Batting SR in test cricket

[ohnoitsyou]

Also I will add that the importance of strike rate correlates directly to the flatness of the pitch. In previous eras where minefields were much more common strike rate was almost a non issue. Scoring 4 runs in the first hour of a test in nz in the 80s (ala many of wright s innings) set your team a platform wheras now days that would be a droppable offence.

 

[Muloghonto]

Coming to hurricanes defence, while batsmen with high strike rates often have the same averageas those with lower ones, they also tend to get out without getting starts more often than more accumulative players.

Which is why you want only a few sehwags and warners in your side

applicable only to openers.
A hard-fought 20 off of 80 balls is useful only for an opener, since he is seeing off the new ball and the best fast bowlers of the opposition, leaving a ball that is less shiny, bouncy, moves less (for the fast men) for the rest of the team.

Otherwise, a 20 off of 80 balls for any other position ( middle order) is squandering a chance/killing momentum. Those guys, IMO are better off either scoring a 50+ or getting out cheaply while eating few deliveries. Bowlers feed off of creating pressure, getting a wicket in between hammerings is regaining confidence, while getting a wicket after choking the bejeezus out of a batsman is like the peak of confidence for a bowler.

 

[Muloghonto]

Also I will add that the importance of strike rate correlates directly to the flatness of the pitch. In previous eras where minefields were much more common strike rate was almost a non issue. Scoring 4 runs in the first hour of a test in nz in the 80s (ala many of wright s innings) set your team a platform wheras now days that would be a droppable offence.

Err no. Its not like Sehwag failed every single time on seaming/bouncy wickets or scored at a slow rate on them. Same goes for Gillchrist & Warner. Strike rate is about ability, how quickly you can get your eye in and confidence. Strike rate matters less for openers but when you are talking about an insane gap like Sehwag/Warner with the rest of the field, its more than justifiable to include them on every pitch (over similar average openers) because the one time they do come off, its almost a sure-win on those pitches where every other batsman is struggling to survive.

 

[Hurricane]

You shouldn't conflate having a high SR with inconsistency though. I'm only taking about comparisons where the SR's are different but the amount of runs are similar. Obviously if a player has a SR of 100 and has an average of 35 because of it, it's probably not going to be an ideal situation. But if they can have a high SR and score a lot of runs doing it, to me that's pretty invaluable. If you look at someone like viv's batting graph his consistency and run distribution across his career is actually pretty good, and similar to any other great batsman HowSTAT! Player Batting Graph. I didn't realize just how high his SR was as well, so I can definitely see why he was rated so favourably a bit more now.

This is illogical. Assuming the averages are the same, a higher strike rate is always more desirable than lower strike rate. Even in a crisis situation, I'd take the guy who'd blow apart the bowling opposition and shift the pressure on to them than the guy who plays into their hands by being a solid no-scoring guy. There are insane benifits in a cricket match to be able to hit a bowler off his normal line or length.

The only positive thing about mr slowpoke over mr hurricane strike rate is mr slowpoke may be able to save a few more matches. But the objective in cricket fundamentally is to win, not to go into a match trying to save it and for that reason, the guy who scores his runs faster gives your team a better chance of winning, since he lets your team put up runs and have longer to get the opposition out.

yep that is tough to argue with a SR of 80 and average of 50 is better than an average of 50 and SR of 50. But generally the faster you try to bat the more risk you introduce into your game and you are more likely to get out. So in GENERAL the higher your SR is the more unreliable you will be as a batsman even though there are exceptions to the rule.

To prove my point - I looked at the batsman on that link I provided. The guys who had a SR of 60 or over had a combined average of 40.18 and the combined average of the batsman who had a SR in the 50s was 43.55 The weakness in this analysis is that I have a runs qualification of 2000 runs. If I had a lower runs qualification then the difference in averages would be even more stark.

So my first point is that in general a team with batsman with SRs of 50 will be more consistent.

