What is the optimal batting strike rate in test cricket?

[Spikey]

69

 

[honestbharani]

Australia 10000% would not have benefited from a slower Gilchrist. Quite the opposite.

But if it was say NZ, Zim or SL from the 00s they might have been better off with a slower 50 average batsman than a Gilchrist

Zimbabwe DID have a slower 50 average batsman than a Gilchrist.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Zimbabwe DID have a slower 50 average batsman than a Gilchrist.

Yes I was actually thinking of that, we've had this exact discussion on here a few times when talking about Flower and Gilchrist

 

[Bijed]

Role and relative quality matter too imo. Feels a bit spreadsheety, but if we're talking openers in a team lacking in that department, two players averaging 30 at a SR of 40 could offer some value. Two players averaging 30 but striking at 70 expose the next guys to a newer ball without making more runs.

If I was picking a team for some kind of sim with only basic stats to go by, I'd basically always prioritise average over strike rate, with possible slight exceptions for openers as above depending on what was available. Imo whilst strike rate matters (both ways) it generally matters less than just scoring more runs.

 

[trundler]

This discussion ignores that there's a trade-off between SR and average. Viv is an ATC because he averaged 50 while bombing sixes. Letting scoring opportunities go to waste like Boycott or Chanders actively hurts the team. Hitting bowlers off their line is a thing and its trickle down effect is being overlooked imo. Faster is better is generally true if we suppose 2 guys average the same but that doesn't really happen because scoring quickly nerfs your average which is why ABdV and Viv are such special players.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

69

Nice.