All other factors being equal, Should slower batting top-order players be rated higher due to crease occupation and consistently blunting the new ball

[Fuller Pilch]

Yes, but Mark Richardson (s/r 37.66) is one of my favourite cricketers so it is hardly surprising

 

[Johan]

Johan----Unlike Boycott,Kallis et al,you are defending the indefensible.
A win is better than a draw.....isn't it?
A player who can create a win out of nothing,who has more strokes,who is more gifted,is a greater asset.
A batting line-up is chosen on the basis of your most competent players available.
In 1970/71 England grafted a 2-0 series win partly thanks to Messrs.Boycott,Edrich,Luckhurst and co pragmatically grinding out large enough scores to win a couple of Tests.I have the feeling that if one of Clive Lloyd,Graeme Pollock or Barry Richards (the latter of whom scored a double century against Illingworth's team that season) had been English they may have been squeezed into that side and,who knows,may have won England another Test or two---Illingworth,probably with the players at his disposal, pragmatically made the choice to opt for the draw whereas,with a great stroke player,he could have initially pushed for a win,safe in the knowledge that he had the draw to fall back on.

Go back to the 4th Test,West Indies v England at Queen's Park Oval in March 68.Sobers' quixotic declaration left England needing to score 215 runs in 165 minutes to win.Captain Cowdrey,a batter of supreme class and technique,a Rolls-Royce player who would often bat like a Skoda howevever,was all for batting out time.However two in particular of the team persuaded him that " this thing can be done" (the words of Fred Spofforth at The Oval in 1882 which led to the creation of The Ashes---but that is another story). And England chased down the runs for the loss of only 3 wickets.Boycott provided the ballast with 80 not out whilst Cowdrey glided and eased to a match-winning 71.Ironically,the two players who were the strongest persuaders were...Boycott and Barrington,the old slow-coaches.

But there have been so many instances over the years where captains DON'T want to risk defeat in pursuit of victory partly because they haven't had a great stroke-player.
Your argument,Johan,also implies that the great stroke-player doesn’t have the capability to "bat dumb",but this is a fallacy of course.Wonderful,gifted stroke-players have played with restricted freedom in the interests of the team.Bradman,Sobers, deVilliers,Compton,Botham!,Gower,Ponting immediately come to mind.
In any case different batters are picked for different reasons----that courageous stalwart Pujara could never play an innings such as the several Pant has played.Tellingly though,in Australia in 2021,it was their combination of completely contrasting styles that led to India's amazing series victory.
The examples you give are with the benefit of hindsight---of course mistakes are made otherwise EVEN CHRIS MARTIN would have a Test batting average of 99.94.These don't defeat the logic that strikes rates are important,both in relation to the most favourable result,but also for the more ephemeral reason of evaluating players.
Days of Grace has quite rightly taken it into consideration.
Who cares,you say Johan----well selectors do and so do experts.That is why Viv Richards,averaging a paltry 50,is thought by most to be a better,a greater,a more talented,bat----by far(?)-----than Boycott,Edrich,Chanderpaul,Cook etc,even Kallis,Dravid,Barrington and Sutcliffe.
Finally no one is saying that one batting style is inherently better than another otherwise I'd be claiming greatness for Shahid Afridi over Sunny Gavaskar.You have mistakenly misinterpreted the basic premise of argument put forward by me and others,by erroneously putting that forward.

In the very same manner... isn't a draw, better than a loss?

Why should a player who keeps the ability to turn a drawing match into a win get any more credit than a player who keeps the ability to turn a losing match into a draw? I don't see why, A win is as much better than a draw, as a draw is better than a loss and therefore, in my opinion both should get an equal amount of credit.

