More reasonable equivalences (Test cricket)

[shortpitched713]

Do you add 2 runs to an opener's average to compare it to a middle order batsman's average? Or maybe 3, or 5, or more? How do you compare an opener's run scoring record to a middle order batsman?

This doesn't apply to old timey batsman that existed before fast bowling reached it's professional heights through athletic and technical mastery of the fast bowling craft. Back then the best batsmen were put right at the top of the order to give them the greatest possible chance to score as many runs as possible before they had to bat alongside the tail.

But for modern batsmen it's definitely an advantage to bat after openers blunt the immediate effect of the first new ball. How much of an advantage exactly?

 

[Starfighter]

This doesn't apply to old timey batsman that existed before fast bowling reached it's professional heights through athletic and technical mastery of the fast bowling craft. Back then the best batsmen were put right at the top of the order to give them the greatest possible chance to score as many runs as possible before they had to bat alongside the tail.

I would start by questioning if this is true.

 

[shortpitched713]

I would start by questioning if this is true.

Professionalism, racial integration, and colour television. Old time new ball bowlers just weren't the same sauce. Even all time greats like Barnes, Lohmann, in my mind would have to significantly alter their approaches to compete in the modern professional era (I tend to think they could, but not as "fast/seam bowlers"). Of the 19th century/turn of the 20th century legends, the only one I've read described as having the sort of approach, ferocity, and athleticism required of a modern quick was Spofforth.

So to me, it makes perfect sense that the earlier you put a batsman in the more advantage a team got in that era, where the bite of the new ball didn't quite get the maximum utilization. Even the terminology, and it's historical shift is telling. You almost never hear the term "top order" used these days to describe a number 3 batsman, as everyone after the openers is "middle order", which I don't think is coincidence. That is as good an indication as any that the specialization of openers borne of necessity to deal with modern new ball bowlers has changed the way we look at batsmen and consider batting lineup construction.

 

[Starfighter]

Now I know you're clueless.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Probably goes without saying that these equivalences all need a pretty big asterisk next to them, given the vast differences in conditions, opposition and experiences for different players.

However, disregarding all that and going for one-size-fits-all approach I think somewhere around a 3-4 run bonus for openers seems about fair. For players who played a lot in Asia I'd probably knock it down to nearly 0. Whereas an Alistair Cook-type who's played so much in England I'd knock it up even further, maybe to 5 or 6.

 

[TheJediBrah]

@shortpitched713 Fyi starfighter is a big fan of old-timey cricket, and generally knows what he's talking about. Can be a bit crotchety about it too.

 

[shortpitched713]

Well I'd love to get learned. Why were drift, and cut mentioned more often as tools for old school bowlers, instead of seam and pace?

Do we also not consider the class divisions between gentlemen batsmen and bowlers in the extremely constrained nature of the way earlier era bowlers were expected to play? Why did they make cucumber sandwiches instead of pickles? These are all questions in need of answering about the good old days. I've brought my bag of Werthers.

 

[CricAddict]

Its a good topic but we do not need to start separate threads for each diversion. We can discuss all of it in the thread you started earlier.

 

[shortpitched713]

Its a good topic but we do not need to start separate threads for each diversion. We can discuss all of it in the thread you started earlier.

True, this thread should be about the precisely accurate number of runs to add to an opener's average, to compare them to a middle order batman. And so that I can then use that as further ammunition in slightly trolly conversations about why Matthew Hayden is better than the favorite middle order batsman of whomever I'm arguing with at the time.

 

[CricAddict]

True, this thread should be about the precisely accurate number of runs to add to an opener's average, to compare them to a middle order batman. And so that I can then use that as further ammunition in slightly trolly conversations about why Matthew Hayden is better than the favorite middle order batsman of whomever I'm arguing with at the time.

Yes, I agree with the premise that you have. Have always believed that an opener's runs is more valuable than a middle order batsman who gets the easier conditions comparatively. The way we have way too many more ATG middle order batsmen than ATG openers is also due to people overlooking this aspect.

Just thought that we didn't need another thread for it.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yes, I agree with the premise that you have. Have always believed that an opener's runs is more valuable than a middle order batsman who gets the easier conditions comparatively. The way we have way too many more ATG middle order batsmen than ATG openers is also due to people overlooking this aspect.

Just thought that we didn't need another thread for it.

I'll take you as a 5 man then?

Edit: Wait, let me add a poll.