Viv vs hutton

[Bolo.]

Very simple question.

Is it more difficult to bat at Hutton's pace or Viv.

Which requires more skill.

Batsmen like Waugh sr and Border had to cut shots out of their game to succeed. It's easier to slow down and reduce chances.

Very simple question.

Is it more difficult to face as many balls as Hutton or Viv.

Which requires more skill.

Props to bats who cut some shots out and succeeded. The debate is on quality of results, not talent for strokemaking. If you figure out that you can score more by not playing like Afridi, you have scored more.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Very simple question.

Is it more difficult to bat at Hutton's pace or Viv.

Which requires more skill.

Batsmen like Waugh sr and Border had to cut shots out of their game to succeed. It's easier to slow down and reduce chances.

A simpler question might just be who had more success and was more valuable as well yk?? Not always doing the tougher thing (and I don't even think necessarily batting faster is tougher, been there done that, see Zak Crawley) is better. Paul Adams' bowling style is tougher than Warne, is it better though??

 

[subshakerz]

Very simple question.

Is it more difficult to face as many balls as Hutton or Viv.

Which requires more skill.

Props to bats who cut some shots out and succeeded. The debate is on quality of results, not talent for strokemaking. If you figure out that you can score more by not playing like Afridi, you have scored more.

Runs scored at a predictable and too slow pace, after the initial new ball phase, come with a negative sideffect compared to those that are high rate or accelerating which impose on the opposition.and change momentum.

 

[Bolo.]

Sure to the extent it affects overall output.

I think it was an issue for Viv that he lacked patience which cost him more tons, though his overall output has no issues.

He's got an output issue at the level he is commonly rated at. Point in case, this thread. Votes are pretty evenly split between him and someone with a significantly higher output and tougher job.

 

[ataraxia]

Very simple question.

Is it more difficult to bat at Hutton's pace or Viv.

Which requires more skill.

Batsmen like Waugh sr and Border had to cut shots out of their game to succeed. It's easier to slow down and reduce chances.

If you think it's easier to bat at a slower pace for the same results, as you strongly imply, does that mean you think Viv's strategy was suboptimal? Would WI's fortunes have improved if he'd had the courage to score slower? Shouldn't Viv have scored slower?

 

[subshakerz]

He's got an output issue at the level he is commonly rated at. Point in case, this thread. Votes are pretty evenly split between him and someone with a significantly higher output and tougher job.

I won't deny Hutton has better output overall. That's definitely to his favor

 

[sayon basak]

Is it more difficult to bat at Hutton's pace or Viv..

Is it more difficult to average 56 as an opener in a difficult era or to barely average 50 as a MOB..

 

[Bolo.]

Runs scored at a predictable and too slow pace, after the initial new ball phase, come with a negative sideffect compared to those that are high rate or accelerating which impose on the opposition.and change momentum.

Assuming the same score on dismissal, any SR can be good or bad, depending on match situation. If you want to make rules about this, not facing enough balls will be at least as problematic as not scoring fast. Wearing down the ball, bowlers, etc.

Yes, you want to be accelerating when things are heavily going your way. But this is not as simple as accelerating when the ball gets old. Until you are running out of partners or time, it depends on the situation. For every team that is hoping to avoid a draw, there is a a team hoping for one.

OFC batting according to match situation is better than a single pace. But this works both ways.

 

[kyear2]

It's slop because it's utterly garbage slop lol

So good thing that you opinion means absolutely morning to me then isn't it.

 

[kyear2]

Very simple question.

Is it more difficult to face as many balls as Hutton or Viv.

Which requires more skill.

Props to bats who cut some shots out and succeeded. The debate is on quality of results, not talent for strokemaking. If you figure out that you can score more by not playing like Afridi, you have scored more.

It requires more skill to be able to alternate your rate of scoring to meet the demands of a game.

If you have to cut out strokes to score runs, it's obvious which one requires a greater level of skill.

This isn't hard.

 

[kyear2]

A simpler question might just be who had more success and was more valuable as well yk?? Not always doing the tougher thing (and I don't even think necessarily batting faster is tougher, been there done that, see Zak Crawley) is better. Paul Adams' bowling style is tougher than Warne, is it better though??