The hypothetical you give of adding Clive Lloyd, Graeme Pollock or Barry Richards in the 1970/71 Illingworth's English team, then frankly speaking that's basically just saying if you add a fantastic player to the team then they will win more. Infact, I'm directly saying it's a positive to have a versatile batting line-up too, perhaps the fortunes of an unnecessary dour or unnecessary conservative lineup would be positively effected by the inclusion of batsmen of varying tempos and higher varience. I'm suggesting too much of either is a negative, I don't really believe the same 1970/71 team would be any more successful than they were if they all start batting at the same tempo as Viv Richards, well they might even lose a few games that way, they might also win a bit more, the ratio of wins and losses would remain the same regardless.

I don't see how you read my post and came to the conclusion I'm implying great strokemakers can't slow down, OBVIOUSLY they can. It's also true defensive players can pace up, Dravid, Kallis, Thorpe, Amla etc score at under 50 runs a hundred balls and they all comfortably adapt and score higher when it needs be. The conversation is about default tempo, not about their ability to adapt and work in contrary to their natural game. I already said it, the only thing valuable about scoring rates is their ability to adapt and play Cricket in ways that may not be their natural preference. To denote this, career SR is quite a garbage formula to go by, you have to introspect careers in detail to ever understand how adaptive a player's abilities are and how they can be of use. Harry Brook strikes at 85 or so, and yet I would rate the scoring tempo of Joe Root higher than Harry any day of the week, not even close, because the latter is a lot more adaptive.

DoG is, in my humblest opinion, wrong, with all due respects, to give any credence to career strike rates. Now, Viv is a different case, because first his scoring tempo was adaptive so compared to those with one dimensional scoring tempos he has an advantage, and secondly the legend of Viv Richards is not made because of scoring rate, he could score on any wicket against any bowler with no real discernible weakness, he had iconic and legendary tours to each country except India, where he played iconic knocks. He could make the best fast bowling look ordinary and so forth.

Sehwag and Cook are rated fairly close, even though the Prior's strikerate is quite literally double that of the latter. If compared, I would probably consider a hundred different things about their abilities as cricketers before ever thinking about their scoring rates, They are both equally one dimensional players in my eyes, and their scoring differences don't add anything to them as cricketers.

If you agree that no batting style is inherently better than the other, then you agree with my position of rewarding adaptability rather than career strike rate, which would suggest all of Compton, Miller, Morris, May etc were dour batsmen whose scoring rates should be held against them, which is just not a serious position in my opinion.

 

[Johan]

Would Aus have preferred a Gilly averaging 52 with an SR of 40 or 47 with his SR? Let’s be real.

In your previous post you said number five, not number seven. Number five would be Steve Waugh, who averages 50 at number five/six in a strong lineup, perfect. Is anyone picking a 45 averaging batsman batting at 100 strike rate over Steve Waugh for Australia's number five? No.

Hell, the 45 averaging batsman can be batting at 200 scoring rate and would still be a worse batsman than anyone averaging 46 and striking at 50.

 

[Johan]

Johans view of cricket is inherently defensive.

He unironically views avoiding losses as inherently more important than winning matches.

Once you understand that, you realise why he doesn't care about SR, since winning to him isnt the critical end goal it is to the rest of us, to him either you are lucky and you grind out opposition by slomo batting though most times you end up drawing and wasting the money of audiences.

I get that you're a thoroughly dishonest individual but can you please stop misconstruing my beliefs into something that are the exact opposite of my position? Did your mother forget to teach you how to hold a conversation?

 

[ataraxia]

He unironically views avoiding losses as inherently more important than winning matches.

100% true tbh. "Winning matches" doesn't apply when playing for a draw. "Avoiding losses" includes both trying to win or draw.

 

[peterhrt]

It is a generational thing. Few Tests are drawn these days unless the weather intervenes. Many finish well inside the distance. Calls are then heard for more "sensible" (defensive) batting.

Nobody in the 1960s called for more defensive batting. As John Woodcock said, when two evenly-matched teams went into a Test match their sole aim was not to lose, with the plan to secure a draw. Especially if they were one up in the series. Woodcock advocated a return to timeless matches to take the draw out of the equation. Others argued it would result in even slower play.

