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

[Johan]

You are part of the trio whether you like it or not.

The new Ikki - Richard - TEC

Please just call me a slur instead

 

[Jane Austen]

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

Dr---by definition "avoid UNNECESSARY risks" is a truism.It's the ideal which,if obtained,would mean that the Chris Martins of this world would all have batting averages of 99.94!
If you are trying to say that,as with the thought processes of the majority of captains in the 1950s--1970s,you prefer to make sure that the first priority is a draw,the consequences of which were an extraordinary number of slow-go bore draws,then so be it.
I think that many prefer batting strike rates of 3.7 runs an over rather than the 2.3 rpo crawl which was served up regularly in the 50s and 60s.As I say however if the latter is your choice try and watch a video of England v Australia,Headingley 1964 and ignore the philosophy of the two captains of one of the greatest of series,a few years before---- Australia v West Indies 1960/61,when Messrs Benaud and Worrell avowed to go for the win even at the risk of a loss,with the draw the last resort.

 

[subshakerz]

12 (96) in the second dig. Are you conceding Sachin batted selfishly and wasted time on a flat day one pitch?

Its not criminally slow tho. He seemed to be acting like an anchor for the other bats around him.

 

[Johan]

Its not criminally slow tho. He seemed to be acting like an anchor for the other bats around him.

lol, massive cope. if him and Sachin batted faster, India would have 15-20 more overs to bowl England out.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

So to clarify there is no position in which you would prefer a higher SR bat?

 

[subshakerz]

lol, massive cope. if him and Sachin batted faster, India would have 15-20 more overs to bowl England out.

You are complaining about India who batted at nearly 4 a over?

 

[Johan]

So to clarify there is no position in which you would prefer a higher SR bat?

With the cost of a lower average? No, never.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

The difference between us is you are much more accommodating of draws and thus don't have the same urgency that others do to ensure a positive match result.

 

[Johan]

You are complaining about India who batted at nearly 4 a over?

I'm complaning about players who batted at 40 SR on day one and then another who made 12 of 96 when the team needed quick runs for declaration which cost the team a potential win.

 

[subshakerz]

With the cost of a lower average? No, never.

That's being too inflexible.

 

[Johan]

That's being too inflexible.

are you picking a 45 averaging opener who strikes at 40 over a 50 averaging one who strikes at 100?

 

[subshakerz]

I'm complaning about players who batted at 40 SR on day one and then another who made 12 of 96 when the team needed quick runs for declaration which cost the team a potential win.

I am guessing India wanted to draw that test because they were leading in the series. Otherwise yeah it's blameworthy.

 

[subshakerz]

are you picking a 45 averaging opener who strikes at 40 over a 50 averaging one who strikes at 100?

No, not an opener. And that's too big an average difference. But I would pick a high SR 47 average no.7 over a 52 averaging one in a good batting lineup.

 

[Johan]

No, not an opener. And that's too big an average difference. But I would pick a high SR 47 average no.7 over a 52 averaging one in a good batting lineup.

No, I'm asking you is there any scenario where you'd take a lower scoring rate player even if he averages less.

 

[subshakerz]

No, I'm asking you is there any scenario where you'd take a lower scoring rate player even if he averages less.

Maybe for one opener if the difference isn't too high.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm complaning about players who batted at 40 SR on day one and then another who made 12 of 96 when the team needed quick runs for declaration which cost the team a potential win.

One player batting at 40 in a lineup where everyone is batting briskly. Hardly a big deal.

And you missed my point, India wasn't chasing a win.

 

[Johan]

One player batting at 40 in a lineup where everyone is batting briskly. Hardly a big deal.

And you missed my point, India wasn't chasing a win.

Yup, almost like team intention justifies batting tempos.

 

[subshakerz]

Yup, almost like team intention justifies batting tempos.

Um yeah, and almost like defying team intention is selfish.

 

[Jane Austen]

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.

The "questions answered" analogy was to stress that the win is better than the draw and,consequently,the player more capable of attaining that win is the more desirable player,all other things being equal.Consequently strike rate is very relevant.

Of course slow accumulation of runs can bring a win and,again,I cite The Ashes win in 1970/71.
But the faster the scoring rate,by all logical definition,the more chance of winning a match that would otherwise subside into a draw because the scoring rate was not quick enough.A consideration of Test matches through the last 149 years is prima facie evidence.
Johan--I delight in our debates but I don't think I have the capacity to take the discussion any further.

I agree that the grafters bring different skills to the game---mental skills of concentration and the awareness of playing strictly within the limit of ones capability.Such skills can be acquired.
On the other hand the great strokemakers,the matchwinners,have an innate talent,given to few,to "see" the pitch,speed line and length and thereafter,move their hands and feet accordingly more quickly than mere mortals.Practice can obviously improve these skills but only to a certain level which.
Johan---I think we are ad idem on quite a few aspects.
Joe Root---Going back to Peter May in his pomp,Root is the finest,the greatest,England batter I have seen,and,yes,he is the all-round batter par excellance.Is it fanciful to compare him to Jack Hobbs in this regard?
And a batting combination is not just a matter of taking the top five players in the season average and telling them to go out to bat.
Brook and Peitersen but also Barrington and Boycott--if you have them!
And some of the very greatest innings in Tests have been slow,backs-to-the-wall innings.185* by the,in my opinion,underrated Mike Atherton v South Africa in 95/96 is one example.What a monument of concentration,defensive technique and bloody-minded commitment.
Its not a matter of grafters v strokemakers.They are not mutually exclusive.
You happen to disagree with the formula of Days of Grace.I am of the view that weight should be given to strike rate because,going back to the basics,the faster the scoring rate the better the chance to win a game--consequently,the strike rate of a player is a consideration,one of many however,when evaluating the meritocracy of a batter.The ability to graft,to grind,to accumulate are,of course,other skills to be considered in that evaluation and are,in effect,more catered for in a player's average.
But your contention that strike rate is irrelevant! Sorry Johan you and I won't agree on this fundamental point.

My regards to you as always Johan.

PS May I ask you Johan,but please don't answer if you have any objection,when did you first start watching first-class and Test cricket seriously?

 

[Jane Austen]

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.

I was around to watch Ken Barrington from the beginning of his career.I admired him as the ultimate accumulator (as well a a great human being) so much so that I wrote a published essay in homage of him.
BUT you have missed the point about Barrinton and his ilk.
Of course his big scores helped to win Tests but that was because the amount of runs in relation to the time left didn't need a fast scoring-rate!! The relevance of strike rate is when the time factor requires runs to be scored at a particular rate,or when the scoring rate throughout the match of the team pressing for a win was fast enough from the beginning of the game to allow that team sufficient time to take twenty wickets! Then again a Richards-either one-or a Sehwag can so demolish an attack that it is subsequently easy pickings for the rest of the batters.
And,one more point.How many teams who are in danger of maybe losing a match if the opposition declares are,in fact,saved because the opposition,frightened by a Richards or Sehwag performing at their peak,delay that declaration too long,thereby forfeiting the chance of a win through lack of time.
By the way,it was Wally Grout,not Alan Davidson,who,having stood behind the stumps whilst Barrington ground out another marathon innings made the reference to having to stare at the Union Jack draped around Barrington's back for hour after hour. 256 at Headingley in 64 perhaps?