The Gavaskar case was an outlier, but no one would dispute the fact that run rates have increased over the years, but we are as interested in the patterns behind the increases. To that end we have mapped the run rates of the seven countries that have played in every World Cup - Australia, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and West Indies.
The reasons for run-rate increases are many and varied. Most commentary curmudgeons fall back on the twin pillars of smaller boundaries and bigger bats. These play a part, but can't come close to explaining it all. There are many stories, from days of lore, of the likes of Keith Miller and Garry Sobers hitting the ball across three postcodes, so while no doubt bats have got bigger and lighter, hits haven't necessarily got longer.
Sunil Gavaskar scored 36 not out in 174 in a World Cup game. Photo / Getty Images
A HISTORY OF WORLD CUP RUN RATES
In fact, both players and bat manufacturers have aggressively downplayed the significance of the willow in response to ICC chief executive Dave Richardson signalling that bat sizes would be looked at in the future.
"Where some batsmen are mishitting balls and it is just carrying over the rope and going for a six instead of being caught at the boundary; that is what some cricket people believe has become unfair," Richardson said.
"The [lawmakers] will be looking at giving perhaps some consideration to placing limitations on the depth of a bat in particular."
That brought a swift response, with bat-makers pointing out other reasons and former Australian test opener Ed Cowan said that bats has changed maybe "five per cent in 10 years but [were an] easy target to blame".
As an exercise, I drew up a list of "fors" on an A4 sheet of paper. These were a list of popular reasons, other than big bats, behind the explosion of runs. Nearly every "for" had a compelling counter-argument.
FOR: Smaller boundaries.
Well, yes, most grounds have got smaller, though in cases like the side boundaries at Adelaide Oval, they are significantly larger. Pukekura Park, New Plymouth, was the only ground used in 1992 that surrendered 300-plus totals, and that's not being used this time around. Grounds like Saxton Oval and Hagley Park are much bigger than the likes of Lancaster Park and Carisbrook. Also, bigger grounds might mean less boundaries, but they are far easier to score twos and threes upon.
FOR: More muscular batsmen.
You can say the same for bowlers, who are fitter and breaking down less often than they were 10 years ago, and fielders too.
FOR: Fielding restrictions.
These have been tinkered with over the years to the point now where you can never have more than four fielders outside the 30m circle. That makes covering the boundaries more difficult, but is balanced by the fact that fielders are far more athletic and brilliant than they used to be.
FOR: Detailed video analysis of bowlers' habits and weaknesses.
You could just as easily say, ditto for batsmen.
FOR: The white balls stay harder longer as two of them are in use.
This also means batting is theoretically more difficult at the start of the innings, because the ball stays swinging for longer.
FOR: A wider variety of shots, including scoops, ramps and reverses.
Very true, but bowlers have an astonishing array of variations, too, including cross-seamers, slower balls, slower-ball bouncers, wide yorkers and more leeway for short-pitched bowling than they used to.
Batsmen across all forms of cricket have a wide range of shots in their armory. Photo / Getty Images
On the surface it makes little sense to suggest a third of the game, bowling, would develop more slowly from a technical and strategic standpoint than batting or fielding. Every team has a flotilla of coaches and at least one of those coaches is employed to work with bowlers. But this is what master batsman Martin Crowe suggested, with his usual persuasiveness, in a recent column.
"Bowlers are now cannon fodder," he wrote in Cricinfo. "They were once the controllers, the scene setters. Alas, they have become poor cousins in a game where administrators want boundaries struck between every heartbeat.
"Over time, the bowler has lost his confidence. With the small boundaries positioned, cruel field restrictions adopted, and [big bats] in full force, the bowler hasn't a hope. To his credit, he has tried his best to produce multiple clever and skilful variations to compete. The overriding problem here is, most bowlers are now trying to use them all, and have become masters of none."
Again, while all these points have validity, they can be countered or at least minimised.
There has to be something deeper and I believe it is what data analysts would describe as an immeasurable. It's attitude.
At its simplest, batsmen are no longer as afraid of failure. If there was one statistic that held back one-day cricket more than any other it was a batsman's average. It was the be-all and end-all of a career - how they were measured against peers.
Corey Anderson has a career strike-rate of 130.35 runs per 100 balls - the best in world cricket. His T20 strike rate is 130.63. Photo / Brett Phibbs
Somewhere along the line, somebody clever realised that average was only as important as strike rate, the amount of runs a batsman scored every 100 balls. And then somebody even cleverer realised that even strike rates were a little misleading. For example: a batsman that scores slowly at the start before blossoming late in his innings, may end up with a good strike rate, but how harmful was his slow start to those he was batting with? Did all the dot balls he soaked up early in his innings contribute to his partner being dismissed while trying to force the pace?
