Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 121
Like Tree39Likes

Thread: Batting SR in test cricket

  1. #31
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by ohnoitsyou View Post
    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.

  2. #32
    International Debutant ohnoitsyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hamilton, city of well....
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post

    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.

  3. #33
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by ohnoitsyou View Post
    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.

  4. #34
    International Debutant ohnoitsyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hamilton, city of well....
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    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.


  5. #35
    International Regular OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Chennai, India
    Posts
    3,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    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.
    Last edited by OverratedSanity; 03-03-2014 at 01:31 AM.
    Jono, Maximas and Shri like this.
    Proud member of the Indian STFU: Sane Tendulkar Fanboy Union.
    Our motto: Sachin WAG, Don>>>Sachin

  6. #36
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by ohnoitsyou View Post
    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.

  7. #37
    Cricketer Of The Year Hurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Stopping the AFL spreading to NZ
    Posts
    9,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    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.
    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.

  8. #38
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    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.

  9. #39
    Cricketer Of The Year Hurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Stopping the AFL spreading to NZ
    Posts
    9,706
    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.

  10. #40
    Cricketer Of The Year Hurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Stopping the AFL spreading to NZ
    Posts
    9,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    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.

  11. #41
    International Debutant ohnoitsyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hamilton, city of well....
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    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.
    Barry Richards, one of the finest batsmen of all time was who i was referring to.

    Next i will mention that true fast bowlers have existed since the 1890s and maybe even earlier. Kortright and a few others come to mind and im sure that they took many a wicket of the bouncer. Kortright to this day remains the only bowler to bowl six byes, which gives you an idea of his pace. It doesn't even matter if these guys were only 130, the likes of Hobbs and Huttons had techniques up there with the best ever, if the bowlers were 10-15k faster there is no reason they wouldn't have been able to adapt.
    Last edited by ohnoitsyou; 03-03-2014 at 01:46 AM.

  12. #42
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by ohnoitsyou View Post
    Barry Richards, one of the finest batsmen of all time was who i was referring to.

    Next i will mention that true fast bowlers have existed since the 1890s and maybe even earlier. Kortright and a few others come to mind and im sure that they took many a wicket of the bouncer. Kortright to this day remains the only bowler to bowl six byes, which gives you an idea of his pace. It doesn't even matter if these guys were only 130, the likes of Hobbs and Huttons had techniques up there with the best ever, if the bowlers were 10-15k faster there is no reason they wouldn't have been able to adapt.
    I tend not to rate batsmen, however great they may seem in first class cricket if they have no experience in Test cricket, due to the 'Graeme Hick/Mark Ramprakash' factor.
    These guys looked like Lara/Sachin in FC cricket against the likes of Ambrose, Walsh and other ATGs only to crap the bed badly in the Test arena. Barry Richards, sadly, is a case of unproven callibre to me.

    As far as Hobbs or Sutcliffe goes, there are videos of them playing cover drives with both feet in the air. Tells you about their technique, doesn't it ?
    Hobbs, from the few grainy videos I've seen of him, seems like a classic Indian FC bully technique. Too much front foot, too open a stance after delivery and a preponderance to play away from his body. That is the perfect technique to play against spinners and medium pacers against whom you got time but death against 90mph head-hunters.

    As for being fast- i didn't say there wasnt a single fast bowler back in their time. I said they were rarer than they were in the post 1960s era by a significant margin and those that existed, bowled the occasional bouncer, they did not go around head-hunting as it'd be completely against the gentleman's spirit of those times.

    Its one thing negotiating a 140kph bowler bowling in the channel or to the wicket, throwing the occasional bouncer in the midst. Its another thing totally to play against one who is bouncing the heck out of you, trying to hit your nose three balls outta six the entire spell. That is a given in the last 40 years. Those were non-existant in Hobbs-Sutcliffe era.

    In summary, i am not at all convinced that anyone except maybe Bradman had the technique to survive against head-hunters in the modern game. Those batsmen were product of their times, much as ours are of this time. What i will give those batsmen, is that they were far, far more competent playing spin and slow-medium stuff than today's batsmen are.

  13. #43
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    they did not go around head-hunting as it'd be completely against the gentleman's spirit of those times.

    Its one thing negotiating a 140kph bowler bowling in the channel or to the wicket, throwing the occasional bouncer in the midst. Its another thing totally to play against one who is bouncing the heck out of you, trying to hit your nose three balls outta six the entire spell. That is a given in the last 40 years. Those were non-existant in Hobbs-Sutcliffe era.
    Bodyline begs to differ. And tbh it could well be 'easier' to play a consistent spell of bouncers than the occasional one - the batsman is aware it is coming and can premeditate accordingly. The bouncer comes as less of a surprise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    Those batsmen were product of their times, much as ours are of this time.
    Then why are you holding them to modern standards of batsmanship when rating them?

  14. #44
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan View Post
    Bodyline begs to differ. And tbh it could well be 'easier' to play a consistent spell of bouncers than the occasional one - the batsman is aware it is coming and can premeditate accordingly. The bouncer comes as less of a surprise.
    Its easier to play 15 bouncers in a row. Its not easier to play 5 bouncers per 10 balls, where you never know when it is coming but you know it is coming.

    Bodyline was a one-off and not played by Hobbs or Sutcliffe. Bodyline bowling is the norm of the 70s/80s era though.


    Then why are you holding them to modern standards of batsmanship when rating them?
    Because i do not believe in the magic of adaptability. Adaptation is a chance, its not a given. One simply cannot assume that X would adapt to a different era carte blanche.
    And the modern game is harder than the amatuer era, so the probability of adaptation is far lower for the older generation (Pre WWII) than the modern ones adapting to their era.
    I evaluate batsmen for what they are. If Hobbs played cover drives with both feet in the air (which I've seen footage of), I have no reason to conclude that he would simply, by default, adapt to keeping his feet strictly attached to terra ferma against other bowlers. I'd rather see what empiric skills one has and compare them, than indulge in the 'X would've adapted' type of legacy-pacifying ideas that have little or no merit in reality.

  15. #45
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,165
    Or, y'know, you could make judgements on how good players were based on how they performed in their eras against what was put in front of them.

    Especially since the entire discussion is a theoretical abstraction and not 'empiric' in the slightest. It's not rocket science.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •