Best Test opener of the 21st Century?

[TheJediBrah]

So this ****'s like Goldilock's ****ing porridge then? I can't take that seriously dude.

tbf this has been a widely held view here for a bit, the idea that there is an "ideal" career strike rate for a player that is usually ~60 which indicates they score quickly enough to keep pressure on the bowlers and push for results, but also not so high that it shows inflexibility to adapt to situations requiring more defensive play.

Personally I'm of the camp that higher SR is almost always better, but there is definitely diminishing returns (eg. 60 is better than 40 by a bigger margin than 80 is better than 60). But just taying that subshakerz didn't make this up himself out of nowhere

 

[shortpitched713]

I feel like this player comparison stuff really isn't rocket science. The dudes who score truckloads of runs should be rated higher than the ones scoring less than truckloads (although the latter could be more profitable, depending on your customers). Easy stuff, KISS, and all that.

 

[subshakerz]

tbf this has been a widely held view here for a bit, the idea that there is an "ideal" career strike rate for a player that is usually ~60 which indicates they score quickly enough to keep pressure on the bowlers and push for results, but also not so high that it shows inflexibility to adapt to situations requiring more defensive play.

Personally I'm of the camp that higher SR is almost always better, but there is definitely diminishing returns (eg. 60 is better than 40 by a bigger margin than 80 is better than 60). But just taying that subshakerz didn't make this up himself out of nowhere

Yes, thank you. It is a view shared by quite a few posters here.

Basically, there is an ideal bandwith on certain stats for top tier players, outside of which you get diminishing returns.

A player who scores too slowly on average has drawbacks, and one who scores excessively fast on average has drawbacks too.

 

[subshakerz]

I feel like this player comparison stuff really isn't rocket science. The dudes who score truckloads of runs should be rated higher than the ones scoring less than truckloads (although the latter could be more profitable, depending on your customers). Easy stuff, KISS, and all that.

Yeah but in actual play, factors like scoring rate, etc. also figure into the player's effectiveness.

 

[shortpitched713]

tbf this has been a widely held view here for a bit, the idea that there is an "ideal" career strike rate for a player that is usually ~60 which indicates they score quickly enough to keep pressure on the bowlers and push for results, but also not so high that it shows inflexibility to adapt to situations requiring more defensive play.

Personally I'm of the camp that higher SR is almost always better, but there is definitely diminishing returns (eg. 60 is better than 40 by a bigger margin than 80 is better than 60). But just taying that subshakerz didn't make this up himself out of nowhere

I get your opinion even if I largely disagee, but the first opinion objectively makes no sense. Surely we've got to be able to see that a player's ability to hit this not too hot, not too cold zone SR zone is generally out of his control and far more determined by his team's strength and the match conditions that lends itself too rather than the batsman's actual quality.

This has to be one of the most dire "CW consensus" if true.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah but in actual play, factors like scoring rate, etc. also figure into the player's effectiveness.

Nah mate, in actual Test matches teams that have scored less runs than the opposition have never won. This is a 100% record that you are free to look up if you disagree.

Edit: Okay, this statement is a bit hyperbolic, but still my overall point is that we're way over complicating this Test cricket lark.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I get your opinion even if I largely disagee, but the first opinion objectively makes no sense. Surely we've got to be able to see that a player's ability to hit this not too hot, not too cold zone SR zone is generally out of his control and far more determined by his team's strength and the match conditions that lends itself too rather than the batsman's actual quality.

This has to be one of the most dire "CW consensus" if true.

No, it's career strike rate, not for valuing strike rate of individual innings. It's far more under the player's control than those other factors

 

[TheJediBrah]

I feel like this player comparison stuff really isn't rocket science. The dudes who score truckloads of runs should be rated higher than the ones scoring less than truckloads (although the latter could be more profitable, depending on your customers). Easy stuff, KISS, and all that.

Nah mate, in actual Test matches teams that have scored less runs than the opposition have never won. This is a 100% record that you are free to look up if you disagree.

Ok I think you're misunderstanding. The whole point of this is comparing players with the same output/average etc.

No one is saying that a player with a higher strike rate is better than another player with a lower strike rate that makes more runs.

In the vast majority of circumstances more runs is better. Period. Comparing strike rates only really has value when comparing players already on a similar level

 

[shortpitched713]

No, it's career strike rate, not for valuing strike rate of individual innings. It's far more under the player's control than those other factors

Not really. If you're on a great team, you'll have far more opportunities to free spiritedly attack with a lead, whereas if your team is dire and every other second innings you play your only chance is to salvage a draw then it's not like your overall strike rate over time isn't going to be reflected by that situation.

 

[subshakerz]

Nah mate, in actual Test matches teams that have scored less runs than the opposition have never won. This is a 100% record that you are free to look up if you disagree.

Edit: Okay, this statement is a bit hyperbolic, but still my overall point is that we're way over complicating this Test cricket lark.

Do you agree there are batsmen that are objectively more aggressive or defensive in how they approach scoring?

 

[subshakerz]

Not really. If you're on a great team, you'll have far more opportunities to free spiritedly attack with a lead, whereas if your team is dire and every other second innings you play your only chance is to salvage a draw then it's not like your overall strike rate over time isn't going to be reflected by that situation.

There are many examples to the contrary. Lara was an attacking batsman for a crap team as was Tendulkar in the nineties, while Dravid, Kallis and Waugh had stronger lineups yet were slow scorers.

 

[trundler]

A more mind boggling and contrary to common sense opinion held here is that scoring 400 over 2 days is more important because muh tired bowlers.

Anyway if Sehwag had the same record with a 60sr, he would be dismissed as a regular HTB a la Jayawardena. His strike rate is his biggest strength and makes him a freak and a unicorn.