So coaches and analysts now treat strike rate and average as just part of the deal. What they're more interested in is situational hitting. Each batsman has a role to play depending on the time and context of his innings.
As a loose example, a quick-fire 30 of 24 balls from a No6 who has entered the fray in the 37th over, is far more useful in most situations than 40 off 40, because an average hitter at the end of the innings would be expected to score more than 10 runs off the additional 16 balls he has used up. In the same way, a first-ball duck, while embarrassing, at least doesn't clog up the innings like a Gavaskarian ordeal.
(As another illustration of how attitudes have changed, consider one of New Zealand's most famous and lauded one-day innings - Bruce Edgar's 102 not out against Australia in the 'Underarm' match. Chasing 235 on an admittedly low and slow pitch, New Zealand, with a strong batting tail, were at various points 172-4 and 221-5 and yet still needed 15 off the last over with four wickets in hand. This isn't to diminish what was then considered a fantastic knock, but these days Edgar's 141-ball century would come in for a storm of scrutiny.)
Because a batsman is not beholden to his average any longer, they have learned to embrace failure. This is a massive mindset shift that T20, which has been blamed for everything from the death of the forward defence to the hole in the ozone layer, has been partly responsible for.
Coaches and selectors have gotten smarter. They don't care much for milestones (a batsman that fluffs around going from 90 to 100 is more likely to be criticised than congratulated) if they impinge on a team target. They know failure is an ever-present in cricket. One of the most popular fall-backs for batsmen is that even Sir Donald Bradman failed once every three times he batted (which is in itself a dodgy stat: if you consider being dismissed for anything less than 20 a failure for a top-order bat, which seems about reasonable, then he actually failed just 22 times in 80 test innings).
Batsmen are allowed to miss out without fear that they will be sacrificed on a selector's altar.
A situational hitter at the top of the innings like Brendon McCullum is a luxury worth having. Photo / Getty Images
Take New Zealand captain Brendon McCullum as an example. Mike Hesson and Edgar, New Zealand's coach-selector and head of selection respectively, know that playing the way he does, McCullum is going to fail... a lot. They also know that when he comes off he is capable of winning games almost single-handedly. As a situational hitter at the top of the innings - and with sufficient roundheads below him in the order - he is a luxury worth having.
Safe in that knowledge, he bats without fear, as does David Warner, or Glenn Maxwell, or Suresh Raina, or Corey Anderson. (In countries where there is a still a more kneejerk reaction to selection - think England - they seem to develop less of these devil-may-care players.)
This, ultimately, is the main reason behind the rapid increase in run rates. Big, thick bats don't swing themselves. Bowlers and particularly fielders are getting better, not worse. Cricket has always had small grounds, big grounds and middle-sized grounds.
But batsmen haven't always been so brazen - that is the biggest difference of all.
NEW ZEALAND'S RUN RATES AT CWCs
1975: 4 games - r/r 3.81
Host: England
Format: Eight teams, 60 overs, red ball, white clothing, day games
Facts and curiosities: NZ finished second in their pool behind England. Their run rate was significantly boosted by a total of 309-5 against East Africa (Glenn Turner scored 171). They lost their semifinal to tournament winners West Indies after mustering just 158 in 52.2 overs. The game they lost, against England, was noted for the curious selection of Barry Hadlee, brother of, who had barely played a one-day domestic match and managed a painstaking 19 off 77 balls batting at No 3.
1979: 4 games - r/r 3.56
Host: England
Format: Eight teams, 60 overs, red ball, white clothing, day games
Facts and curiosities: One of the few times NZ's run rate dipped from World Cup to World Cup, but so did many teams' in what was a difficult tournament for batsmen. Teams rarely chased with much urgency, as you can see by the fact it took NZ 47.4 overs to chase Sri Lanka's 189, despite losing just one wicket, and 57 overs to overhaul India's 182, despite losing just two wickets. Most disappointingly, they failed to chase England's 221 in the semifinal, falling nine runs short in their full 60 overs.
1983: 6 games - r/r 4.04
Host: England
Format: Eight teams, 60 overs, red ball, white clothing, day games
Facts and curiosities: Teams played the others in their pool twice and for the first time at a World Cup, NZ edged their run rate beyond the magic 4 per over. However it was a pretty miserable few weeks as they were bundled out before the semifinals for the first time. The nadir was losing to Sri Lanka, still a genuine minnow, in Derby, scoring just 181 in 58.2 overs. Martin Crowe (8 off 32), Bruce Edgar (27 off 77), Jeremy Coney (22 off 50), providing one of the more punchless 4-5-6 middle-order performances of the time.