Batsmen took much of the blame, and often with good reason. Occupying the crease for the sake of it, with no intention of setting up the game, and declining run-chases that would be achieved with ease today. Captains were equally responsible. Many had a negative mindset, frightened of losing their job should the series be lost.

There was a serious problem. The game relied on gate receipts back then and crowds in their droves were deserting it. A prominent social historian predicted that cricket would have disappeared long before the end of the twentieth century.

 

[Jane Austen]

In the very same manner... isn't a draw, better than a loss?

Why should a player who keeps the ability to turn a drawing match into a win get any more credit than a player who keeps the ability to turn a losing match into a draw? I don't see why, A win is as much better than a draw, as a draw is better than a loss and therefore, in my opinion both should get an equal amount of credit.

The hypothetical you give of adding Clive Lloyd, Graeme Pollock or Barry Richards in the 1970/71 Illingworth's English team, then frankly speaking that's basically just saying if you add a fantastic player to the team then they will win more. Infact, I'm directly saying it's a positive to have a versatile batting line-up too, perhaps the fortunes of an unnecessary dour or unnecessary conservative lineup would be positively effected by the inclusion of batsmen of varying tempos and higher varience. I'm suggesting too much of either is a negative, I don't really believe the same 1970/71 team would be any more successful than they were if they all start batting at the same tempo as Viv Richards, well they might even lose a few games that way, they might also win a bit more, the ratio of wins and losses would remain the same regardless.

I don't see how you read my post and came to the conclusion I'm implying great strokemakers can't slow down, OBVIOUSLY they can. It's also true defensive players can pace up, Dravid, Kallis, Thorpe, Amla etc score at under 50 runs a hundred balls and they all comfortably adapt and score higher when it needs be. The conversation is about default tempo, not about their ability to adapt and work in contrary to their natural game. I already said it, the only thing valuable about scoring rates is their ability to adapt and play Cricket in ways that may not be their natural preference. To denote this, career SR is quite a garbage formula to go by, you have to introspect careers in detail to ever understand how adaptive a player's abilities are and how they can be of use. Harry Brook strikes at 85 or so, and yet I would rate the scoring tempo of Joe Root higher than Harry any day of the week, not even close, because the latter is a lot more adaptive.

DoG is, in my humblest opinion, wrong, with all due respects, to give any credence to career strike rates. Now, Viv is a different case, because first his scoring tempo was adaptive so compared to those with one dimensional scoring tempos he has an advantage, and secondly the legend of Viv Richards is not made because of scoring rate, he could score on any wicket against any bowler with no real discernible weakness, he had iconic and legendary tours to each country except India, where he played iconic knocks. He could make the best fast bowling look ordinary and so forth.

Sehwag and Cook are rated fairly close, even though the Prior's strikerate is quite literally double that of the latter. If compared, I would probably consider a hundred different things about their abilities as cricketers before ever thinking about their scoring rates, They are both equally one dimensional players in my eyes, and their scoring differences don't add anything to them as cricketers.

If you agree that no batting style is inherently better than the other, then you agree with my position of rewarding adaptability rather than career strike rate, which would suggest all of Compton, Miller, Morris, May etc were dour batsmen whose scoring rates should be held against them, which is just not a serious position in my opinion.

