• 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.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
kiwiviktor81 said:
Because it's too broad and crude a measurement. Why should I increase the SR of Bevan just because some, not all, teams have adopted a different batting strategy 15 years after Bevan played?

You can't use Era SR because a higher SR is not uniform. Take out certain players like AB, Maxwell, Anderson, Ronchi, Miller, Faulkner et al. and the Era SR for the other batsmen goes way down. The better teams like Aussie, NZ, SA bat at a higher strike rate because they're better teams with hitters from 5-8, not because of the era they are batting in.

Kane Williamson has about the same average as Viv Richards but at a lower SR, even though they both bat No. 3. So how can I make a blanket assumption about strike rates?

The fact is that the higher Era SR is a consequence of higher aggression from quality batsmen in the later overs, not because of bigger bats or fielding restrictions or any of these reasons that seem to be offered by people who don't fully grasp the strategic element of cricket batsmanship. Bevan might have been more aggressive if he batted 6 now, but I'd say that he probably wouldn't even make the team on account of not being able to score quickly enough, which is just as important as not getting out in ODIs.
Click to expand...
Well put in bold. Concise and articulate. But its taken 40 years for some leading coaches to appreciate this bar instructing one player to have a waft as it were, so it will take a bit longer for some fans. The former player commentators do not help things by solely focusing on the bats (and fielding restrictions a little less) as to the reason why they didn't score faster in earlier eras. They give a little credit to reverse hits, switch hits and scoop shots.

Also, players could have asked for bigger bats from manufacturers in earlier eras. They didn't. They preferred lighter bats that could moved with greater agility. So again, even the bigger bats is part of a new batting philosophy.
 
Last edited:
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
kiwiviktor81 said:
Because it's too broad and crude a measurement. Why should I increase the SR of Bevan just because some, not all, teams have adopted a different batting strategy 15 years after Bevan played?
Click to expand...
This is an ATG discussion thread for starters. Increasing Bevan's strike rate to suit a sim's whims isn't really the intention of this thread. This thread is about appreciating past greats skills, and in my mind a part of that is being able to look beyond stats as the only means of assessing a player.

kiwiviktor81 said:
The fact is that the higher Era SR is a consequence of higher aggression from quality batsmen in the later overs, not because of bigger bats or fielding restrictions or any of these reasons that seem to be offered by people who don't fully grasp the strategic element of cricket batsmanship
Click to expand...
FFS. And lol.
 
kiwiviktor81

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
Red Hill said:
This is an ATG discussion thread for starters. Increasing Bevan's strike rate to suit a sim's whims isn't really the intention of this thread. This thread is about appreciating past greats skills, and in my mind a part of that is being able to look beyond stats as the only means of assessing a player.
Click to expand...
To be fair, we are looking beyond stats, well beyond it. We're delving into the changing attitudes to lower order batting in general over the decades and I personally am enjoying the discussion a lot.

Sometimes stats are very useful, sometimes they are misleading, sometimes they are irrelevant. Doesn't mean we should ignore them all entirely because "Hurr, durr, spredsheetz."

Something I would be interested to see is whether the SR of top order players has increased as much as the SR of lower order players over the last 20 years. My hunch is that the SRs of the lower order players have increased much more, and for the better teams even more so.
 
kiwiviktor81

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
CaptainGrumpy said:
Also, players could have asked for bigger bats from manufacturers in earlier eras. They didn't. They preferred lighter bats that could moved with greater agility. So again, even the bigger bats is part of a new batting philosophy.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. I expect that there is an obvious incentive for hitters to take the biggest possible bat that might not apply to more classical batsmen. I doubt that choosing the heaviest bat is a consideration for Latham, Williamson or Taylor though.
 
AndyZaltzHair

AndyZaltzHair

Hall of Fame Member
kiwiviktor81 said:
The fact is that the higher Era SR is a consequence of higher aggression from quality batsmen in the later overs, not because of bigger bats or fielding restrictions or any of these reasons that seem to be offered by people who don't fully grasp the strategic element of cricket batsmanship. Bevan might have been more aggressive if he batted 6 now, but I'd say that he probably wouldn't even make the team on account of not being able to score quickly enough, which is just as important as not getting out in ODIs.
Click to expand...
The overall run scoring is now lower after the new rule on fielding restrictions than the previous one. The sample size is small but still.
 
kiwiviktor81

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
AndyZaltzHair said:
The overall run scoring is now lower after the new rule on fielding restrictions than the previous one. The sample size is small but still.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't read much into that. It's easily possible that the run rate went down because the new rules required an element of caution in adjusting to them, and it will go back up again as this adaptation continues.
 
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
AndyZaltzHair said:
No I am talking about the period when around 350ish was becoming the norm and after somewhere around July when the new rules were imposed
Click to expand...
Other than what Kiwivik said, the England Australia series has seen the team batting first top 300 in all three matches so far. This is still much higher than the scores of 1980.
 
Last edited:
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
kiwiviktor81 said:
I appreciate the offer, I just don't think they're useful, sorry. I'd rather use the simulator AI to let the old players adjust their batting strategy on the fly depending on who is batting after them and who is bowling to them.

What I would love, on the other hand, would be a table that showed average number of runs scored for each over 1-50 over the past, say, ten years, and the average number of wickets that fell in every over 1-50. This would allow me to fix the missing link in the simulator, which is an accurate estimate of the effects of higher or lower aggression, in particular its effects on run scoring or losing one's wicket.
Click to expand...
The problem is your simulator is bollocks and is outputting garbage.
 
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
Lillian Thomson said:
I would place that in the "evidence of your own eyes" category as long as the posts aren't entered into a spreadsheet for analysis.
Click to expand...
But they would more likely be entered into a spread sheet, or more likely a "word table" for analysis. Its what he actually wrote. Just like the runs that were actually scored.
 
Last edited:
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
1. Barry Richards
2. Len Hutton
3. Don Bradman
4. Graeme Pollock
5. Viv Richards
6. Gary Sobers
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Wasim Akram
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Shane Warne
11. Curtly Ambrose
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top