1987: 6 games - 5.01
Host: India & Pakistan
Format: Eight teams, 50 overs, red ball, white clothing, day games
Facts and curiosities: This was the first tournament to be played at the current 50-overs per team and it was only thus because there was less daylight window on the subcontinent to allow for 60 overs each. On the face of it, NZ went along at a jaunty 5.01, but that did not stop them finishing third in their pool and again missing the semifinals. In reality, their run rate was significantly boosted by scoring 196-9 against Australia in a match reduced to 30 overs each. They still lost that match (Australia had posted 199-4), though Martin Crowe's 58 from 48 balls gave a glimpse at what was possible.
1992: 9 games - 5.04
Host: Australia & New Zealand
Format: Nine teams, 50 overs, white ball, coloured clothing, day-night games
Facts and curiosities: South Africa's readmittance into the international sporting community in 1992 saw the format change from two pools of four to a round-robin nine-team tournament. You probably don't need reminding that NZ went great guns until losing a heartbreaker in the semifinal to Pakistan. Their 5.04 run rate was on the back of firecracker starts from Herald columnist Mark Greatbatch and the brilliance of Crowe. It was all the more meritorious because they played the bulk of their games on low, slow-scoring wickets.
1996: 6 games - 5.17
Host: Pakistan, India & Sri Lanka
Format: 12 teams, 50 overs, white ball, coloured clothing, day-night games
Facts and curiosities: NZ's run rate crept up again, to an impressive 5.17, but this was helped by a 300+ score against associate side the Netherlands, and a 5.87RPO romp against the United Arab Emirates. For the first time quarter-finals were played and New Zealand drew Australia. They would have been feeling pretty smug at halftime having posted 286-9, with Chris Harris' career high-point 130 from 124 balls being the catalyst. However, Australia fair flew home with the loss of just four wickets and 2.1 overs to spare.
1999: 9 games - 4.61
Host: United Kingdom, Ireland & Netherlands
Format: 12 teams, 50 overs, white ball, coloured clothing, day-night games
Facts and curiosities: Instead of quarter-finals, the ICC instead went for a super sixes stage, where the top three teams in each six-team pool carried their points over to a crossover pool. The top four then progressed to the semis. Confused? So were most people. NZ scraped into the super sixes by having a net run rate .08 better than the West Indies. Australia tried to bat NZ out of the tournament by going on a go-slow when chasing a paltry 110 by the Windies. That meant NZ had to win in double-quick time against Scotland. They did so by dismissing them for 121, then chasing down the target in 17.5 overs, when they had effectively had 21.2 overs to do so. They climbed into the semis above Zimbabwe, also on NRR, but there the luck ran out, being thrashed by nine wickets by Pakistan, despite posting a decent 241-7 in 50 overs. This tournament saw a significant run rate regression.
2003: 8 games - 5.34
Host: South Africa, Zimbabwe & Kenya
Format: 14 teams, 50 overs, white ball, coloured clothing, day-night games
Facts and curiosities: Two more teams were added and the super sixes stage stayed in place. New Zealand, despite not travelling to Kenya, qualified for the super sixes but the carry-over points they missed by not beating Kenya proved costly and they missed out on the semis. Generally speaking they scored at a good clip (Stephen Fleming's brilliant 134 not out of 132 balls saw them score a Duckworth-Lewis revised 229-1 to in 36.5 overs to beat South Africa), but they let themselves down badly in their final two games, being rolled for 112 in 30.1 overs against Australia, and 146 in 45.1 overs against India.
2007: 10 games - 5.34
Host: West Indies
Format: 16 teams, 50 overs, white ball, coloured clothing, day-night games
Facts and curiosities: Another change, this time 16 teams with four pools of four and a super eights stage. NZ made it through to the semifinals with exactly the same run rate they posted four years earlier, although being in a pool with Kenya and Canada helped - NZ posted 331 and 363 against those teams respectively. NZ also posted healthy run rates in wins against Bangladesh and Ireland in the super eights stage, but the semifinal was a let down, scoring just 208 in reply to Sri Lanka's 289.
2011: 8 games - 5.62
Host: India, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh
Format: 14 teams, 50 overs, white ball, coloured clothing, day-night games
Facts and curiosities: Back to 14 teams, back to two pools, but this time a straight quarters, semis, final knockout phase. NZ endured an up-and-down tournament, but their run rate got a nice boost by thrashing Kenya and Zimbabwe and posting 300+ scores against Pakistan and Canada. NZ then caused a boilover by beating top qualifier South Africa in the quarter-fnal, successfully defending 221, but an achingly conservative 217 in 48.5 overs was never going to be enough to beat Sri Lanka in their Colombo semifinal.
2015: 3 games - 6.91
Host: Australia & New Zealand
Format: 14 teams, 50 overs, white ball, coloured clothing, day-night games
Facts and curiosities: Mercifully little tinkering with the format, but this is the first time a World Cup has been played with just four fielders allowed outside the 30m circle. Two new balls, one from each end, are also in play for the first time.