Crawley averages in the 30's.

What's always been more valuable is being able to meet the demands of the match.

That includes being able to accelerate, change the course of a match in a session. Forcing the captain and bowlers to change, fields, lines and tactics.

Yes, all have value, but one is a rarer, more difficult and more valuable skill.

 

[kyear2]

He's got an output issue at the level he is commonly rated at. Point in case, this thread. Votes are pretty evenly split between him and someone with a significantly higher output and tougher job.

Tougher job than coming in at 3 in the 70's and 80's?

There's a reason why most of the "top batsmen" of the recent era started batting at 4, and the top 3 is collectively called the top order.

And Viv didn't have an output problem, he had a decline at the end of his career. He also never had the benefit of facing minnows or having a flat pitch era to ease the tradition through the end of his career.

Yes Hutton played in a tough era, but as far as opening is concerned, the only elite threat was Australia. And none of this takes away from the fact that lacking that extra gear isn't a positive...

 

[kyear2]

If you think it's easier to bat at a slower pace for the same results, as you strongly imply, does that mean you think Viv's strategy was suboptimal? Would WI's fortunes have improved if he'd had the courage to score slower? Shouldn't Viv have scored slower?

I can't even believe this is something you actually typed out.

The courage to score slower?

 

[Bolo.]

It requires more skill to be able to alternate your rate of scoring to meet the demands of a game.

If you have to cut out strokes to score runs, it's obvious which one requires a greater level of skill.

This isn't hard.

There is nobody arguing against alternating rate of scoring.

Alternating rate of scoring also means slowing scoring down, which is useful at least as often as speeding things up.

The skill argument is not meaningful. The fact that bucking down and batting sensibly is a skill unto itself, we are not debating who had a greater skillset. We are debating who got better results.

 

[sayon basak]

The courage to score slower?

Definitely. He definitely knew that he'd be criticized in this forum for batting too slow, he definitely needed some courage to handle that trauma.

 

[Coronis]

Tougher job than coming in at 3 in the 70's and 80's?

There's a reason why most of the "top batsmen" of the recent era started batting at 4, and the top 3 is collectively called the top order.

And Viv didn't have an output problem, he had a decline at the end of his career. He also never had the benefit of facing minnows or having a flat pitch era to ease the tradition through the end of his career.

Yes Hutton played in a tough era, but as far as opening is concerned, the only elite threat was Australia. And none of this takes away from the fact that lacking that extra gear isn't a positive...

Pretty sure Viv actually wimped out of #3 and moved down the order once he was out of his ultimate peak.

Also in general yes, I would argue batting slowly is harder than batting quickly.

This may be a contrary opinion (to not just kyear, but many of you)

My reasoning is - we often see good-great batsmen getting bogged down and unable to resist the impulse to aggressively whack one and thus, get out. Apparently its more difficult for them to get through a difficult phase. Tailenders, who obviously are team’s worst bats, generally have high strikerates, because its far easier to hit out and get out than hold up an end. Southee’s a pretty **** bat and he has the SR of Sehwag and one of the highest numbers of 6’s in the history of test cricket. Cos you know, its easy.

ODI and T20 batting is piss easy compared to tests, and everyone’s aggressive there.

Being able to score as many runs as Boycs, Sutcliffe and Hutton did at that pace, how many modern bats could have done that? How many can score a lot of runs at a similar pace to Viv? Hmmmmmm

 

[subshakerz]

Is it more difficult to average 56 as an opener in a difficult era or to barely average 50 as a MOB..

Can you stop ragging on Viv for his average? He played zero minnows.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Can you stop ragging on Viv for his average? He played zero minnows.

So did Hutton ftr. Also Viv played plenty mid attacks over his career as well.

 

[sayon basak]

Can you stop ragging on Viv for his average? He played zero minnows.

Yet, I never told you to stop ragging about Hutton's average.

 

[OverratedSanity]

So did Hutton ftr. Also Viv played plenty mid attacks over his career as well.

Nah, NZ were terrible in Hutton's era. However, atleast Hutton made all his big scores vs NZ when Cowie was in the attack. What a chad.