Is it bad...

[sledger]

...for a batter to be "over-reliant on boundaries"?

Richard always used to say it was, but I never really understood this point.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Depends

/thread

 

[trundler]

Just as bad as not being able to hit any boundaries I suppose.

Being overly reliant on boundaries would imply a poor ability to rotate strike, which can really bite you in the arse if the ball is turning or swinging. Builds pressure on the batsmen because of dots and all.

 

[Prince EWS]

In Test/FC cricket not really, but it's usually why some seemingly aggressive batsmen who succeed in Tests don't perform in ODIs, which was usually Richard's point. Players like Vaughan and Slater weren't just quirky flukes; their boundary reliance made them unsuited to ODI cricket.

 

[trundler]

In Test/FC cricket not really, but it's usually why some seemingly aggressive batsmen who succeed in Tests don't perform in ODIs, which was usually Richard's point. Players like Vaughan and Slater weren't just quirky flukes; their boundary reliance made them unsuited to ODI cricket.

Well if you're reliant on aggressive fields for boundaries then that's going to happen. Can we add Sehwag to that list?

 

[Bijed]

In ODIs, yeah it can definitely be a problem (assuming Richard meant 'struggles to rotate the strike' rather than meaning a batsman who scores lots of runs in singles and boundaries, but happens to exceed x% of runs scored via boundaries)

In tests, you'd still obviously rather have players who can keep ticking along with singles, but being boundary-reliant isn't really a deal breaker assuming the player(s) in question don't predictably do something dumb and get themselves out if they haven't found the rope for a while

Who was this metric designed to discredit, btw?

 

[sledger]

In ODIs, yeah it can definitely be a problem (assuming Richard meant 'struggles to rotate the strike' rather than meaning a batsman who scores lots of runs in singles and boundaries, but happens to exceed x% of runs scored via boundaries)

In tests, you'd still obviously rather have players who can keep ticking along with singles, but being boundary-reliant isn't really a deal breaker assuming the player(s) in question don't predictably do something dumb and get themselves out if they haven't found the rope for a while

Who was this metric designed to discredit, btw?

Trescothick iirc.

It was also used to accredit De Villiers.

 

[morgieb]

It's a problem in ODI's as it's way too easy for the batsman to get bogged down and be unable to rotate the strike, which leads to wickets falling. Tests is different though, and if they can hit enough boundaries in an over than it might not matter.

 

[Bijed]

Trescothick iirc.

It was also used to accredit De Villiers.

I thought First Chance average had already 'proved' that Trescothick was useless? Or did Richard just really have it in for him?

 

[Howe_zat]

In Test/FC cricket not really, but it's usually why some seemingly aggressive batsmen who succeed in Tests don't perform in ODIs, which was usually Richard's point. Players like Vaughan and Slater weren't just quirky flukes; their boundary reliance made them unsuited to ODI cricket.

Has to be a certain type of player for that to kick in though. If Chris Gayle gets on a roll and starts blasting them out of the stadium then being 'overly boundary reliant' feels like a pretty meek criticism.

I think it tends to be a euphamism for 'keeps hitting it to the bloody fielders'

 

[Prince EWS]

Has to be a certain type of player for that to kick in though. If Chris Gayle gets on a roll and starts blasting them out of the stadium then being 'overly boundary reliant' feels like a pretty meek criticism.

I think it tends to be a euphamism for 'keeps hitting it to the bloody fielders'

Yeah Gayle is in a bit of different category though as he hits a lot of boundaries in the air, and so can clear the field. If your Test game is defending/leaving the good ones and hitting the bad/meh ones for four along the carpet through orthodox areas, your ODI game is going to have to be vastly different to that to succeed, and I think that's what he largely meant by it. Hitting one bounce fours doesn't suddnely become harder when there are no gaps in the in field though. Thinking about it this way, "boundary reliant" perhaps isn't a perfect description of the problem, but I think that's what he meant.

Of course, Richard being Richard he also tried to use it to discredit players he didn't like and big up players he did. But I think we all do that with our mini cricket theories; just a bit less so than him.

 

[Bijed]

Has to be a certain type of player for that to kick in though. If Chris Gayle gets on a roll and starts blasting them out of the stadium then being 'overly boundary reliant' feels like a pretty meek criticism.

