Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 121
Like Tree39Likes

Thread: Batting SR in test cricket

  1. #76
    International Captain Maximas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Footmarks
    Posts
    6,102
    So, batting strike rate in tests eh?
    There are two colours in my head

  2. #77
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Who the **** cares about batting SR. I wanna hear more about market economics.

  3. #78
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximas View Post
    So, batting strike rate in tests eh?
    Speaking of which, I just had a half-baked idea.

    If we grant that higher strike rate for identical run production is inherently more result-oriented, then it leads to the following hypothesis:

    If batsmen are of lower callibre (such as the lower order batsmen!), would the corrollary hold true ? As in, now, we'd prefer a lower order batsman with a lower strike rate for identical average ? The logic to this is, well, the lower order batsmen suck to begin with. If they took a more defensive approach and just ate up balls, would it not give more time (in general) to the top order batsmen to play out their optimal innings ? Ie, if you were the 'slowpoke' batting at #9 that allowed Brian Lara to score 165 instead of get stranded at 119*, isn't that more optimal for the team ?

  4. #79
    International Vice-Captain Riggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Get ready for a broken ****ing arm.
    Posts
    4,423
    Probably, if they were always batting with a better batsmen.
    The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.


  5. #80
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by ohnoitsyou View Post
    Barry Richards proved his greatness in the Packer circuit, in SA, in England, in Australia, -at the highest level against all types and qualities of bowlers. Kind of absurd to group him in with the ones you mentioned.
    He proved that he was a real talent, yes. Thats all he proved. I tend not to make exceptions to overlook test record when talking about test batsmen. To demonstrate what i mean, he cannot overtake the experience of playing against true pace and spin on subcontinental wickets of that era ( Imran + quality spin or Indian spin quartet), he did not play in Kiwiland, that tends to be batting graveyard for many a great visiting batsman and most importantly, he did not face England either, who did not exactly have a weak attack either. (I'd easily take the attack of Snow-Underwood-Greig-Willis than any 'modern' one of England)
    So no, i don't really short-list him for the job.

    To put it in perspective, if performances in Australia, vs West Indies ( who Richards also faced in the packer era) , Pakistan (same) and in England were all it took to forge a reputation, in the same era, we have Gavaskar ending all statistical debate to 'who's the best opener ever' by being posting ridiculously huge 'greater than contemporary' figures as 7540 runs @ 55+ average ( that would be a staggering 15% better than his next most successful direct contemporary, ie, another contemporary opener). To put that into context, a 15% gap over your next best rival today, would be the equivalent of Sangakkara ending with a ridiculous 66+ average to move 15% clear of his next best rival, statistically in the average department- Kallis, at the end of their careers.


    So to stop rambling, yes, barry had a good case to be considered a very good batsman, one of the finest. But not qualified enough to be in an ATG discussion or 'dream team' of sorts for the test arena, atleast, not for me.

    He is a better bat than the hyperboles i used, but that was just to get the point across a bit more, elementally.

  6. #81
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    Speaking of which, I just had a half-baked idea.

    If we grant that higher strike rate for identical run production is inherently more result-oriented, then it leads to the following hypothesis:

    If batsmen are of lower callibre (such as the lower order batsmen!), would the corrollary hold true ? As in, now, we'd prefer a lower order batsman with a lower strike rate for identical average ? The logic to this is, well, the lower order batsmen suck to begin with. If they took a more defensive approach and just ate up balls, would it not give more time (in general) to the top order batsmen to play out their optimal innings ? Ie, if you were the 'slowpoke' batting at #9 that allowed Brian Lara to score 165 instead of get stranded at 119*, isn't that more optimal for the team ?
    Yes, they can be; but if they are stuck with another tail ender, then one who takes the game on is more valuable.
    OverratedSanity and GIMH like this.

  7. #82
    International Coach Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,178
    Statistical debates don't apply to freaks of the game.

    I will just leave this here:

    Records | Test matches | Batting records | Fastest double hundreds | ESPN Cricinfo

    5 out 10 is insane no matter how you choose to look at it.

