Match-Ups Made in Heaven

[kyear2]

Honestly, devaluing a player because of their strike rate is ridiculous. Sure, in the case of Trumper and Macartney, their wonderfully quick strike rates make them near-superhuman in comparison to their peers, but that's going in the opposite direction. Back in those days, the bats were toothpicks and the boundaries were longer, plus batsmen actually had to worry about personal safety unlike the walking suits of armour of today. I usually add 10-15 runs per 100 balls to their strike rates when I imagine how they'd fare today.

It may be rediculous to you, but not to me. If strike rate wasn't important then Barrington and Chanderpaul would be rated ahead of Viv Richards. If most players wanted they could stone wall all day and accumulate runs. I rate aggresive players higher than slower ones. Chanderpaul for instance is one of the most selfish players I have ever witnessed, a player who places average before team.

Btw. Didn't you say that Hammonds stature dropped in your eyes because of his? personal life

 

[Cricketismylife]

It may be rediculous to you, but not to me. If strike rate wasn't important then Barrington and Chanderpaul would be rated ahead of Viv Richards. If most players wanted they could stone wall all day and accumulate runs. I rate aggresive players higher than slower ones. Chanderpaul for instance is one of the most selfish players I have ever witnessed, a player who places average before team.

Btw. Didn't you say that Hammonds stature dropped in your eyes because of his? personal life

If you consider strike rate an important statistic in test matches then that would make Sehwag comfortably above everyone in the last 20 years. Averages more than 50, which is in the same ballpark as other greats, while his strike rate of over 80 is far higher than any of the other 50 averaging batsmen.

I don't agree with strike rate being important in tests...the faster scoring batsman will be at an advantage in certain situations, while the slower batsman will be in other situations. Faster batsman tend to be rated higher because people enjoy watching them more and they are more memorable. They again confuse performances and rating of a player with watchability which is why this happens so often.

 

[Valer]

If you consider strike rate an important statistic in test matches then that would make Sehwag comfortably above everyone in the last 20 years. Averages more than 50, which is in the same ballpark as other greats, while his strike rate of over 80 is far higher than any of the other 50 averaging batsmen.

They problem is that he doesn't score enough on hard pitch hence his % of runs scored in the match is lower than it should be for his average. SR is favorable in all cases that your team is above average -- that is you want to push for the win over the draw.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Honestly, devaluing a player because of their strike rate is ridiculous. Sure, in the case of Trumper and Macartney, their wonderfully quick strike rates make them near-superhuman in comparison to their peers, but that's going in the opposite direction. Back in those days, the bats were toothpicks and the boundaries were longer, plus batsmen actually had to worry about personal safety unlike the walking suits of armour of today. I usually add 10-15 runs per 100 balls to their strike rates when I imagine how they'd fare today.

But then if they played today, what with available technology, techniques being dissected, definitely higher fielding standards, etc, I reckon you'd have to subtract those 15-20 runs all over again

Personally, I believe skill levels stay somewhat constant over eras, but there is a definite evolution in physical prowess, especially in elite sport. In cricket, that chiefly applies to the bowling and fielding aspects. And before someone brings up bowlers breaking down more than ever before, they weren't until just about 10 years ago. T

 

[Jager]

If you consider strike rate an important statistic in test matches then that would make Sehwag comfortably above everyone in the last 20 years. Averages more than 50, which is in the same ballpark as other greats, while his strike rate of over 80 is far higher than any of the other 50 averaging batsmen.

I don't agree with strike rate being important in tests...the faster scoring batsman will be at an advantage in certain situations, while the slower batsman will be in other situations. Faster batsman tend to be rated higher because people enjoy watching them more and they are more memorable. They again confuse performances and rating of a player with watchability which is why this happens so often.

Great quote. As for my dislike Hammond because of the fact he was evidently a ****, I simply meant that I like him less overall, not as a player. I rate him slightly less because of his struggles against pace, though.

 

[silentstriker]

If you consider strike rate an important statistic in test matches then that would make Sehwag comfortably above everyone in the last 20 years. Averages more than 50, which is in the same ballpark as other greats, while his strike rate of over 80 is far higher than any of the other 50 averaging batsmen.

I don't agree with strike rate being important in tests...the faster scoring batsman will be at an advantage in certain situations, while the slower batsman will be in other situations. Faster batsman tend to be rated higher because people enjoy watching them more and they are more memorable. They again confuse performances and rating of a player with watchability which is why this happens so often.

No, not really - but it's a factor. You only have to watch the effect Sehwag has on the other team when he's on song to know that it's massively relevant. Sehwag is not the best batsmen of all time because he doesn't do that in enough variety of pitches and conditions.

 

[watson]

That's right silentstriker. The positive psycholgical impact that an attacking batsmen has on his team mates in the dressing room shouldn't be underestimated. One could argue that Botham's blistering 149 at Headingly in 1981 had a direct impact on Bob Willis being able to take 7-43 in Australia's second innings. Nothing would be more inspirational to a team than watching one of their own belt Dennis Lillee out of the attack.

The other important thing about fast SRs is that they have a great impact on the 'momentum' of a match. Teams often think in terms of 'winning sessions'. So for example, if Australia is sitting precariously at 5 for 150 at tea with the England bowlers on top, but then Gilchrist comes in to blast a century in the final 30 overs of the day so that the score is 5 for 300 at stumps then Australia will be seen to have 'won the session' and also have 'won the day'. Hence they can look to attack from the first ball of the next day onwards. In the the space of the two hours the 'momemtum' of the match has shifted back to Australia.

Or to put it another way - attacking batsmen who score quickly take the game away from the opposing team so rapidly that they become the opposing captain's nightmare. I don't think that Chappell or Lloyd ever lost sleep over a Geoff Boycott innings.

 

[watson]

Incidently, Gilchrist V Larwood would be great match-up

 

[silentstriker]

Ian Chappell humiliates Geoffrey Boycott - YouTube

 

[weldone]

If most players wanted they could stone wall all day and accumulate runs.

Yeah, very easy - like eating a black-forest cake

 

[smash84]