• 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.

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

Is it worth more?

  • Total voters
    40
Coronis

Coronis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
subshakerz said:
It does matter on the context they play though and what the team needs.
Click to expand...
One may suit a specific situation more than another, yes, I don’t think that’s in question, but it evens out over a career imo. Sometimes you need someone to grind it out, sometimes you need someone to smack it around. Ideally players of both types and something in between.

If you had say, the current English batting lineup. Lets take Root out of the equation. So we’ve got an open slot at 4, who would be a more ideal player, a player who plays like Viv, or a player who plays more like a Dravid, Kallis, Border, etc.? (assuming all else is equal)

If you’ll remember that test that was brought up a little while ago where it was Barrington and Boycott pushing for the win in the changing room, take a look at the batting order in the first vs second innings. Someone unselfishly moved themselves down the order instead of potentially increasing their aggregate and average to ensure the win.
 
Line and Length

Line and Length

International Coach
kyear2 said:
Sutcliffe and Barrington were simply not rated nearly as highly as they are now, especially here. And that's because the people who watched them had insights that we just can't possibly recreate.

To pretend that scoring at abysmal rates while letting the bowling team settle into lines, fields, rotations and plans, is somehow preferred and shows greater skill is creating an alternative history.
Click to expand...
Were you around to see Barrington? I was, and he was the British Bulldog personified. In fact, one opposing player (Davidson I believe) made that very same analogy. He described him as a bulldog with a Union Jack wrapped around his shoulders striding to the crease. He both won tests and saved tests with his batting and let's not forget, he holds the record (along with Tendulkar) with the most centuries brought up with a six.
To say he wasn't as highly rated as they are now is a complete fallacy. Today's cricket followers have been too influenced by ODIs. T20 and Bazball to fully appreciate the defiant top order batsmen.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Coronis said:
One may suit a specific situation more than another, yes, I don’t think that’s in question, but it evens out over a career imo. Sometimes you need someone to grind it out, sometimes you need someone to smack it around. Ideally players of both types and something in between.

If you had say, the current English batting lineup. Lets take Root out of the equation. So we’ve got an open slot at 4, who would be a more ideal player, a player who plays like Viv, or a player who plays more like a Dravid, Kallis, Border, etc.? (assuming all else is equal)
Click to expand...
I don't think I disagree except with the idea it evens out. That is just an assumption.

But if I am constructing a lineup, I do want ideally the emphasis to be on strokemakers over grinders and accumulators. The general tilt of your lineup should be aggressive.

Ideally I would have one opener and one in the middle order who is defensive accumulator, the rest all aggressive.

This formula worked best in India 2000s, with Dravid being an anchor and the rest around him batting with more aggression.
 
Johan

Johan

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
subshakerz said:
Thanks Peter, excellent history as always.

Johan seems a fan of that era and mentally scarred by BazBall.
Click to expand...
This surely isn't serious posting? All that because I have a different perception of how Cricket should be approached and don't think 1-1 is better than 0-0? Jesus christ
 
Johan

Johan

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
subshakerz said:
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.
Click to expand...
I get that you have struggles when it comes to reading.

No, I think it's equal, a win is as much better than a draw as a loss is worse than a draw, therefore I'm very happy with a playing taking either approach and refuse to give points over it.
 
Johan

Johan

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
subshakerz said:
I just want to know which type of bat you support having a high SR.
Click to expand...
No conventional position, the discussion was 50 at SR of 40 and 45 at AR of 100, I would prefer the first in every role where 45/50 averaging batsmen usually bat.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
There is no formula to this which is why these arguments always end up going in circles (or inherent biases with the likes of salty, kyear and Johan). There is no cricket game where "all other factors" are equal. So everything is contextual. A batsman who can hit good balls for runs is definitely someone I would consider to be a better batsman than someone who can only defend such balls. But strike rate does not always tell you that. Its a function of so much more and the game itself is so much more that I feel this is one call which is far better to take based on judgement than on stats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top