Usefulness of a batsman

[Stoggler]

Hi

New here - been enjoying reading posts but thought it was time I'd finally jump in and join with the discussions.

Anyway, something that I've been wondering about is about batsmen and how they score and their resultant usefulness to a team - I'm talking in terms of consistency of scoring.

Perhaps if I give you a hypothical example, might explain better:

Batsman 1, has a batting average of 50.00
Batsman 2, has a batting average of 50.00

Batsman 1 scores consistently in in the 50s and 60s
Batsman 2 scores the odd century or even a double century, but also gets out cheaply often.

Batsman 1 scores in 10 innings - 49, 51, 47, 43, 56, 50, 46, 52, 49, 57
Batsman 2 scores in 10 innings - 3, 127, 13, 18, 8, 216, 13, 0, 9, 106

So both batsman have the same aggregate number of runs (500) with the same average, but they differ in consistency.

The question is, who would you value more in your team - batsman 1 with his almost certain half-century of runs, or batsman 2 who could get a really big score, or more likely get out cheaply?

(assume this is for tests, first class cricket)

[Spark]

Definitely always batsman one.

In fact your suggestion is absolutely begging to put names to it, so I'll do it - Simon Katich is the perfect example of batsman one, Marcus North the perfect example of batsman two. One will almost always get 50 (and then get out soon after), the other will score 4 single-digit scores then hit 100*.

But you would always pick batsman one i.e. Katich as dependability is a key factor in your side. Whilst he may not make a personal mountain of runs, the fact that he always occupies one end for a considerable period of time significantly reduces the pressure on the other batsmen (placing it on the bowlers' instead) and allows them to play more freely and naturally - all positives from your team.

Whilst with the other guy i.e. North, yeah, he may occasionally - perhaps even fairly often on a statistical basis - make a superb hundred (except he'll usually do it when it's least required, although I hesitate to say this as there is no such thing as an easy Test match run and I talk about test level here) but the other time he'll struggle to make double digits. Places pressure on the other batsmen, gives bowlers unnecessary momentum and makes your batting order more brittle - give it a hit and it's prone to shatter into pieces.

[vcs]

Haha, thought of those exact same examples (Katich and North) on reading the post.

Would definitely pick Batsman 1 for opening the batting, though it becomes very blurred when you consider that Sehwag can only be put into category 2. If it's a middle-order batsman, it might be a Sachin vs. Lara (tossup) or a Clarke vs. North (easily Clarke). So... I guess you can't decide which one you'd rather have just by looking at a string of scores.

[NUFAN]

Yeah Spark has summed it up very well.

One thing that I'll add though is that for a struggling side like Bangladesh it might actually be more benefitial results-wise if say Tamim Iqbal produced batsman 2 type scores.

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, weaker sides would most benefit from a combination of around 5 type 1 batsmen and 1 type 2 batsman. That would keep them consistent and also win them a few matches here and there when the type 2 batsman pulls a big one off.

[Somerset]

Batsman 2 for me sums up Mathew Sinclair's test career, and funnily enough hes never been able to cement himself in the national side despite three scores of 150+ in his first few years of test match cricket, because he simply wasn't consistent enough in the remainder of his innings. I too agree with Spark's comments - I'd also imagine that batsman 1, after getting so many good starts would eventually kick on and overcome his tendency to give his innings away after consistently making a certain score (although that might be pushing the boundaries of the example).

Welcome to the forum Stoggler, by the way.

[Spark]

Not entirely sure I agree with the assertion that weaker teams need type 2 as much as type 1. The problem with weaker teams is not a lack of type 2, it's that they don't have any type 1 at all. None of them have batsmen who will consistently hold down an end, hence why they collapse so easily. I understand the point that having you batsmen who will occasionally hit a brilliant hundred can give you a shot at winning but one hundred and lots of low scores gets you 250-300 on the best of days which isn't exactly test match winning material.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by Spark

Not entirely sure I agree with the assertion that weaker teams need type 2 as much as type 1. The problem with weaker teams is not a lack of type 2, it's that they don't have any type 1 at all. None of them have batsmen who will consistently hold down an end, hence why they collapse so easily. I understand the point that having you batsmen who will occasionally hit a brilliant hundred can give you a shot at winning but one hundred and lots of low scores gets you 250-300 on the best of days which isn't exactly test match winning material.

Weaker teams don't need on the whole player 2 over player 1, but for an individual in a team who is losing always, player 2 might help win a match for them when he scores that 216, while 50 each innings is just going to be frustrating and not change the match so much.


Also I just noticed player 2's combined runs is over 500

[Spark]

I suppose so. I guess it does depend on the quality of your team. And plus it's actually quite rare that you get players who hit a hundred or nothing and average 50 as such players generally get worked out quite fast.

[Kweek]

Defintely batsman no1. nearly a no-brainer.

best instance I can give you is my own cricket team, we need 1 person to score around 50, for some reason that gives a psychlogical edge to a lot of teams, to have someone you can build on and someone that gives you time to get your eye in.

I guess the rate at which both batsman score is quite important as well.

[Stoggler]

Originally Posted by Spark

And plus it's actually quite rare that you get players who hit a hundred or nothing and average 50 as such players generally get worked out quite fast.

That's a good point that I hadn't considered. And very unlikely that anyone who can get the odd century is going to get out cheaply much of the rest of the time, at least in the style of my example. But then I did say it was hypothical!

What got me thinking about this in the first place was Matt Prior for England. I'd noticed recently that he's quite a consistent scorer of 60s and even 70s, but rarely gets higher than that (only his third century in the last test after getting to 50 16 times before that) - with him scoring rather consistent knocks of 60 in a partnership with say Collingwood, he could be very useful for England in the future.

[G.I.Joe]

Battingwise - Afridi or Haddin?

[Himannv]

Originally Posted by Spark

<snip> one hundred and lots of low scores gets you 250-300 on the best of days which isn't exactly test match winning material.

As opposed to one 50 and lots of low scores which gets you to 150-200 on the best of days.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

Battingwise - Afridi or Haddin?

Well, Haddin obviously as he's shown some kind of test match temperament of some description in the recent past. However neither are brilliant at keeping their heads when necessary.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by Stoggler

That's a good point that I hadn't considered. And very unlikely that anyone who can get the odd century is going to get out cheaply much of the rest of the time, at least in the style of my example. But then I did say it was hypothical!

Not as unlikely as you might think, it's more the averaging 50 thing I doubt.