Usefulness of a batsman

[Spark]

I think the key thing is that it depends when the number 2 is making centuries. Using the Marcus North example, if he's coming in at 4/300 and then piling on the runs even more, I'd definitely take the number 1 batsman. But if he's coming in under the pump at 4/120 and reeling off a century, then it's a different story. The thing is though, it's centuries that win you games, not 50s. A 50 will help set up the win, but the century is what you need; I daresay that's what Australia's been lacking recently, with too many players making the start, but getting out between around 30-60, with no one really kicking on.

Welcome to the forum btw Stoggler

This is true ofc. I guessed my vision has been tainted by North. However what you point out is exactly why I wouldn't say Katich is our best batsman because he builds a platform but doesn't secure it. In fact in the vast majority of our collapses in recent times, Katich has got between 50-80, but his dismissal opens the heavens so to speak.

 

[four_or_six]

I think definitely a mixture, although more of the consistent type. Six batsmen who always score 50ish would be a bit annoying.

 

[Stoggler]

Welcome to the forum btw Stoggler

Thanks for the welcomes!

I guess in an ideal situation you'd want a mixture of these two types of batsmen, but probably not in the extreme example of North or my Batsman 2, and where they bat in the order is of importance too I'd have thought. A couple of openers getting in the 50s most of the time would be lovely, especially if you have a good number 3 or 4 to come in afterwards!

 

[Spark]

Thanks for the welcomes!

I guess in an ideal situation you'd want a mixture of these two types of batsmen, but probably not in the extreme example of North or my Batsman 2, and where they bat in the order is of importance too I'd have thought. A couple of openers getting in the 50s most of the time would be lovely, especially if you have a good number 3 or 4 to come in afterwards!

Well my logic is that the consistent 50 scorer is inherently the better player but just has a few concentration issues and they can always be fixed reasonably quickly. I feel that the boom/bust player is so because he has an issue with his technique that good bowling can easily exploit which is not a good prescription when under pressure.

With North - now you know what me and my fellow countrymen have spent much of our time moaning about for basically all of this year.

 

[Goughy]

We have had similar discussions before so I shall not go too deep but assuming that batsman 2 doesnt score his big scores in draws then he is the guy you want.

Batsman 1 is close to a waste of space. I can see the argument that it would be useful as an opener but apart from that it is pointless.

Big scores win games, big scores dictate the team position in a game, big scores give the team control of a game. 50s are pretty much supporting innings. Sure there have been many great 50s but as a simple rule, 100s are game defining and set the scenario. 50s are complementary.

Teams need to be looking at 400+ to win games. Not always of course but usually. It is tough to do that without someone getting a score.

Also the consistency thing is a white elephant. You bat as a unit, not as an individual. You need partnerships and big scores to do damage.

 

[tooextracool]

AWTA with Goughy on this one. Whilst those scores need to be looked at in context, in general 50s dont win games and in general anyone scoring 50 has pretty much failed himself and his team for not carrying on. Batsman number 1 is reminiscent of Bell and Fleming for most their careers and both are average players at this point in time even if they average in the 40s.

Assuming Batsman 2's centuries arent on pitches where his team has been racking up scores of 500+ (a la North), this choice is pretty much obvious for me.

 

[Uppercut]

I think the key thing is that it depends when the number 2 is making centuries. Using the Marcus North example, if he's coming in at 4/300 and then piling on the runs even more, I'd definitely take the number 1 batsman. But if he's coming in under the pump at 4/120 and reeling off a century, then it's a different story. The thing is though, it's centuries that win you games, not 50s. A 50 will help set up the win, but the century is what you need; I daresay that's what Australia's been lacking recently, with too many players making the start, but getting out between around 30-60, with no one really kicking on.

Welcome to the forum btw Stoggler

I think the complete opposite is true. Their problem is that in some sessions none of their batsmen score any runs. At all. A fifty from a number 5 or 6 halts a collapse and makes things that bit easier for the batsmen to follow, but when Australia collapse, they do it ****ing properly. How many more centuries did they hit than England in the Ashes?

I think Goughy and TEC have the right idea on this one, but in practice a player with the record of batsman 2 is almost always hitting most of his big scores when the going's easiest. If big knocks didn't happen more often when the going's easiest then they wouldn't be the easiest situations. If he's hitting double centuries when it matters then he's the guy you want, but 95% of players with a record like that just don't.

 

[Spark]

Precisely. Statistics and common sense dictates that the centuries will be scored when it's most likely i.e. when it's easiest to score runs.

Also agreed with the collapsing point. The one difference between a collapse, all out for 150-250, and a score of 350, 400, 500 can be a single 50 (which then sparks the rest of the middle order). We've seen it so often over the past three years.

 

[Goughy]

Precisely. Statistics and common sense dictates that the centuries will be scored when it's most likely i.e. when it's easiest to score runs.

You are creating a back story that didnt exist in the original question. It was purely a hypothetical and you are adding in your own meat to the sandwich.

If you want to use the real world, you can also take a guy like Cullinan. He has more scores of <10 that >50 but, despite playing in more draws and losses combined than wins, scored the vast majority of his 100s in games won and often in difficult circumstances.

 

[Debris]

Would prefer the former for opening role.

Would prefer the latter in the middle order.

This is what I was thinking. Number of balls faced also comes into it a bit for me, you want your openers to face a lot and lower order not that many for the same amount of runs. Sometimes 15 from 80 balls is just as useful as 50 of 30.

 

[honestbharani]

Precisely. Statistics and common sense dictates that the centuries will be scored when it's most likely i.e. when it's easiest to score runs.

Also agreed with the collapsing point. The one difference between a collapse, all out for 150-250, and a score of 350, 400, 500 can be a single 50 (which then sparks the rest of the middle order). We've seen it so often over the past three years.

Stats also indicates 50s are scored when conditions are good for batting, tbf..