A gets 90 questions correct,B gets 60 questions correct,C gets 30 questions correct.One doesn't need a Philosophy degree to use this as an example that the first sentence of your post under reply has no reference to logic! I'm sorry to be so forthright but your general argument flies in the face of common sense.
Let me try another example.
Batter A averages 40 and scores at 45 rphb
Batter B averages 40 and scores at 60 rphb
They play for the same team and alternate between nos 4 and 5 in the batting order and each have played in the same fifty Tests.
On the fifth and last day of the match their team needs 340 runs in 90 overs with good,solid but not spectacular batting from the openers down to no 9.
A win will get them into The World Test Championship final.
By definition,B,the batter with the higher strike rate is the more valuable player,the batter more likely to win the game for his team and he has a higher strike rate because he has a greater range of strokes,he is a more gifted player,one who can lift his game to a height which the other batter,A,is unable to reach or,at most,can only attain,in terms of higher strike-rate,less frequently and/or against lesser opposition.And,as you have admitted,these stroke-players are able to "lower" their risk adversity to play out a draw if needed and I've submitted the likes of such as Richards,Gower,Bradman,de Villiers,Lara,Botham and others in a previous post as examples of this.
You write "too much of either is a negative" OF COURSE IT IS ---TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE OF ANYTHING IS A NEGATIVE.THAT IS A TRUISM!
As I have made clear from my previous posts,a balance of accumulators and strokemakers is what is required but the point which you seem unwilling or unable to understand and accept is that strike rate IS relevant,sometimes VERY relevent,when trying to win a match.A shrewd captain will determine what the realistic chances of winning a game,taking into account (inter alia) the batters at his disposal and if he has batters who can turn a game from a probable draw into a win so much the better---refer again please to the extraordinary wins of India v England in December 08 and England v Pakistan in October 24 courtesy of Sehwag and Brook. respectively.
I repeat that defensive,accumulative batting is part of a team process to balance the stroke makers and to allow those stroke players to have the freedom to play the match-winning innings which they are much more likely to play.Root's support for Brook whilst scoring at a goodly pace himself in that amazing victory over Pakistan in 2004 is a great example.
But you have to admit that a Boycott,a Cook or a Kallis couldn't have played the innings that Botham played at Old Trafford v Australia in 1981 yet Botham was able to adjust his game down to make a five hour 50 to save Englad v Pakistan in 1987.
Sorry Johan.Much as I enjoy debating with you I cannot see any logical reasoning to support your premise that strike-rates are IRRELEVENT!
Oh and one further point please---you quite rightly say that you don't think Illingworth's team would have won any more Tests if they had batted at the tempo of Viv Richards-indeed,if Boycott and co had attempted to bat at a Viv Richards strike-rate of 68 rphb they would likely have been bowled out for under 200 in every innings---because they did not have the range of strokes to do so.Illingwortth,great tactician that he was,adjusted his batting strategy accordingly to suit the players at his disposal.

 

[Johan]

A gets 90 questions correct,B gets 60 questions correct,C gets 30 questions correct.One doesn't need a Philosophy degree to use this as an example that the first sentence of your post under reply has no reference to logic! I'm sorry to be so forthright but your general argument flies in the face of common sense.
Let me try another example.
Batter A averages 40 and scores at 45 rphb
Batter B averages 40 and scores at 60 rphb
They play for the same team and alternate between nos 4 and 5 in the batting order and each have played in the same fifty Tests.
On the fifth and last day of the match their team needs 340 runs in 90 overs with good,solid but not spectacular batting from the openers down to no 9.
A win will get them into The World Test Championship final.
By definition,B,the batter with the higher strike rate is the more valuable player,the batter more likely to win the game for his team and he has a higher strike rate because he has a greater range of strokes,he is a more gifted player,one who can lift his game to a height which the other batter.A,is unable to reach or,at most,can only attain,in terms of higher strike-rate,less frequently and/or against lesser opposition.And,as you have admitted,these stroke-players are able to "lower" their risk adversity to play out a draw if needed and I've submitted the likes of such as Richards,Gower,Bradman,de Villiers,Lara,Botham and others in a previous post as examples of this.
You write "too much of either is a negative" OF COURSE IT IS ---TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE OF ANYTHING IS A NEGATIVE.THAT IS A TRUISM!
As I have made clear from my previous posts,a balance of accumulators and strokemakers is what is required but the point which you seem unwilling or unable to understand and accept is that strike rate IS relevant,sometimes VERY relevent,when trying to win a match.A shrewd captain will determine what the realistic chances of winning a game,taking into account (inter alia) the batters at his disposal and if he has batters who can turn a game from a probable draw into a win so much the better---refer again please to the extraordinary wins of India v England in December 08 and England v Pakistan in October 24 courtesy of Sehwag and Brook. respectively.
I repeat that defensive,accumulative batting is part of a team process to balance the stroke makers and to allow those stroke players to have the freedom to play the match-winning innings which they are much more likely to play.Root's support for Brook whilst scoring at a goodly pace himself in that amazing victory over Pakistan in 2004 is a great example.
But you have to admit that a Boycott,a Cook or a Kallis couldn't have played the innings that Botham played at Old Trafford v Australia in 1981 yet Botham was able to adjust his game down to make a five hour 50 to save Englad v Pakistan in 1987.
Sorry Johan.Much as I enjoy debating with you I cannot see any logical reasoning to support your premise that strike-rates are IRRELEVENT!
Oh and one further point please---you quite rightly say that you don't think Illingworth's team would have won any more Tests if they had batted at the tempo of Viv Richards-indeed,if Boycott and co had attempted to bat at a Viv Richards strike-rate of 68 rphb they would likely have been bowled out for under 200 in every innings---because they did not have the range of strokes to do so.Illingwortth,great tactician that he was,adjusted his batting strategy accordingly to suit the players at his disposal.

