-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Hypothetical question?
- Thread starter Rush
- Start date
Teja.
Global Moderator
Isn't as simple as that, need more info. I'll probably take the aggressive bloke at 1-3 and the defensive bloke at 3-10 in an ideal hypothetical where the context of their run-scoring is exactly the same. However that ignores the fact that ultra-aggressive test batsman have some situational shortcomings on a general level.
Fair enough, the Sehwag kinda guy is weaker against lateral movement but the other is weaker against spin. They both play for the Windies.
weeman27bob
International Regular
For the sake of the West Indies team at the moment, it would seem sensible to pick the player who scores slightly more runs.
However, you could perhaps argue that scoring at a strike rate of 85, which is stupidly high, may potentially draw some more spectators back to their grounds.
However, you could perhaps argue that scoring at a strike rate of 85, which is stupidly high, may potentially draw some more spectators back to their grounds.
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Surely the other way round? The defensive one to make his runs for as long as possible against the new ball etc and see off the early conditions if you've been put in to bat on the first day of a Test etc. Then allow the aggressive stroke players come in and bash it about for the rest of the day. Plus the defensive bloke runs the risk of being left stranded on 30* if he's batting lower down, the stroke player is more likely to add more runs with the tail.
Outswinger@Pace
International 12th Man
Step 1: Go to your control panel. Click on the User CP button on the top tab.
Step 2: In your control panel, there should be a tab on the left-hand side with the Edit Options button. Click on it.
Step 3: You'd find your thread subscription details there (Messaging and Notification). Choose the no e-mail notification option.
Last edited:
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Great question.
The player with the 85 strike rate is an amazingly dangerous customer, in that he can take a game away from you very quickly.
But don't underestimate the morale-sapping effect on the fielding team of the player with the 40 strike rate. Because he bats for bloody ages - on average he will keep the bowlers out for 150 balls in each innings. That's an awful lot of batting. It will wear down and demoralise the bowlers - and in the process (1) he will score a hell of a lot of runs for his team; (2) he will wear down the bowlers for his batting colleagues; and (3) he will keep his team's innings steady.
The truth, of course, is that ideally you'd have both, and you would want a balance of these sorts of players in an ideal team. But assuming the rest of your team is pretty much average, then I'd say that the player who averages 60 will be a greater asset, because his team-mates can bat around him.
The player with the 85 strike rate is an amazingly dangerous customer, in that he can take a game away from you very quickly.
But don't underestimate the morale-sapping effect on the fielding team of the player with the 40 strike rate. Because he bats for bloody ages - on average he will keep the bowlers out for 150 balls in each innings. That's an awful lot of batting. It will wear down and demoralise the bowlers - and in the process (1) he will score a hell of a lot of runs for his team; (2) he will wear down the bowlers for his batting colleagues; and (3) he will keep his team's innings steady.
The truth, of course, is that ideally you'd have both, and you would want a balance of these sorts of players in an ideal team. But assuming the rest of your team is pretty much average, then I'd say that the player who averages 60 will be a greater asset, because his team-mates can bat around him.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
I'd take the bloke who averages 55 with the 85 SR any old day.
Chap like that could turn around games and take them away from the oppo so quickly. It's why Gilchrist at #7 was so amazing. For a long time he must've been pretty close to those kind of numbers. Must've be so galling for a team to have 5 crims back in the hutch and then see him walking out...
Chap like that could turn around games and take them away from the oppo so quickly. It's why Gilchrist at #7 was so amazing. For a long time he must've been pretty close to those kind of numbers. Must've be so galling for a team to have 5 crims back in the hutch and then see him walking out...
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Upto Ashes 2005 I believe he was averaging 55+ in more than 60 Tests. Stunning record, I think better than what Punter had at that stage. Shame his decline was rather steep from there on.
Thanks I tried that, but still am getting e-mails
Maybe I have to wait till tomorrow or something
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
In low-scoring games, you've got to take the guy averaging 60. Look at what Dravid's doing right now. Grinding them out, holding things together. It doesn't matter how long he takes to score his runs (unless he's stranded not out), it just matters that he's going to score 5 runs more than his hypothetical opposite number.
Now the Gilchrist-type is more of a luxury player. Coming in behind an ATG top 6 is one thing, being your team's lynchpin is another. So, for a team like Australia in the Noughties, Gilchrist was ideal; but for a team like Zimbabwe, Andy Flower was ideal.
Now the Gilchrist-type is more of a luxury player. Coming in behind an ATG top 6 is one thing, being your team's lynchpin is another. So, for a team like Australia in the Noughties, Gilchrist was ideal; but for a team like Zimbabwe, Andy Flower was ideal.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
No doubt both players would be massively useful to any test side.
I don't think it's fair to call Gilchrist a luxury player tho; quite a few of his tons for Oz were balls to the wall efforts. His first test 100 was scored after coming in at 126/5 chasing 369 to win against a very decent Pakistan attack. The great man scored 149* to take yer crims home, but he did it with an SR of a tick over 91.
More than one way to skin a cat, as they say.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Has there ever been a single Test side that wouldn't take both in a heartbeat?