My second point is having watched Viv there were plenty of times where he got 30 and out - and you just knew if he could have been more circumspect in that inning he could have tonned up - sometimes he was too dialled up and completely full of disdain to the bowling. He personally could have averaged more if he had've been able to pick and choose his moments a bit better. This a controversial point so I will qualify it with an IMHO.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Err no. Its not like Sehwag failed every single time on seaming/bouncy wickets or scored at a slow rate on them. Same goes for Gillchrist & Warner. Strike rate is about ability, how quickly you can get your eye in and confidence. Strike rate matters less for openers but when you are talking about an insane gap like Sehwag/Warner with the rest of the field, its more than justifiable to include them on every pitch (over similar average openers) because the one time they do come off, its almost a sure-win on those pitches where every other batsman is struggling to survive.

Did i ever mention not including aggressive players, as always the best team should be selected.

Also those batsmen, Warner in particular need to take risks to get their eye in. If the games unlikely to last into the fifth or even fourth day then strike rate is irrelevant.

 

[Muloghonto]

yep that is tough to argue with a SR of 80 and average of 50 is better than an average of 50 and SR of 50. But generally the faster you try to bat the more risk you introduce into your game and you are more likely to get out. So in GENERAL the higher your SR is the more unreliable you will be as a batsman even though there are exceptions to the rule.

To prove my point - I looked at the batsman on that link I provided. The guys who had a SR of 60 or over had a combined average of 40.18 and the combined average of the batsman who had a SR in the 50s was 43.55 The weakness in this analysis is that I have a runs qualification of 2000 runs. If I had a lower runs qualification then the difference in averages would be even more stark.

So my first point is that in general a team with batsman with SRs of 50 will be more consistent.

My second point is having watched Viv there were plenty of times where he got 30 and out - and you just knew if he could have been more circumspect in that inning he could have tonned up - sometimes he was too dialled up and completely full of disdain to the bowling. He personally could have averaged more if he had've been able to pick and choose his moments a bit better. This a controversial point so I will qualify it with an IMHO.

You cannot take Viv's nonchalance as the template of high strike rate batsmen, getting to 30-40 and then out. Look at Sehwag. He either fails to cross 20 or scores 80+ practically everytime he's made 20+
Viv played his entire time with an ATG bowling attack. An attack that backed itself to dismiss the opposition cheaper than what they'd scored 9 times out of 10 and delivered.
Plus he batted behind the most successful opening partnership of his era. This does introduce some inherent nonchalance to his game that has little or nothing to do with his strike rate ability.

If you'd lowered the qualifications below 2000 runs, then the gap between the averages of slowpokes and hurricane scorers would actually decrease. That is because, most lower order batsmen(bowlers) have high strike rates, owing to the fact that they often get 10 off of 15 balls and then out more often than 20 off of 50 balls.

On a general spectrum, it is a no-brainer that the slower strike rate correlates with higher average for the whole field: the average batsman would be insane to try and bash balls he should be blocking simply trying to keep up with the likes of Sehwag or Warner. And when they do try, it leads to their demise because its not their natural game. But the high strike + high average guys, as rare as they are, are worth their weight in gold and for some, like Sehwag or Warner, are worth more than a batsman with slightly better averages when paired with a 'damage control slow poke' partner.

 

[Riggins]

It is negative when you are in a scenario of playing out the last 25 overs with 2 wickets left in hand. In such a scenario, I'd rather have Dravid than Sehwag. Because, Dravid leaves a lot more balls and presents defensive strokes far more often. (thus reducing his chances of getting out and scoring- but in this scenario we are not concerned about scoring, we are concerned about saving the match).

a batsman who is a faster scorer, is presenting greater chances of getting out, since attacking strokeplay is inherently more dangerous than defensive stroke play (assuming you are equally adept at both, ofcourse. A guy like Gillchrist is better off trying to attack than defend because his defensive technique was much poorer than his attacking technique, while a guy like Sidhu is much better off defending than attacking because of the opposite).

No you'd rather have Dravid than Sehwag because he's a significantly better player.

 

[Muloghonto]

Did i ever mention not including aggressive players, as always the best team should be selected.