Well, There is a fine difference there. The numbers of questions answered is directly related to the reward you're getting, meanwhile in comparisons we all agree more runs are better as that's just common sense, but the conversation is equal amount of runs coming at separate amount of balls faced. One can say and would be correct that a higher scoring rate requires better strokeplay but isn't it also true doing it slower requires a higher duration of sustained concentration and a more watertight defensive technique? in your hypothetical, A is getting far more questions correct which is the objective of any examination, but when discusding scoring rates, generally we assume the discussion is on the same amount of runs rather than one scoring exponentially higher as the subject of batsmanship is scoring runs. If a batsman scores the same runs, does it even matter accross careers that one is doing that via surviving more balls rather than having an equal run/ball rate?

Now that is a scenario certainly favouring the batsman, but what if he goes wrong and by the end of the 20th over the score is 100-6, in that scenario would you not say the value transfers to a batsman who can bat the remaining 70 overs out or 250/260 of the remaining 420 balls and run away with a draw? It's always situational how fast one should bat. If a conservative batsman can't up the tempo and score in the 60s when their is need to do so for a chase that the team is going for, by all means that is a proper negative, same way if it's the final day on a difficult wicket and you need someone to fight out a draw as you're looking down on an innings defeat, you also want your aggressive batsman to be able to bat slow. I'm all for punishing the lack of adaptibility, as the names you mention of aggressive strokemakers who were able to increase their tempo to score slowly and bat deep to save games or just be tactically varying, it shows a range which is a good thing to have. There are also grafters that can play fast knocks when the team requires, such as Kallis/Dravid/Chanderpaul and I'm sure some research would bring more names.

I won't really define Root's knock at Mohali as defensive accumulation but Root and Brook is a good example of what I mean, let's add Boycott in too. They have very different scoring tempos, Boycott makes 35 runs per hundred balls, Root makes 57 runs per hundred balls, Brook makes 85 runs per hundred balls. Yet, I'm tempted to put Boycott and Brook into a similar category, neither can really play the other's game. While Root, he can play like Boycott or near Brook in pace, almost at will, That is some real range in his scoring rate and surely that deserves some credit. Shouldn't that be the value that is to be valued the most?

Well Botham's knocks are Botham's knocks, his Headingley knock is arguably a better knock than anything Viv Richards or Sachin Tendulkar ever played on the test level. Many slow batsmen have played truly fantastic knocks, It's not something rare.

We both agree on the point that both grafters and strokemakers are important for the team, so assuming there are two cricketers and both have one dimensional scoring rates, both average around 45, one strikes at 45 and one strikes at 75, is B necessarily better than the other? in my opinion not, and that's the premise where I disagree with DoG's formula because it dictates B is unequivocally better, when in my opinion both have the same range and neither gives any more value than the other, both around completely equal.

