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]

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?

I won't respond to the rest as you said you're not interested in this conversation anymore so I'll just answer this, I started watching in the mid 1990s.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Jane, I think we don’t even need to go into specific scenarios. It’s transparently obvious that when an aggressive bat gets into the mood, it induces more mistakes in the opposition, gets bowlers off their rhythm, eases pressures off batting partners, and creates more of a net benefit than simple accumulation.

The alternative, which is grinding the opposition through crease occupation, is far more rare and far less threatening in general.

I think this is self evident but unfortunately we are in a situation where this has to be disputed.

 

[Jane Austen]

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

Oh Johan come now-the implication by subshakerz is that faster strike rates bring the greater chance of victory,which you have actually endorsed by accepting that two more Tests would be won by faster scoring-----1-1 instead of 0-0.

Subshakerz,I agree with your basic premise and you make many good points.I enjoy your debating.Could I ask that you are a little more gentle when disagreeing with another poster.I know you are passionate about putting across your point of view as strongly as possible.So am I and so is Johan who stronglyy disagrees with me on various matters.But he is invariably courteous and friendly and has never made a remark which is even tinged by any personal slur to me
Subshakerz,I hope you'll accept what I've written as a forum debating friend especially since you do seem to be drawn into slanging matches more often than the majority on this forum.

I'm really scared of incurring your wrath so I always agree with you------JOKE JOKE,ONLY JOKING!!

 

[Jane Austen]

I won't respond to the rest as you said you're not interested in this conversation anymore so I'll just answer this, I started watching in the mid 1990s.

I asked this Johan because,unlike me you,weren't subjected to two decades of almost funereal rate Test Match batting in which,despite an over-rate of at least 17-18 overs per hour,drawn five-day Tests were the norm,sometimes with only three innings played,except for the turning or seaming pitches sometimes prepared,especially in the fifties.
Very fine accumulators,McGlew,Goddard,Lawry,McDonald,Barrington,Boycott,Hanif et al ensured a run rate of 2.5 rpo or less.

And just to say that our debate was,for me anyway,fascinating.I just thought that we may have exhausted the arguments putting forward our different points of you.
No disrespect intended and I'm more than happy to carry on our discussion if you are.

 

[subshakerz]

Oh Johan come now-the implication by subshakerz is that faster strike rates bring the greater chance of victory,which you have actually endorsed by accepting that two more Tests would be won by faster scoring-----1-1 instead of 0-0.

Subshakerz,I agree with your basic premise and you make many good points.I enjoy your debating.Could I ask that you are a little more gentle when disagreeing with another poster.I know you are passionate about putting across your point of view as strongly as possible.So am I and so is Johan who stronglyy disagrees with me on various matters.But he is invariably courteous and friendly and has never made a remark which is even tinged by any personal slur to me
Subshakerz,I hope you'll accept what I've written as a forum debating friend especially since you do seem to be drawn into slanging matches more often than the majority on this forum.

I'm really scared of incurring your wrath so I always agree with you------JOKE JOKE,ONLY JOKING!!

Hi Jane.

Thanks for the feedback. I take it in full respect and appreciation.

I concede I have a brusque and blunt manner in my interactions in stating my views that can often rub certain posters the wrong way. It’s not meant to offend but it’s just the sort of vigorous debating style that I enjoy where there is some passion towards the topic.

However, in my defense, I will say I never resort to personal abuse and innuendos even when it is hurled at me, which happens often, including frequently by Johan himself as he will attest, or when I am accused of harboring some nationalistic agenda, which I don’t have.

In the spirit of sportsmanship, I will leave it to @Johan , if he requests for me to soften my approach, and be less direct and more diplomatic, I will do so. Though perhaps there may be a contingent on the site who will miss the drama.

 

[Coronis]

Is there any bat you would rate higher if his SR was higher?

I mean I’m pretty much joking about rating Crawley higher, he’d still be abysmal.

But no I don’t really think a batsman in a vacuum is better or worse depending on their strike rate.

They may suit particular teams more because of their style compared to the team’s but it doesn’t make them better or worse.

I haven’t actually looked closely into their records closely so this may not be the best example.. but I’d say Watling (42.61) and de Kock (70.93) are relatively evenly matched batsmen despite the vast disparity in strike rate.

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.

Yes it is just an assumption. Pretty much all we do here is make assumptions about hypothetical matchups.

And yes I’ve never said the ideal batting lineup is all defensive, I want a good mix.

For example look at my ATG XI. We’ve got Hobbs, Tendulkar, Sobers and Hammond, with SR’s ranging from 45-54, equally capable of hunkering down or going on the attack. You’ve got Sutcliffe, the ultimate defender at a sedate 37 who can get you out of the stickiest situations. Then you’ve got the naturally aggressive GOAT (who was also known to slow it down when necessary) at a brisk 61. Then Sutcliffe’s opposite right down at 7, Gilchrist with the runaway 82.

Lara and Smith are the other candidates for Hammond’s position in the order, with Smith similarly able to be equally capable as those others. Lara is more of a Bradman ilk, but as he showed at Beausejour also capable of saving a match by grinding one out.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean I’m pretty much joking about rating Crawley higher, he’d still be abysmal.

But no I don’t really think a batsman in a vacuum is better or worse depending on their strike rate.

They may suit particular teams more because of their style compared to the team’s but it doesn’t make them better or worse.

I haven’t actually looked closely into their records closely so this may not be the best example.. but I’d say Watling (42.61) and de Kock (70.93) are relatively evenly matched batsmen despite the vast disparity in strike rate.


Yes it is just an assumption. Pretty much all we do here is make assumptions about hypothetical matchups.

And yes I’ve never said the ideal batting lineup is all defensive, I want a good mix.

For example look at my ATG XI. We’ve got Hobbs, Tendulkar, Sobers and Hammond, with SR’s ranging from 45-54, equally capable of hunkering down or going on the attack. You’ve got Sutcliffe, the ultimate defender at a sedate 37 who can get you out of the stickiest situations. Then you’ve got the naturally aggressive GOAT (who was also known to slow it down when necessary) at a brisk 61. Then Sutcliffe’s opposite right down at 7, Gilchrist with the runaway 82.

Lara and Smith are the other candidates for Hammond’s position in the order, with Smith similarly able to be equally capable as those others. Lara is more of a Bradman ilk, but as he showed at Beausejour also capable of saving a match by grinding one out.

Yes that lineup is the mix I am talking about