I think it tends to be a euphamism for 'keeps hitting it to the bloody fielders'

Agree, but even if you later get on a roll, eating up lots of dot balls early on is still a waste

For example, in the first England-West Indies ODI this year, Gayle started really slowly, but went ballistic later on and ended up scoring about 130 at what looks like a really quite good strike rate. England proceed to chase down about 360 - some better strike rotation early on from Gayle quite possibly puts the target out of reach

Similar with Rohit in India's chase against England - his overall innings looks great because he hit lots of boundaries later on, but the slow start ( not just his fault Tbf) is what doomed the chase

(I appreciate that a slow start can be made faster by hitting more boundaries, rather than just running singles)

 

[Howe_zat]

Agree, but even if you later get on a roll, eating up lots of dot balls early on is still a waste

For example, in the first England-West Indies ODI this year, Gayle started really slowly, but went ballistic later on and ended up scoring about 130 at what looks like a really quite good strike rate. England proceed to chase down about 360 - some better strike rotation early on from Gayle quite possibly puts the target out of reach

Similar with Rohit in India's chase against England - his overall innings looks great because he hit lots of boundaries later on, but the slow start ( not just his fault Tbf) is what doomed the chase

(I appreciate that a slow start can be made faster by hitting more boundaries, rather than just running singles)

Yeah but that's not a real weakness, that's just imperfection.

If you could have a player that rotates the strike like Root and hits sixes like Gayle then great, but I can't think of anyone - besides maybe ABDV in a run of untouchable form - who could do that

 

[Dan]

Mostly agree with Cribb, but I do think there's an argument that not being able to rotate the strike hurts in red ball cricket too. My completely unscientific take is that minimising the number of balls in a row that a bowler has at you is generally a positive in most situations, because its hard for them to work you over when you're down the other end half the time.

I'm thinking about that famous Copeland spell to Khawaja, FWIW.

Seeing a 'balls per single' stat would be fairly interesting imo.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I-think-he-said-that-because-Nasser-Hussein-didn't-hit-as-many-boundaries-as-Matthew-Hayden.

 

[Howe_zat]

Seeing a 'balls per single' stat would be fairly interesting imo.

I reckon '% of balls scored off' is in use a lot already.

 

[Bijed]

Yeah but that's not a real weakness, that's just imperfection.

If you could have a player that rotates the strike like Root and hits sixes like Gayle then great, but I can't think of anyone - besides maybe ABDV in a run of untouchable form - who could do that

Yeah, I guess I'm just not sure where I'd draw the line between forgiving a player's weakness (and I mean an actual weakness, not just a weaker suit that they're still good at) because they've got a strength which often makes up for it, or calling out said weakness as a hole in their game which needs improvement regardless of any compensatory strengths

 

[cnerd123]

Mostly agree with Cribb, but I do think there's an argument that not being able to rotate the strike hurts in red ball cricket too. My completely unscientific take is that minimising the number of balls in a row that a bowler has at you is generally a positive in most situations, because its hard for them to work you over when you're down the other end half the time.

I'm thinking about that famous Copeland spell to Khawaja, FWIW.

Seeing a 'balls per single' stat would be fairly interesting imo.

This was a theory about why Pujara found himself in a rut where he kept getting dismissed to good deliveries. Bowlers found it easy to settle in a rhythm to him, and eventually managed to get him with a delivery that was too good. If he could rotate the strike better, it would help put the bowlers off their rhythm, as they'd be adjusting between different plans for each batsmen.

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah, I guess I'm just not sure where I'd draw the line between forgiving a player's weakness (and I mean an actual weakness, not just a weaker suit that they're still good at) because they've got a strength which often makes up for it, or calling out said weakness as a hole in their game which needs improvement regardless of any compensatory strengths

In some cases it's a trade off. Improving one aspect of your game leads to a drop in another aspect of your game. That's probably what Howe is getting at. That if a batsman focuses their time and efforts towards excelling at one area of batsmanship, then they are probably taking time and energy away for developing other aspects. A perfectly balanced batsman who is great at everything is rare.

Sometimes it's technical too. Developing a technique to work in X set of conditions, or to achieve a certain style of batting, could lead to a batsman being less effective in certain roles or conditions.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I hate that edges going for 4's added to the batsmen stats...it should be added to extras

Bat-byes...as in Bat, bye.