 

[subshakerz]

In your previous post you said number five, not number seven. Number five would be Steve Waugh, who averages 50 at number five/six in a strong lineup, perfect. Is anyone picking a 45 averaging batsman batting at 100 strike rate over Steve Waugh for Australia's number five? No.

Hell, the 45 averaging batsman can be batting at 200 scoring rate and would still be a worse batsman than anyone averaging 46 and striking at 50.

Why does it matter if it's 5 or 7 for SR?

 

[subshakerz]

I get that you're a thoroughly dishonest individual but can you please stop misconstruing my beliefs into something that are the exact opposite of my position? Did your mother forget to teach you how to hold a conversation?

Which part was dishonest? I think I accurately depicted your version of cricket.

You are fine with teams batting slow on Day 1 to absorb time even in batting conditions since it precludes the possibility of losing at the end of Day 5, even at the risk of losing opportunities to win.

You consider taking risks for a win not worth it if a draw is available.

The reason you think SR doesn't matter if because you are much more ok with missing winning opportunities than the rest are. Just admit it.

 

[DrWolverine]

You consider taking risks for a win not worth it if a draw is available.

Another way of putting this :
Avoid unnecessary risks.
Prefer to secure a draw than risk a loss.

 

[subshakerz]

the legend of Viv Richards is not made because of scoring rate

Sorry this is a laughable statement.

The whole point of bowlers fearing and being intimidated by Viv was that he could smack you out of the attack on any surface against any bowling. He was batting at 70SR at a time when the others.were in the 40s or 50 at most.

You think bowlers were afraid of Viv slow batting them at 30 runs a session?

Honestly once you get stuck in you just say the silliest things.

 

[subshakerz]

Another way of putting this :
Avoid unnecessary risks.
Prefer to secure a draw than risk a loss.

Exactly Johans approach. Which is why SR is irrelevant for him since there is no concept of time wasting.

 

[Prince EWS]

Only when comparing **** *****. Slow openers averaging high 20s are more valuable than fast openers doing that.

But when they're actually Test standard, no. Runs are the currency.

 

[subshakerz]

It is a generational thing. Few Tests are drawn these days unless the weather intervenes. Many finish well inside the distance. Calls are then heard for more "sensible" (defensive) batting.

Nobody in the 1960s called for more defensive batting. As John Woodcock said, when two evenly-matched teams went into a Test match their sole aim was not to lose, with the plan to secure a draw. Especially if they were one up in the series. Woodcock advocated a return to timeless matches to take the draw out of the equation. Others argued it would result in even slower play.

Batsmen took much of the blame, and often with good reason. Occupying the crease for the sake of it, with no intention of setting up the game, and declining run-chases that would be achieved with ease today. Captains were equally responsible. Many had a negative mindset, frightened of losing their job should the series be lost.

There was a serious problem. The game relied on gate receipts back then and crowds in their droves were deserting it. A prominent social historian predicted that cricket would have disappeared long before the end of the twentieth century.

Thanks Peter, excellent history as always.

Johan seems a fan of that era and mentally scarred by BazBall.

 

[subshakerz]

Only when comparing **** *****. Slow openers averaging high 20s are more valuable than fast openers doing that.

But when they're actually Test standard, no. Runs are the currency.

What if runs are the same, that is the assumption.

 

[Prince EWS]

What if runs are the same, that is the assumption.

If runs are the same and they're Test standard we're talking about equal players.

 

[subshakerz]

If runs are the same and they're Test standard we're talking about equal players.

Yes but what if one has a much faster SR.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes but what if one has a much faster SR.

Yes I think I've been pretty clear that I just don't think it matters unless the players are equally ****.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes I think I've been pretty clear that I just don't think it matters unless the players are equally ****.

It does matter on the context they play though and what the team needs.