Also those batsmen, Warner in particular need to take risks to get their eye in. If the games unlikely to last into the fifth or even fourth day then strike rate is irrelevant.

It is relevant, even if a game isn't supposed to go to the 4th/5th day. Because a game that should end by 4th day morning often gets to a draw due to weather. Or, when the unforeseen happens and someone in your bowling lineup is injured, it gives more time to spread out the workload and still get the wickets needed.

 

[Muloghonto]

No you'd rather have Dravid than Sehwag because he's a significantly better player.

err no.
A middle order bat who's managed to average 50 as an opener while scoring at 80+ strike rate is not significantly worse than Dravid. Sehwag's overseas stats look worse than they are due to his horrid tour of England-Australia in 2011/12 season. But till then, except for failing in South Africa one series and scoring paltry runs on doctored pitches in New Zealand where every innings ended with 120-220 scores for both sides, his overseas record is actually quite decent for an opener. And he murders absolutely anyone on turners or flat pitches, orders of magnitude better than any other batsman- Viv included. Cricket is not played on bouncing/seaming pace paradises all the time, neither should they be. And he isnt completely useless in his weak suite ( seaming/bouncy wickets) as he's got hurricane centuries on those type of tracks too.

I'd happily take Sehwag as an opener for my alltime XI, so long as he is paired with a solid/steady opener like Gavaskar or Boycott.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

It is relevant, even if a game isn't supposed to go to the 4th/5th day. Because a game that should end by 4th day morning often gets to a draw due to weather. Or, when the unforeseen happens and someone in your bowling lineup is injured, it gives more time to spread out the workload and still get the wickets needed.

So when 5 sessions of cricket get rained off, another hour or two will create a result? Don't really see the logic there.

 

[Muloghonto]

So when 5 sessions of cricket get rained off, another hour or two will create a result? Don't really see the logic there.

on a bowler-paradise pitch, where either side would/should struggle to score 250, with several sessions rained off, those extra hour or two remaining ( due to hurricane speed batting) will be decisive between forcing a result or ending in a draw.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I'd happily take Sehwag as an opener for my alltime XI, so long as he is paired with a solid/steady opener like Gavaskar or Boycott.

Wouldn't you rather take two batsmen such as Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe or Richards who were both capable of upping the tempo and playing there shots, but who normally didn't because playing removing risks from there game was to the benefit of the team.

 

[Muloghonto]

Wouldn't you rather take two batsmen such as Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe or Richards who were both capable of upping the tempo and playing there shots, but who normally didn't because playing removing risks from there game was to the benefit of the team.

i wouldn't take hobbs/hutton/sutcliffe in my 2nd XI. hobbs and sutcliffe were used to opening against military medium an sometimes, spinners. the few real pacers they faced, didn't head-hunt them. I'd seriously worry for their life if they were to take the field against any genuine fast-men from the 70s-90s era, given that those guys were specialist head-hunters. hutton faced serious pace but not headhunting.

richards, yes' i'd rather have him than sehwag but sehwag gets the opener's slot and richards is not an opener. and nobody except gillchrist- not even richards was capable of absolutely smashing the bowlers as much as sehwag. that sehwag did it first up, makes it even more mindboggling imo.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

on a bowler-paradise pitch, where either side would/should struggle to score 250, with several sessions rained off, those extra hour or two remaining ( due to hurricane speed batting) will be decisive between forcing a result or ending in a draw.

Thats assuming the aggressive batsmen makes a big score, rather than the 0-50 that one would expect to see the majority of the time. On a real minefield, its not just turn or seam that causes the problems, its the inconsistent bounce, which makes stroke making near impossible and its not as if the Kallis and Boycotts didn't put away the half volleys when they came to them.

 

[OverratedSanity]

err no.
A middle order bat who's managed to average 50 as an opener while scoring at 80+ strike rate is not significantly worse than Dravid. Sehwag's overseas stats look worse than they are due to his horrid tour of England-Australia in 2011/12 season. But till then, except for failing in South Africa one series and scoring paltry runs on doctored pitches in New Zealand where every innings ended with 120-220 scores for both sides, his overseas record is actually quite decent for an opener. And he murders absolutely anyone on turners or flat pitches, orders of magnitude better than any other batsman- Viv included. Cricket is not played on bouncing/seaming pace paradises all the time, neither should they be. And he isnt completely useless in his weak suite ( seaming/bouncy wickets) as he's got hurricane centuries on those type of tracks too.