  8. #83
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Sehwag was a freak on flat wickets and very good against spin, but out of batsmen with elite records he would have to be right up the top for his inability to play the moving ball. That really lowers his rating for mine...it's a pattern I really hope Warner doesn't fall into, but so far the signs are pretty good.
    kyear2 likes this.

  9. #84
    International Regular OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Chennai, India
    Posts
    3,709
    Any lowering of his rating because of him being a liability in swinging conditions is completely compensated by him being an unstoppable force of nature when conditions suit him. FTB isn't even an insult in his case because other FTBs get runs on flat tracks at about a third of his pace. If the pitch is flat, the bowling side could pretty much throw in the towel when facing him at his peak. Doesn't matter who the bowler is, he d blast them, more often than not successfully.

    No matter how flat the pitch is, no one in history has bullied quality bowlers like Steyn,McGrath, etc to the extent that Sehwag was capable of
    Last edited by OverratedSanity; 04-03-2014 at 05:46 AM.
    Proud member of the Indian STFU: Sane Tendulkar Fanboy Union.
    Our motto: Sachin WAG, Don>>>Sachin

  10. #85
    International Coach Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    Sehwag was a freak on flat wickets and very good against spin, but out of batsmen with elite records he would have to be right up the top for his inability to play the moving ball. That really lowers his rating for mine...it's a pattern I really hope Warner doesn't fall into, but so far the signs are pretty good.
    Not being able to deal with swing/seam is different than dealing with express pace against which he was good against. That 195 in Aus is proof of that. So lets take a count here. Attributes of bowling in cricket when he played:

    Pace - Pass
    Spin - Pass
    Movement - Fail

    So, he is good at facing most bowlers really. Weakness against one attribute of bowling can be ignored in my opinion when looking at his record.

  11. #86
    International Regular OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Chennai, India
    Posts
    3,709
    Calling Sehwag merely a pass against spin is kinda unfair. One of the top 5 ever against spin, arguaby

  12. #87
    International Coach Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,178
    Look at the context ffs.

    Pass and fail are the only words I am using to imply good and bad here. Cbf explaining how good or bad he was against different crap.

  13. #88
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Shri View Post
    Not being able to deal with swing/seam is different than dealing with express pace against which he was good against. That 195 in Aus is proof of that. So lets take a count here. Attributes of bowling in cricket when he played:

    Pace - Pass
    Spin - Pass
    Movement - Fail

    So, he is good at facing most bowlers really. Weakness against one attribute of bowling can be ignored in my opinion when looking at his record.
    I don't think he was good against the short ball and pitches with a lot of bounce. The 195 was on a flat wicket where Ponting scored 257, doesn't really prove much given he excels on flat pitches (his other hundred in Aus was at Adelaide, enough said). His record in brisbane and perth isn't good.

    If I was to summarise Sehwag it would be:

    Pace of any degree on flat wickets without much bounce - excellent
    Pace on flat wickets with a good deal of bounce - mediocre
    Pace on seaming wickets, or swinging conditions - poor
    Spin - excellent
    Last edited by Ruckus; 04-03-2014 at 06:22 AM.

  14. #89
    International Coach Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,178
    Nah. Was great against fast pies regardless of the pitch as long as the ball was old and it was not moving. Bounce didn't trouble him when he was in form. Struggled against bounce very briefly when he was in poor form and when some bowlers had figured out he had a weakness against balls that rose to his ribs off just back of a length. When he was on form from 2008 - 2011, that didn't seem to bother him one bit.

  15. #90
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Shri View Post
    Nah. Was great against fast pies regardless of the pitch as long as the ball was old and it was not moving. Bounce didn't trouble him when he was in form. Struggled against bounce very briefly when he was in poor form and when some bowlers had figured out he had a weakness against balls that rose to his ribs off just back of a length. When he was on form from 2008 - 2011, that didn't seem to bother him one bit.
    In the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 he made one century outside of the subcontinent, and that being at the adelaide oval. Given the subcontinent isn't exactly known for bouncy wickets, the onus is on you then to say in which innings he was confronted with a bouncy wicket and succeeded,

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •