Evolving Challenges of Batting and What Defines a Great
The cricketing community has spent the last year enjoying Virat Kohli’s batting. He’s been on a dream run with the bat this year. The consistency that he has maintained throughout his career has been nothing short of outstanding. With success across all formats one would say that he’s on the path to greatness.
Batting has changed a lot over the years. So have the parameters which decide what a batsman should be judged on. But what defines a great or legendary batsman? Let’s have a look.
Evolution of Batting
Sir Don Bradman is regarded as one of the greatest of his generation. With an average of close to 100 there is no denying that he is one of the greatest men to play the sport. Test match cricket was the sole format of the game when Bradman was playing. He had a pretty decent strike rate for that era as well. But it is still difficult to judge whether he would have succeeded similarly in today’s rise of limited overs cricket. Could he have switched his game and shot up his strike rate when needed?
Batting has evolved over the years. Strike rates have gone up, boundaries have been pulled back, bouncers have been limited. But what today’s batsmen need to deal with is a packed calendar. The increase in scoring rate is not just down to slam-bam batting but also down to quick running between the wickets. You can’t succeed for long if you are not at peak fitness levels.
Less Emphasis on Bowling Quality?
There are people who would argue that the bowling quality has degraded with time. The 70s and 80s were full of scary and mean fast bowlers. The likes of Joel Garner, Malcolm Marshall, Dennis Lillee, Geoff Thompson and Richard Hadlee terrorised the batsmen. This is probably why Sunil Gavaskar and Vivian Richards were regarded as greats. They scored heavily against such bowlers, that too in an era with no proper head gears (helmet).
The following decade gave birth to another line of fast bowling greats like Wasim Akram, Allan Donald, Waqar Younis, Glenn McGrath, Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh. These on top of the two spin wizards, Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan made it an incredibly difficult challenge to succeed in the 90s. But you had the likes of Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting and Rahul Dravid taking them on the front foot.
Apart from Dale Steyn and Mitchell Starc there aren’t any bowlers who many would consider in the same mould as the greats mentioned above. But there could be multiple reasons behind it. The rise of the era of TV demands high scoring matches. Sponsors want more overs to be played. This has encouraged the preparation of batsmen friendly pitches. One more factor is the busy calendar. Bowlers need to stay fitter and bowl for longer periods during the year. So, even if the bowlers are good, they have to work way more which in turns results to injuries.
Who Can Be Called a Great?
When you talk about greats, it is difficult not mention Sachin Tendulkar. He dominated the era of mean fast bowlers and great spinners. He got plenty of runs in both Test and ODI Cricket. But it’s not just his record that makes him a great, it is also the pressure of performing under the immense pressure that comes when playing for India.
Let’s go an era back. Sunil Gavaskar was one of the best batsmen of his time. He oozed class and pounded runs after runs in Test Cricket. But his record in ODIs does not look that impressive. He scored just one hundred in his ODI career. He once infamously scored 36* from 174 balls, lasting 60 overs. But no one seemed to argue with his batting caliber.
But had this been the record of a current batsman, he would not have received the same praise. Let’s take Alastair Cook for instance. He has been one of the best Test batsmen of recent times. But his limited overs cricket career has been mediocre. When we look back at the greatest batsmen of these times, Cook’s name would be lost somewhere. He would not be revered like AB de Villiers, Virat Kohli or Joe Root would be, who have had success in all three formats.
It could be fair to say that a batsman is considered a great if he is good enough to handle all challenges that are posed to him in that era. May that be building a long innings or scoring quick-fire 70 to chase down a steep total.
Adaptability Important
The main attribute that make Kohli and de Villiers the best right now is their ability to switch their batting style according to the situation. Modern-day batting demands that you should not have a strict natural way of batting. It has to be situational.
The batsman of Tendulkar’s era (near the end) are the ones who had to make the transition very quickly. The likes of Rahul Dravid, Jacques Kallis, Hashim Amla who were deemed not good enough to play the shorter formats of the game, proved the doubters wrong and transformed their game to suit the modern day demands.
Whether the likes of Gavaskar and Bradman could have done the same or would have struggled with playing limited overs cricket like Cook is something we can never know. Also, it would be unfair if we try to judge them on that.
Are Comparisons Fair?
Vivian Richards had a striker rate of 90.20 during his ODI career, which is surprising given the times he batted in. There is no doubt that he would have been one of the best batsmen in all formats of the game even today. We can’t say the same for Gavaskar, Allan Border or Bradman. But can we blame them? The demands of batting were completely different to what they are today. There were no big totals to be chased. There was no need to score at a high strike rate. Plus, ODIs were not given that much importance initially, or in Bradman’s case, didn’t exist. So, a lot of the technique and style were based to suite the longer format of the game.
Similarly, it is difficult to conclude what it would have been like, had the likes of Kohli and de Villiers batted in the 90s. Would they have torn apart Akram, McGrath, Ambrose, Warne and Muralitharan at their peak on wickets that suited them?
The current batsmen don’t have it easy with the versatility in batting that the game demands. We should respect the challenges that are posed by each era, and judge them only on the basis of the criteria set during each era.