So, unless you live on Mercury (or don’t like cricket, in which case, this blog won’t be for you), you’ll know that Chris Gayle scored a magnificent double century for the West Indies this morning against Zimbabwe.
In a strange way, are we becoming slightly numb to the ridiculousness of the ODI double century? This was the fifth made in the history of the game, although the first by a non-Indian batsmen. That said, somehow, the idea of scoring TWO HUNDRED RUNS in a 50 over match is not that mind-blowing anymore. So, as Gayle was busy belting cricket balls into the Tasman Sea, I was actually feeling a little underwhelmed (and sleepy, it was on pretty early in the morning).
As a cricket fan, I’ve become a little spoilt by some of the incredible feats achieved by the modern cricketer. You only have to look back a few weeks to remember another astonishing feat of batsmanship, when this same West Indies side were on the receiving end of an absolute shellacking from AB De Villiers, who hit 149 from just 44 balls. That say, it seemed every delivery was being sent to (or over) the boundary, each to a satisfied ‘oooooh’ from yours truly.
As a young player, I often struggled to hit the ball as far as the non-strikers end. As a result, my Dad’s dreams of me playing professionally were shattered, much like the shattering bowling attacks are getting on an almost daily basis. It’s also given me a real appreciation of how hard it is to build these monumental innings.
That said, has Gayle’s innings added weight to the growing argument in cricket; that batting is just too darn easy? Modern, heavier bats and the advent of Twenty20 cricket has enabled batsmen to hit higher, longer and stronger than ever before, all whilst giving them the skills to innovate and manipulate the ball into gaps that were unbreachable before.
It was only a few months ago that Rohit Sharma hit 264 runs in a single ODI innings against Sri Lanka. 264. That’s almost always more than England manage as an entire team. Teams are regularly taking 20+ runs off an over, and scoring at over 16 runs an over in the closing stages of innings. As a result, I don’t see Gayle’s innings as THAT special, more a continuation in the trend that batsmen are dominating the game. I also think that these achievements will become more and more commonplace. That would be entertaining, but will it dilute their significance? And will it also see a generation of young kids saying: ‘Dad, forget this bowling lark, it looks like a load of rubbish’?
How long is it until ODI openers are expected to score double hundreds to help their team build a big score? How long is it until team scores of 500 are achieved regularly? And how long will it be until we see a triple century in a 50 over innings? The way things are going, I don’t feel it will be that much longer.
As my own pathetic contribution to the game of cricket shows, I am not in a position to diminish Gayle’s exploits this morning. But I do think that these stunning feats are on the verge of becoming mundane.
As a long-suffering England supporter, I’ll often applaud pretty much every run that comes, from any batsman. Some people make batting look incredibly easy. Unfortunately, the ones I like (and myself) often make it seem more difficult than…well…getting Chris Gayle out.
But at what point will the stunning become the simple? Is it time something was done, before bowling becomes almost an irrelevance? I take my hat off to Mr Gayle, but before bowlers go on strike, maybe we should change things a bit. Tennis racquets instead of bats, anyone?