I'd happily take Sehwag as an opener for my alltime XI, so long as he is paired with a solid/steady opener like Gavaskar or Boycott.

Don't agree with some parts of that but love this post. People here are such sticks-in-the-mud... They already have a preconceived image in their mind as to what a great batsman should be and are unwilling to accept guys like Sehwag who bring something different to the table, play in an audacious manner and still manages to have an output comparable to the more conventional batsmen. Players like Sehwag , Pietersen, etc may not be as consistent as the generally accepted great batsmen but have qualities which many great batsmen can't hope to match. Somehow this is considered completely irrelevant because they either average a few points lower or get out in ways that look bad.

 

[Muloghonto]

Thats assuming the aggressive batsmen makes a big score, rather than the 0-50 that one would expect to see the majority of the time. On a real minefield, its not just turn or seam that causes the problems, its the inconsistent bounce, which makes stroke making near impossible and its not as if the Kallis and Boycotts didn't put away the half volleys when they came to them.

even on a weather affected match, a 50 off of 50 balls versus a 50 off of 150 balls translates to more than an hour earned for your bowlers to dismiss the opposition. its not impossible to play your shots on minefields, its just rare.

 

[Hurricane]

If you'd lowered the qualifications below 2000 runs, then the gap between the averages of slowpokes and hurricane scorers would actually decrease. That is because, most lower order batsmen(bowlers) have high strike rates, owing to the fact that they often get 10 off of 15 balls and then out more often than 20 off of 50 balls.

Those tail enders you are talking about will be grouped in with the high SR batsman and will drag the group average down - hence why I said the difference would be more stark.

I'd happily take Sehwag as an opener for my alltime XI, so long as he is paired with a solid/steady opener like Gavaskar or Boycott.

You are arguing against yourself here - if a high SR batsman is always better than you should want two of them opening rather than just one of them.

 

[Muloghonto]

Those tail enders you are talking about will be grouped in with the high SR batsman and will drag the group average down - hence why I said the difference would be more stark.

i disagree. majority of tailenders are low average, high strike rate guys but there are tailenders like Gillespie, McGrath, Walsh, Murali, who are low average and extremely low strike rate as well. IMO the gap would actually close because the tailenders who are low average/low strike rate are disproportionately slower than their low average/high strike rate counterparts ( even though the latter group is of majority).

You are arguing against yourself here - if a high SR batsman is always better than you should want two of them opening rather than just one of them.

No, i did say that the only position where a low strike rate may be excused is that of an opener, since taking the shine off the ball is scoring 'invisible runs' by making the job easier for your middle order. which is why i'd always pair a fast scoring opener with a steady one. i wouldn't want two steady ones if there is a candidate available that is exponentially faster for a little less runs on average.
but as far as the other 4-5 batsmen go, its the higher strike rate for the same average every single time.

 

[Hurricane]

disagree. majority of tailenders are low average, high strike rate guys but there are tailenders like Gillespie, McGrath, Walsh, Murali, who are low average and extremely low strike rate as well. IMO the gap would actually close because the tailenders who are low average/low strike rate are disproportionately slower than their low average/high strike rate counterparts ( even though the latter group is of majority).

Yeah I guess the only thing that will settle this will be if I cbf to do the actual calculation. But what you are saying tells me you misunderstand the calculation I did.

 

[Hurricane]

No, i did say that the only position where a low strike rate may be excused is that of an opener, since taking the shine off the ball is scoring 'invisible runs' by making the job easier for your middle order. which is why i'd always pair a fast scoring opener with a steady one. i wouldn't want two steady ones if there is a candidate available that is exponentially faster for a little less runs on average.
but as far as the other 4-5 batsmen go, its the higher strike rate for the same average every single time.

I am ok with this answer.