McGrath. Marshall. Hadlee.

[Johan]

Thats the point. You are more likely to get out playing faster. Hence batting slower is easier. Generally speaking. We don't need to complicate this, it's obvious.

You just answered the question on which is easier to play by saying slow on bad wickets last page.

Regardless on good wickets playing slower is easier too.

You're kind of equally likely to get out anyway, on a wet drenched wicket there's no guarantee or way to predict how much bounce or turn there'd be, you can get out every ball, but I think trusting your luck and blinding is way easier than trusting your technicality ability to grind it out.

And Yes, objectively it's also considered easier to attack than defend, I mean, that's the default strategy of most Cricketers who play on difficult wickets these days.

 

[Johan]

Sure but if you asked Sehwag to play at a 80SR on a bad wicket and Dravid at a 40SR, Dravid is more likely to survive.

dunno about that, Sehwag's 200 on a turner in Sri Lanka is better than the vast majority of Kohli bad wicket knocks.

 

[subshakerz]

dunno about that, Sehwag's 200 on a turner in Sri Lanka is better than the vast majority of Kohli bad wicket knocks.

Ok but again lets assume a cracked wicket with uneven bounce.

 

[sayon basak]

Ok but again lets assume a cracked wicket with uneven bounce.

Dravid would probably survive, but that wouldn't tell anything imo. Dravid would survive, because he's a better batter.

 

[subshakerz]

You're kind of equally likely to get out anyway,
on a wet drenched wicket there's no guarantee or way to predict how much bounce or turn there'd be, you can get out every ball, but I think trusting your luck and blinding is way easier than trusting your technicality ability to grind it out.

You are contradicting yourself because you said the exact opposite last page when you said trying to play a blinder will more likely get you out in bad conditions.

And Yes, objectively it's also considered easier to attack than defend, I mean, that's the default strategy of most Cricketers who play on difficult wickets these days.

Yeah most today attack and bowlers are much more likely to get wickets, their averages are historically very good. What does that tell?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

You mean old burnt out Southee old man Wagner and mediocre Henry?

Agree with the 1st 2, but Henry is the 2nd best bowler in the world behind Bumrah.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

also, he made 2 hundreds against 2024 Henry too

Gave away 6 or 7 chances in the 1st 100 though

 

[Johan]

You are contradicting yourself because you said the exact opposite last page when you said trying to play a blinder will more likely get you out in bad conditions.

the discussion was of skill, and you're also more likely making a quickfire 50 by just swinging, simply put, you will find more guys who get lucky than guys who play masterful technical knocks on bad wickets.

.

Yeah most today attack and bowlers are much more likely to get wickets, their averages are historically very good. What does that tell?

It tells me you'd find more success on bad wickets playing a blinder because you can just get lucky, technical batting is harder on tough wickets.

 

[Johan]

Gave away 6 or 7 chances in the 1st 100 though

none in second tho, and that was in a tough situation and on a spicy pitch

 

[smash84]

And Yes, objectively it's also considered easier to attack than defend, I mean, that's the default strategy of most Cricketers who play on difficult wickets these days.

Wait, what?

 

[Johan]

Wait, what?

what are you confused about

 

[subshakerz]

the discussion was of skill, and you're also more likely making a quickfire 50 by just swinging, simply put, you will find more guys who get lucky than guys who play masterful technical knocks on bad wickets.

Yes the discussion was on skill and you stated at the beginning it's easier to bat slow on bad wickets and you are more likely to get out playing a blinder. So I assume you hold those positions?

It tells me you'd find more success on bad wickets playing a blinder because you can just get lucky, technical batting is harder on tough wickets.

Yeah except the opposite is true, bowlers are doing better now.

 

[Johan]

Yes the discussion was on skill and you stated at the beginning it's easier to bat slow on bad wickets and you are more likely to get out playing a blinder. So I assume you hold those positions?