 

[TheJediBrah]

A more mind boggling and contrary to common sense opinion held here is that scoring 400 over 2 days is more important because muh tired bowlers.

Anyway if Sehwag had the same record with a 60sr, he would be dismissed as a regular HTB a la Jayawardena. His strike rate is his biggest strength and makes him a freak and a unicorn.

An opinion perpetuated by people either with ulterior motives or a very poor knowledge of cricket

 

[shortpitched713]

In the vast majority of circumstances more runs is better. Period. Comparing strike rates only really has value when comparing players already on a similar level

Oh I get that. What I'm arguing for is that you can't judge any overall career strike rate, because the value of a strike rate ( higher or lower being more valuable ) is a match specific determination only. So unless you do a match by match evaluation of players' careers, which let's be honest, no one on this site is doing, you can't adequately evaluate what their overall career strike rate actually means. You're much better off in assuming that the player in question's strike rate was an optimized approach by the batsman attempting to maximize runs while improving his team's match situation, because you know, long time Test cricketers tend to be smart and rather good at what they do. And this will yield a better insight 99% of the time, as opposed to attempting to ascribe value to the actual batman's quality from this career strike rate, with only the most extreme of fringe cases being questionable (Afridi, possibly Boycott, etc.).

 

[subshakerz]

A more mind boggling and contrary to common sense opinion held here is that scoring 400 over 2 days is more important because muh tired bowlers.

I recall that opinion from those arguing that slow SR doesnt matter at all.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Oh I get that. What I'm arguing for is that you can't judge any overall career strike rate, because the value of a strike rate ( higher or lower being more valuable ) is a match specific determination only. So unless you do a match by match evaluation of players' careers, which let's be honest, no one on this site is doing, you can't adequately evaluate what their overall career strike rate actually means. You're much better off in assuming that the player in question's strike rate was an optimized approach by the batsman attempting to maximize runs while improving his team's match situation, because you know long time Test cricketers tend to be smart and rather good at what they do. And this will yield a better insight 99% of the time, as opposed to attempting to ascribe value to the actual batman's quality from this career strike rate, with only the most extreme of fringe cases being questionable (Afridi, possibly Boycott, etc.).

Careers are made up of individual matches. A batsman that averages 50 with a strike rate of 80 is going to be more valuable than one that does it at a strike rate of 40 in the long run to a team. The team with the first guy will win more Test matches. Lower strike rate guy might be comparable, or even better, if he's in a weak team but that's about it.

This is before even getting into the psychological effect an aggressive batsman has on the opposition bowlers, fielders, field settings, helping his batting partners etc. Which is massively underrated by those with little practical experience playing a decent level of cricket IMO.

 

[subshakerz]

Oh I get that. What I'm arguing for is that you can't judge any overall career strike rate, because the value of a strike rate ( higher or lower being more valuable ) is a match specific determination only. So unless you do a match by match evaluation of players' careers, which let's be honest, no one on this site is doing, you can't adequately evaluate what their overall career strike rate actually means. You're much better off in assuming that the player in question's strike rate was an optimized approach by the batsman attempting to maximize runs while improving his team's match situation, because you know, long time Test cricketers tend to be smart and rather good at what they do. And this will yield a better insight 99% of the time, as opposed to attempting to ascribe value to the actual batman's quality from this career strike rate, with only the most extreme of fringe cases being questionable (Afridi, possibly Boycott, etc.).

Match by match SR over a long career of 100 plus tests would at least indicate something about the natural style of play of the batsman. Every batsman has their comfort zone by which they build their innings. Some are ok to take time to play themselves in, some feel boxed in if they are quiet for too long. This is outside of just the individual match situation and more of a constant across their careers.

Just like average, SR is not an exact measure but a relative one.

 

[h_hurricane]

Yes, thank you. It is a view shared by quite a few posters here.

Basically, there is an ideal bandwith on certain stats for top tier players, outside of which you get diminishing returns.

A player who scores too slowly on average has drawbacks, and one who scores excessively fast on average has drawbacks too.

Are you saying Viv RIchards' SR of around 70 was a drawback for him ? If yes, what kind of drawback was that compared to guys like Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara who scored much slower and in the range that you are talking about. The guy took opposition bowling attack to shreds consistently across the globe (except may be NZ).

A very high SR intimidates the opposition and takes the game away in no time. Absolutely a plus point.

 

[subshakerz]

Are you saying Viv RIchards' SR of around 70 was a drawback for him ? If yes, what kind of drawback was that compared to guys like Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara who scored much slower and in the range that you are talking about. The guy took opposition bowling attack to shreds consistently across the globe (except may be NZ).

A very high SR intimidates the opposition and takes the game away in no time. Absolutely a plus point.

I didnt follow Viv's career so it is hard for me to say frankly. But I wouldnt have his SR as a reason to rank him ahead of Tendulkar or Lara. All three were aggressive batsman, whether Viv is more aggressive is less important compared to the runs scored by each of them.

To be clear, I consider a low SR, like below 50 which means less than 3 runs an over, to be a down merit, all other factors equal.

My point on Sehwag is that an extremely high SR is not an automatic advantage versus someone with a healthy SR like Hayden of 60, as when you go that high it comes with certain drawbacks along with the terrifying effect of scoring so fast.

 

[h_hurricane]

I didnt follow Viv's career so it is hard for me to say frankly. But I wouldnt have his SR as a reason to rank him ahead of Tendulkar or Lara.

I am not even saying you should rate Viv ahead of Tendulkar or Lara. What I am saying is that there is one factor in which he is ahead of other top tier ATG batsmen. Of course, once you bring in other factors, you could rate any of them higher.

You haven't yet explained why a SR of 70 or so is a drawback to the team.