Re “Bradman’s era was slooooow!”; in terms of runs per over, yes. But what about runs per minute? (For the sake of argument I’ll claim that’s a better measure of battertainment than runs per ball 😉) it’d be fascinating (I think!) to re-do some of these stats using that measure. How many runs would Gilly (or Brook) make in a session if there were 20 overs an hour rather than the current 13-15?
Yes in runs per minute players of yesterday year were miles faster. Bradman scoring 309 in a day in the Leeds test match of 1930 would be unthinkable today. That’s personally why I prefer balls as it then doesn’t disadvantage the modern players. And yes if you did it in runs per minute and assumed what would happen if modern bowlers bowled as many overs per hour as they used to the modern day players would surge. But ultimately I think if you completely normalised it while yes it would be quite accurate you would still only have the effect of approaching the accuracy of runs perball.
Further to your point, I do think that the high number of overs per hour allowed some players of yesteryear to get away with boring batting in a manner that just would not be tolerated today with modern slow over rates!
Re “Bradman’s era was slooooow!”; in terms of runs per over, yes. But what about runs per minute? (For the sake of argument I’ll claim that’s a better measure of battertainment than runs per ball 😉) it’d be fascinating (I think!) to re-do some of these stats using that measure. How many runs would Gilly (or Brook) make in a session if there were 20 overs an hour rather than the current 13-15?
Yes in runs per minute players of yesterday year were miles faster. Bradman scoring 309 in a day in the Leeds test match of 1930 would be unthinkable today. That’s personally why I prefer balls as it then doesn’t disadvantage the modern players. And yes if you did it in runs per minute and assumed what would happen if modern bowlers bowled as many overs per hour as they used to the modern day players would surge. But ultimately I think if you completely normalised it while yes it would be quite accurate you would still only have the effect of approaching the accuracy of runs perball.
Further to your point, I do think that the high number of overs per hour allowed some players of yesteryear to get away with boring batting in a manner that just would not be tolerated today with modern slow over rates!