Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 121
Like Tree39Likes

Thread: Batting SR in test cricket

  1. #16
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    I agree for the majority of situations, but as you yourself said, if a match needs to be saved and the runs don't matter then a high SR is a negative. As HoweZat said, in those situations success is measured merely by balls faced and time at the crease.
    Cricket does not allow substitutions, so the point of saving the match is an afterthought and something you gotto 'make do'. We play the sport to win. The guy who scores his runs faster gives his team a better chance of winning because he gives his bowlers more time to dismiss the opposition. Thats the guy who starts the game. If cricket allowed substitutions, i'd substitute the Warner/Gillchrist/Sehwag types with the Dravid/Kirstien/Kirmani types but I can't pick a team first that lowers chances of winning by increasing chances of saving a match.

    PS: I am the guy who believes in winning a series 3-1 instead of 2-0. The primary job of sports is to entertain. Winning is entertaining. A high risk-high reward strategy is the one i prefer, since I'd happily take the few extra wins at the cost of the few extra losses, instead of boring 'no risk wins' and draws.
    Last edited by Muloghonto; 03-03-2014 at 12:33 AM.

  2. #17
    International Vice-Captain Riggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Get ready for a broken ****ing arm.
    Posts
    4,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    I agree for the majority of situations, but as you yourself said, if a match needs to be saved and the runs don't matter then a high SR is a negative. As HoweZat said, in those situations success is measured merely by balls faced and time at the crease.
    How is a high SR a negative?
    The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.

  3. #18
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Riggins View Post
    How is a high SR a negative?
    Guess the assumption is that a batsman with a low SR will face more balls.

    In the end, batting for a draw in a lot of situations (often an innings behind) scoring is still important, if only for the psyche of the bowlers but also getting yourself back in front on the scoreboard.

  4. #19
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Riggins View Post
    How is a high SR a negative?
    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).


  5. #20
    International Debutant ohnoitsyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hamilton, city of well....
    Posts
    2,230
    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

  6. #21
    International Debutant ohnoitsyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hamilton, city of well....
    Posts
    2,230
    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.

  7. #22
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by ohnoitsyou View Post
    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.

  8. #23
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by ohnoitsyou View Post
    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.

  9. #24
    Cricketer Of The Year Hurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Stopping the AFL spreading to NZ
    Posts
    9,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    I got great enjoyment in going to the game and shouting "WHY THE **** ISN'T THIS GAME BEING PLAYED AT THE BASIN?!>!?!?" to reasonably significant cheers from the sparse crowd
    Proudly against the bring back Bennett movement since he is injury prone and won't last 5 days.

  10. #25
    International Debutant ohnoitsyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hamilton, city of well....
    Posts
    2,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    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.

  11. #26
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    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.

  12. #27
    International Vice-Captain Riggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Get ready for a broken ****ing arm.
    Posts
    4,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    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.
    marc71178 likes this.

  13. #28
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by ohnoitsyou View Post
    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.

  14. #29
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Riggins View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Muloghonto; 03-03-2014 at 01:16 AM.
    OverratedSanity and Shri like this.

  15. #30
    International Debutant ohnoitsyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hamilton, city of well....
    Posts
    2,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Best Test batting line-ups
    By chasingthedon in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-05-2013, 03:45 AM
  2. Are batting and bowling equally important in test cricket?
    By Avada Kedavra in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 28-08-2010, 11:37 AM
  3. Best batting tail? (Test)
    By MC_Balaji in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 31-08-2009, 06:34 AM
  4. Indian test batting lineup
    By JaiMurugan in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 28-01-2007, 09:06 PM
  5. Batting positions in Test history
    By thirdslip in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 31-01-2005, 08:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •