McGrath. Marshall. Hadlee.

[capt_Luffy]

It's obviously tougher because you are creating more chances by going for more scoring opportunities.

Yes and you are also getting out quicker but scoring higher you would have otherwise by playing slowly.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes and you are also getting out quicker but scoring higher you would have otherwise by playing slowly.

That sounds fine in theory but in reality hitting worldclass bowlers in these conditions takes a lot more skill than just blocking them and scoring off others or waiting until they are tired like slow scorers.

 

[capt_Luffy]

That sounds fine in theory but in reality hitting worldclass bowlers in these conditions takes a lot more skill than just blocking them and scoring off others or waiting until they are tired like slow scorers.

In practice the number of occasions a batsman has bashed (not blinded their way through) World Class bowlers bowling at an ATG level can be counted on a single hand. And it's significantly more risky as well.

 

[subshakerz]

In practice the number of occasions a batsman has bashed (not blinded their way through) World Class bowlers bowling at an ATG level can be counted on a single hand. And it's significantly more risky as well.

Hence requiring more skill. Thanks.

 

[Prince EWS]

How is scoring fast on a sporting wicket not harder than scoring slower?

Scoring runs standing on one leg is harder than doing it in a normal stance as well but if someone did that we'd just call them stupid.

If fast scoring players could score more runs by scoring more slowly they should probably do that. They typically score as many runs as they can by the method that best maximises that.

 

[subshakerz]

Scoring runs standing on one leg is harder than doing it in a normal stance as well but if someone did that we'd just call them stupid.

Not remotely comparable to someone just scoring quicky which is a norm.

If fast scoring players could score more runs by scoring more slowly they should probably do that.

if it's not their natural game and they are scoring well already they shouldn't change it because aggressive batting generally gives more dividends.

And easier for aggressive bats to grind if necessary than the opposite imo

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hence requiring more skill. Thanks.

Mostly luck.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not remotely comparable to someone just scoring quicky which is a norm.


if it's not their natural game and they are scoring well already they shouldn't change it because aggressive batting generally gives more dividends.

And easier for aggressive bats to grind if necessary than the opposite imo

Like Crawley. Norms can be wrong too. If batting slower is easier and safer, prolly should do just that.....

If it's their natural game and they can't slow down to increase output, your whole argument that scoring slower falls flat in it's face.

 

[subshakerz]

Like Crawley. Norms can be wrong too. If batting slower is easier and safer, prolly should do just that.....

If it's their natural game and they can't slow down to increase output, your whole argument that scoring slower falls flat in it's face.

There are plenty better quality aggressive players than Crawley.

And the better aggressive bats usually can grind it out. Which is easier than slow bats smashing.

 

[smash84]

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.

I think it's really only the past couple of decades where bigger bats have allowed people to slash away and score runs on bad wickets letting them get away with bad technique as well. That wasn't the case for more than a century. Even up to the 90s you couldn't get away with slashing away on a bowler friendly wickets. You would be out much quicker.

 

[Johan]

I think it's really only the past couple of decades where bigger bats have allowed people to slash away and score runs on bad wickets letting them get away with bad technique as well. That wasn't the case for more than a century. Even up to the 90s you couldn't get away with slashing away on a bowler friendly wickets. You would be out much quicker.

I mean, stepping out and slashing on bad wickets has been a meta since Victor Trumper discovered it in 1900s.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, stepping out and slashing on bad wickets has been a meta since Victor Trumper discovered it in 1900s.

Simple question if it's a sporting wicket is it easier to play defensively or aggressively the majority of times?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Simple question if it's a sporting wicket is it easier to play defensively or aggressively the majority of times?

Equal

 

[Johan]

Simple question if it's a sporting wicket is it easier to play defensively or aggressively the majority of times?

Depends on batting position, context of the wicket and time of the match and so forth.

 

[smash84]

I mean, stepping out and slashing on bad wickets has been a meta since Victor Trumper discovered it in 1900s.

What do you mean by meta?

 

[Johan]

What do you mean by meta?

most effective tactic available, jesus have you never played early 2000s COD?

 

[subshakerz]

Depends on batting position, context of the wicket and time of the match and so forth.

Day 1, overcast, slightly green wicket, no.3 bat.

 

[Johan]

Day 1, overcast, slightly green wicket, no.3 bat.

If the wicket fell early, a 20(25) would be easier to play than a 20(150), the latter would require a more capability and would be more beneficial to the team.

if it was the inverse like a day 4 turning Indian wicket, faster scoring would be better as the pitch would keep becoming more hostile and the spinners wouldn't tire as easy, therefore the less time to get more runs the better.

 

[subshakerz]

Equal

Logically we should know that's not true. It's going to fall on one side of the equation and I think we both know which side.

 

[subshakerz]

If the wicket fell early, a 20(25) would be easier to play than a 20(150), the latter would require a more capability and would be more beneficial to the team.

20 runs isn't meaningful in terms of regular bats, what about to score 50 or a 100 in such conditions?

if it was the inverse like a day 4 turning Indian wicket, faster scoring would be better as the pitch would keep becoming more hostile and the spinners wouldn't tire as easy, therefore the less time to get more runs the better.

You are conflating what is better with what is easier.