Best Test opener of the 21st Century?

[shortpitched713]

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.

Everything you're saying seems pretty common sense, and don't have much to disagree with.

All I would say is that there is a bit of an optimism bias in your impression, possibly from your having supported Australia. Half of the match situations that the aggregate international Test cricketer will find themself in are more negative than positive, so that's the main reason one can argue against a sweeping statement like "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." .

There are more relative **** batsmen on **** teams, hence why the team is **** obviously. But you should also be able to see that the great batsman on **** team example erodes the value of your statement as a universal rule (Hell, the Border v Kallis thread, and how no one held Border's low SR on a kind of **** 80s Australia team against him, and instead praised him stodgily holding together a weak side is proof of this). And once you concede that, you'll have to consider all the spectrum of ****, relatively ****, kind of okay, decent, etc sides, who will all have a slightly different degree of impact on that great batsman's SR.

 

[trundler]

I mean Viv's whole thing is he was alpha/could take the game away in a session/a match winner. Statistically, this boils down to his exceptionally high SR in a tough era. It IS the only reason to have him ahead of Tendulkar or Lara.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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

Only potentially a drawback if it's accompanied by a lack of flexibility to adjust to match situations that necessitate more circumspect batting.

But even if that was the case, the higher SR guy might be more valuable to the team in the long run

 

[TheJediBrah]

Everything you're saying seems pretty common sense, and don't have much to disagree with.

All I would say is that there is a bit of an optimism bias in your impression, possibly from your having supported Australia. Half of the match situations that the aggregate international Test cricketer will find themself in are more negative than positive, so that's the main reason one can argue against a sweeping statement like "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." .

There are more relative **** batsmen on **** teams, hence why the team is **** obviously. But you should obviously be able to see that the great batsman on **** team example erodes the value of your statement as a universal rule (Hell, the Border v Kallis thread, and how no one held Border's low SR on a kind of **** 80s Australia team against him, and instead praised him stodgily holding together a weak side is proof of this). And once you concede that, you'll have to consider all the spectrum of ****, relatively ****, kind of okay, decent, etc sides, who will all have a slightly different degree of impact on that great batsman's SR.

Even on bad teams a higher SR batter can be more valuable. It can massively dent the opposition in the variety of ways that we've discussed and bring the whole team along with them.

If Border could have averaged the same at a SR of 70 (which is highly doubtful) that could have been better for the team overall.

 

[Bolo.]

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.).

Performances smooth out over long periods of time. Every bat ever has been in situations where scoring quicker or slower is better. The frequency varies a lot according to team, batting position etc, but we do tend to assess this by individual bats.

It may be an optimised way of maximizing runs within the constraints of their skillset (although honestly you are being a bit generous here), but this doesn't mean that a bat with a particular skillset is not better than another.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

I will be honest and say that I don't know about Viv's SR being a drawback.

I can only comment about Sehwag who had an even higher SR of 82. He could devastate the opposition in a session but often dramatically outpace his batting mates, and then in swinging conditions his ultra aggressive style slashing style meant he was a sitting duck as he couldnt buckle down to survive the new ball. He lacked the ability to adjust his style of play based on match situation and playing conditions.

 

[shortpitched713]

Even on bad teams a higher SR batter can be more valuable. It can massively dent the opposition in the variety of ways that we've discussed and bring the whole team along with them.

If Border could have averaged the same at a SR of 70 (which is highly doubtful) that could have been better for the team overall.

As the great philosopher AlIen Iverson once said "How the hell am I gonna make my teammates better?" (by practicing, in his case, batting quickly in this case).

As for Border's hypothetical strike rate increase, I think it depends how often his team was in certain situations, whether it helps or hurts. If he could somehow bat with the 70 SR, I'd generally trust that he's picked his spots properly to attack to suit a more naturally aggressive style, the same benefit of doubt I would give to any other great batsmen with their large diversity of strike rates.

 

[subshakerz]

If Border could have averaged the same at a SR of 70 (which is highly doubtful) that could have been better for the team overall.

Not so sure. He would have ended up with a much more different record. Would have maybe a couple more matchwinning innings but a few less matchsaving ones.

 

[subshakerz]

The cost of Sehwag's super strikerate was being near useless in swinging conditions.

Half of his game was slashing outside offstump the moment he saw width with his tremendous power and timing, while other batsmen would wait to get their eye in.

That was a terrific style for the subcontinent, Yet the moment you encounter lateral movement in England, NZ or SA, this kind of play, of wildly cutting or driving without footwork or accounting for the extra movement, is suicide.

Who knows, if he just dialed it back a bit, he may have a few less double tons in the subcontinent but a few more in more testing places.

 

[Xuhaib]

I do get a little what Subs is saying but in case of veru he averaged high enough to show that his SR was mostly a positive for the team as he was getting big scores and usually very often thus being a regular match winner. Had he averaged something like 32 @ 82 one could say yeah had this bloke buckled down and averaged 38 @ 55 he would have been or more value for the side but you are averaging near 50 this means he was getting big scores quite regularly going gung ho to set up games for the side.

