• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

McGrath. Marshall. Hadlee.

Rank them

  • Total voters
    42
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Johan said:
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..
Click to expand...
Sorry I don't this this merits in reality at all. Those who build their returns on cameos get found out whereas the technician will at least grind out a bigger knock in between after absorbing the storm.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
hmmm I think you guys may (?) be on slightly different pages here. Johan here may be thinking on one of those wet/sticky wickets of old, which would generally get better over time. Whereas in the modern era which you would of course lean toward, a pitch more rarely tends to improve.
 
Johan

Johan

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Sorry I don't this this merits in reality at all. Those who build their returns on cameos get found out whereas the technician will at least grind out a bigger knock in between after absorbing the storm.
Click to expand...
what's their to find out? you're doing it by riding your luck and relying on timing/good strikes, you can't find that out, where as the average Batsman does not have the technique and would actually get find out if forced to play on the same bad wicket.
 
Johan

Johan

International Coach
Coronis said:
hmmm I think you guys may (?) be on slightly different pages here. Johan here may be thinking on one of those wet/sticky wickets of old, which would generally get better over time. Whereas in the modern era which you would of course lean toward, a pitch more rarely tends to improve.
Click to expand...
Reckon there's truth to that, when I say bad wicket I generally mean a wicket with cracks, illogical and uneven bounce and unpredictable movement sideways, this includes wet wickets and matting wickets ofcourse, or the horrific pitches South Africa and India sometimes dishes out here and there.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Johan said:
Reckon there's truth to that, when I say bad wicket I generally mean a wicket with cracks, illogical and uneven bounce and unpredictable movement sideways, this includes wet wickets and matting wickets ofcourse, or the horrific pitches South Africa and India sometimes dishes out here and there.
Click to expand...
Whereas I mean just a classically bowling friendly wicket, not a lottery pitch.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
capt_Luffy said:
Bad wickets
Click to expand...
As Johan mentioned, on lottery pitches it's at best equal chances of getting out whether you defend or attack. It's not easier since the odds of you pulling that off are lower and on average you will have a lower score than a conservative bat.

On good wickets, being conservative is easier. You can just score singles and the occasional boundary with little fuss.

On sporting wickets, being conservative is still easier since you give the bowlers less chances.

On lottery pitches, chance of getting out is roughly equal as defense and attack entail risks.

But generally, being aggressive for more runs quicker entails taking more risks and giving more opportunities. This is pretty common sense.

This is excluding the extremes of deadbatting it or slogging every ball.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
As Johan mentioned, on lottery pitches it's at best equal chances of getting out whether you defend or attack.

On good wickets, being conservative is easier. You can just score singles and the occasional boundary with little fuss.

On sporting wickets, being conservative is still easier since you give the bowlers less chances.

On lottery pitches, chance of getting out is roughly equal as defense and attack entail risks.

But generally, being aggressive for more runs quicker entails taking more risks and giving more opportunities. This is pretty common sense.

This is excluding the extremes of deadbatting it or slogging every ball.
Click to expand...
Yes, so higher chances of scoring when you attack on a pitch lottery. There's a direct correlation in pitch quality and skill of a batsman and whether he finds attacking/defending easier.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
capt_Luffy said:
Not really balances out. You can grind all day and score 20 of 80 balls and then fell to an unlucky one, or you could swing and get 30 off 25 and then yippy your wicket. Only a select very few batsman can play long defensive proper masterclass innings on a lottery track and produce runs.
Click to expand...
Dont agree as you are likely to score 20 more often than 30 off 25 but for the sake of argument let's assume it's true.

Does this apply anywhere for the cvast majority of games you play on either good or sporting wickets? Not really.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
Dont agree as you are likely to score 20 more often than 30 off 25 but for the sake of argument let's assume it's true.

Does this apply anywhere for the cvast majority of games you play on either good or sporting wickets? Not really.
Click to expand...
It applies to the worst of them, the one it's the hardest to bat in, yes very much. In good or sporting wickets I would say the chances of scoring runs batting slow or fast are more or less equal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top