 per batsman

1965 (Benaud's time) - batting average was 35 per batsman

1990 (Tendulkar started) - batting average was 40 per batsman

So why is this? Why are batting averages getting higher?

 

Batsmen are better:

Cricket is a lot more popular now, such that we are able to pick the best of the best instead of just whoever.

Cricketers are now full-time workers - they don't have to have a job to afford to play for their country.

Bats are more professionally made.

Technology has improved such that coaches and players can help to work out better technique.

The advent of ODI and T20 cricket, where batting is heavily favoured, means that players coming through prefer to bat than to bowl.

Tail enders are now expected to bat a bit as well.

Wicket keepers used to be only required to keep wicket and many batted at number 11. But now they are expected to be as good as the regular batsmen.

Bowlers are worse:

West Indian bowlers are turning to other sports, for example Usain Bolt and Yohan Blake both started with cricket but were converted to running - that would never have happened when West Indies were at their peak.

The whole flexion thing and the crackdown on throwing means that bowlers don't want to bowl so much.

With so much cricket going on many bowlers are breaking down, as extra cricket hurts bowlers a lot more than batsmen.

ODI and T20 cricket heavily favours batsmen, so players don't really want to become bowlers.

Bowling relies heavily on trickery and with so much video analysis around now even the trickiest bowlers can be found out fairly quickly.

Some alternative thoughts:

Pitches are easier to bat on:

Pitches were left uncovered in the early days of test cricket, meaning that if it rained then the next day could be almost impossible to bat on, with team scores of 100 vs 400 if it hadn't rained.

Curators often deliberately make pitches easier to bat on because that is what the crowd wants.

ODI and T20 pitches are generally created to be easy to bat on and it can be difficult to make the pitch hard to bat on if it is basically the same pitch.

Rule changes favour batsmen:

Front foot no ball (it was originally back foot no ball) means a lot more no balls, and hence easier for batsmen.

What is considered to be wide is a lot tougher now, making it easier for batsmen.

Tight decisions can now be reviewed and batsmen are given out a lot less than they used to.

Neutral umpires means that playing away from home is no longer quite as tough.

The whole degrees of flexion and throwing crack down means that bowlers can't get away with as much as they used to.

Bowlers can no longer bowl bouncers as often.

Technology makes it easier for batsmen:

Bowling relies heavily on trickery and with so much video analysis available now even the trickiest bowler can be easily found out now.

Helmets mean that batsmen can face bouncers with a degree of protection.

Equipment is a lot better - and all of that, other than spikes on shoes, favours batsmen.

Bats are a lot better.

Whatever the main reason for batsmen to get higher averages, one thing is for sure - a batsman's averages now would be a lot lower if they had played in the early days of test cricket and for anyone today to be considered to be as good as Bradman they'd have to have an average much higher than his 99.94. Anyone averaging 50 or even 60 today would not be close to as good.