I never said either of those things, I said it's harder to bat slow and technically on a bad wicket, and that you're likely to make more runs with blinders than with dashing for the average Batsman.

Yeah except the opposite is true, bowlers are doing better now.

Not at all, watch what pace the inning of the year last year was played by Aiden Markram, you'd see technically sound percieved players are more helpless than swingers, that's because riding your luck is more reliable and easier than being a proper technical maestro

 

[subshakerz]

I never said either of those things, I said it's harder to bat slow and technically on a bad wicket, and that you're likely to make more runs with blinders than with dashing for the average Batsman.

You said:

playing a blinder on a bad wicket has higher chance of getting you

Not at all, watch what pace the inning of the year last year was played by Aiden Markram, you'd see technically sound percieved players are more helpless than swingers, that's because riding your luck is more reliable and easier than being a proper technical maestro

So Hutton was wrong in his approach and should have swung his bat more as it's more reliable then?

 

[smash84]

what are you confused about

How has it "objectively" been considered easier to attack? Unless you mean blindly slashing your bat around without care for success, the whole history of test cricket has had far more draws precisely because it is easier to defend than to attack.

 

[subshakerz]

How has it "objectively" been considered easier to attack? Unless you mean blindly slashing your bat around without care for success, the whole history of test cricket has had far more draws precisely because it is easier to defend than to attack.

I mean, this is pretty obvious, I'm surprised he is contesting it. As a general rule, attacking is risk taking.

 

[Johan]

You said:

I followed up with there's a larger chance of succeeding playing a blinder than playing a technical knock, playing a technical knock you can get a 7 or 8, you can go longer, there's a higher probability of the average batsman making an 80 playing a blinder than the avera

I don't really agree, playing a blinder on a bad wicket has higher chance of getting you out but most large knocks played on tough wickets are blinders for a reason. more people are lucky than there are technical maestros in this world.

It's just generally tougher to play a logical knock on a bad wicket than playing a blinder.

So Hutton was wrong in his approach and should have swung his bat more as it's more reliable then?

Obviously not, because he has the highest output in history besides Hobbs and Bradman in low scoring games, Hutton simply had the capability that most don't have and he could dominate on bad wickets.

 

[Johan]

How has it "objectively" been considered easier to attack? Unless you mean blindly slashing your bat around without care for success, the whole history of test cricket has had far more draws precisely because it is easier to defend than to attack.

Draws are generally a product of good wickets, unless it rains a lot, if all the overs are bowled then 99% of the times the pitch was just too flat for too long. I started this conversation by saying it's easier to defend on flat wickets, it's also objectively easier to play 45(50) on a spicy deck skill wise than it is to play 45(200) and in most cases the latter is more useful.

 

[subshakerz]

I followed up with there's a larger chance of succeeding playing a blinder than playing a technical knock, playing a technical knock you can get a 7 or 8, you can go longer, there's a higher probability of the average batsman making an 80 playing a blinder than the avera

So you are more likely to succeed playing a blinder on a spicy wicket but more likely to get out?

Obviously not, because he has the highest output in history besides Hobbs and Bradman in low scoring games, Hutton simply had the capability that most don't have and he could dominate on bad wickets.

Would you say Huttons approach on bad wickets was ill advised then but he could get away with it as he was skilled enough?

 

[Johan]

So you are more likely to succeed playing a blinder on a spicy wicket but more likely to get out?

lind of? the technician would spend more time and his returns would be more consistent but the aggressive player can make a great 60-70 between his 3 ducks and that could win the game, so the latter would likely have more runs in the end even if his mean score would be lower.

Would you say Huttons approach on bad wickets was ill advised then but he could get away with it as he was skilled enough?

for the average batsman, yes, the approach would be ill advised, but with his slower approach he could do things that dashers (Compton/Harvey) couldn't, same with Sutcliffe. Take it as equivalent of an attacking Batsmen being able to dictate matches on good wickets.