 

[anil1405]

Who knows, if he just dialed it back a bit, he may have a few less double tons in the subcontinent but a few more in more testing places.

India would've been looking for a different opening partner to Chopra and Gambhir in that case.

If you're taking Sehwag's strength away from him he would've been a nothing player.

 

[subshakerz]

India would've been looking for a different opening partner to Chopra and Gambhir in that case.

If you're taking Sehwag's strength away from him he would've been a nothing player.

Sehwag should have stuck to being a middle order player honestly. He would be like Pant today, only better. Opening with him was a double-edged sword.

 

[anil1405]

Sehwag should have stuck to being a middle order player honestly. He would be like Pant today, only better. Opening with him was a double-edged sword.

I don't know if I should just question your cricket analysis or even your ability to understand how human mentality works.

Both Border and Sehwag would've been way below par if they changed their respective style of play.

The only reason both average so high in test cricket is because they knew their strengths and stuck with it.

 

[subshakerz]

I do get a little what Subs is saying but in case of veru he averaged high enough to show that his SR was mostly a positive for the team as he was getting big scores and usually very often thus being a regular match winner. Had he averaged something like 32 @ 82 one could say yeah had this bloke buckled down and averaged 38 @ 55 he would have been or more value for the side but you are averaging near 50 this means he was getting big scores quite regularly going gung ho to set up games for the side.

Openers like Sehwag and to a certain extent Hayden, who either blast or fail depending on where you play, are luxuries that only strong batting lineups can afford.

If Sehwag played for a weak batting team, he would be forced to adjust his style of play to be consistent across conditions or be shifted back to the middle order where he belonged.

Again, he would just need to dial it back to being a 60s SR and add some caution to be able to play with some sense rather than hand his wicket away once it swings.

 

[h_hurricane]

I will be honest and say that I don't know about Viv's SR being a drawback.

I can only comment about Sehwag who had an even higher SR of 82. He could devastate the opposition in a session but often dramatically outpace his batting mates, and then in swinging conditions his ultra aggressive style slashing style meant he was a sitting duck as he couldnt buckle down to survive the new ball. He lacked the ability to adjust his style of play based on match situation and playing conditions.

As long as you agree that high SR isn't a "net" drawback (yes, I am talking about Sehwag in this case), I am with you on this. Of course, there are situations where it is a drawback in the sense that with a little bit of restraint, he would have protected middle order from exposure to new ball. But they are balanced and even outweighed by other situations where it is absolutely a plus point.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't know if I should just question your cricket analysis or even your ability to understand how human mentality works.

Both Border and Sehwag would've been way below par if they changed their respective style of play.

The only reason both average so high in test cricket is because they knew their strengths and stuck with it.

In that Indian side, Sehwag would play like Sehwag regardless of if he was batting at no.1 or no.5 or no.8. The difference is that lower in the order, the shine would be off the new ball and he would pound a less fresh bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

As long as you agree that high SR isn't a "net" drawback (yes, I am talking about Sehwag in this case), I am with you on this. Of course, there are situations where it is a drawback in the sense that with a little bit of restraint, he would have protected middle order from exposure to new ball. But they are balanced and even outweighed by other situations where it is absolutely a plus point.

Yeah that was my point, the extra high SR is not an added benefit nor a net loss.

 

[anil1405]

In that Indian side, Sehwag would play like Sehwag regardless of if he was batting at no.1 or no.5 or no.8. The difference is that lower in the order, the shine would be off the new ball and he would pound a less fresh bowler.

India clearly benefited from Sehwag, the opener. Made things easy for the big guns to follow.

 

[shortpitched713]

Generally speaking I'd summarize my idea on batting SR in Test cricket as such. In general, for the average batsman out of all the Test batsmen that exists playing on the Test team with the most average overall capability (hard to define both those things, I know) varying his SR upward with the same batting average will very, very slightly be better. This is more for psychological reasons than objective ones, as there is an auto-suggestive benefit to playing with a more positive than negative approach, even though he can't always actually predict which will end up being more helpful for the team.

But this is a very, very small positive effect for mine, in comparison to just the average run value he places on his wicket. If we can instead vary this batting average up even just 2-3 runs, to me that's a more important and universally applicable positive, regardless of his team or match circumstance, as compared to any big change into an attacking, fast run scorer.

The exception to this rule is IMO true batting bunnies, coming in at position 11, and probably 10 as well. For them, in an ideal world I would place every ounce of their batting ability into blocking and leaving the right balls, frustrating the opposition by just not getting out, and to give the best possible chance of their vastly superior batting partners to rack up the runs. But this is a bit idealistic, as most true batting bunnies simply lack the attributes, or even patience required to value and cultivate such an approach.

 

[subshakerz]

India clearly benefited from Sehwag, the opener. Made things easy for the big guns to follow.

I agree because the other options at that time were guys like Chopra. If India had other semi-decent openers, Ganguly wouldnt have been forced to promote Sehwag up the order.