DoG Top 100 Test Batsmen : How much importance should be given to strike rate?

[Abhay423]

Do you believe England have saved test cricket?

You’re essentially describing the Bazball philosophy.

Well, Bazball aren't the first team to start playing aggressively for win. And they are stubborn with their methods with reluctance to show adaptability.

I can't believe that I have to explain this. What's the point of playing sport if the goal is not to win but avoid defeat at all costs. This is defeatist mindset which serves good for no one. Jane made an excellent point the other day saying how as a spectator 60's were a very difficult watch. It's okay for modern fans to say we don't mind seeing dull boring cricket untill it actually happens. Won't be beneficial for anyone watching guys basically shake hands from ball 1.

 

[Johan]

Ideally, the perfect spot would be between the 1960s methodology and the Bazball methodology. I just think Cricketers shouldn't have points deducted for being overly rational or overly irrational.

 

[HimeshChaturvedi]

Zero weighage to strike rate makes no sense. Test cricket is longer than other formats but it's still played over a finite period of time.

 

[DrWolverine]

The goal is to avoid defeat, a team should always be okay with a draw and push for win when you can reliably not lose. Safety first

The goal of the game or for that matter any sport is to win, only when you are in a position where you realistically can't achieve that, the second best option i.e draw should be considered.

Maybe I should create a poll for this.

 

[Johan]

Maybe I should create a poll for this.

Eh pointless

 

[DrWolverine]

Zero weighage to strike rate makes no sense.

Hutton. Gavaskar. Barrington. Border. Kallis.

This team is less likely to lose and I prefer that.

 

[DrWolverine]

Eh pointless

It would an overwhelming victory for “goal is to win”. But I would love to know who else thinks like me

 

[mr_mister]

Zero weighage to strike rate makes no sense. Test cricket is longer than other formats but it's still played over a finite period of time.

Simple yet pretty irrefutable point.

 

[honestbharani]

Maybe I should create a poll for this.

Goal Comparisons subbie?

 

[Days of Grace]

Thank you for the participation, everyone! I have decided to adjust the weightings to average * 6 runs per innings * 3 and strike-rate * 1.

I will post the updated list in the countdown thread.

 

[HimeshChaturvedi]

Hutton. Gavaskar. Barrington. Border. Kallis.

This team is less likely to lose and I prefer that.

I don't know the official data but I think most top players have strike rates above 40.

 

[Coronis]

Maybe I should create a poll for this.

iirc the goal has always been to win series, not necessarily individual games, which is a big reason why teams sometimes play for draws.

 

[ataraxia]

Zero weighage to strike rate makes no sense. Test cricket is longer than other formats but it's still played over a finite period of time.

Simple yet pretty irrefutable point.

No it isn't, since unlike the other formats if you run out of time in tests you don't lose.

 

[Qlder]

No it isn't, since unlike the other formats if you run out of time in tests you don't lose.

But also you don't win

 

[Bolo.]

But also you don't win

For every team that won a test due to batting quickly enough, there is a team that lost a test due to not batting slowly enough.

 

[Jane Austen]

For every team that won a test due to batting quickly enough, there is a team that lost a test due to not batting slowly enough.

NO NO Capt-----For every team that won a Test due to batting quickly enough,there is a team that lost a Test due to not batting WELL enough.
However I think your comment is without foundation and just mere supposition which is unusual for you.
Regards as usual though Capt.

 

[kyear2]

NO NO Capt-----For every team that won a Test due to batting quickly enough,there is a team that lost a Test due to not batting WELL enough.
However I think your comment is without foundation and just mere supposition which is unusual for you.
Regards as usual though Capt.

Dear God, what is not batting slowly enough?

The refusal to acknowlege the fundamental point of the pressure that quicker scoring places on an attack and captain, is staggering.

 

[Johan]

For every team that won a test due to batting quickly enough, there is a team that lost a test due to not batting slowly enough.

Well said. Lots of games can be saved and averted if teams know how to play defensive.

 

[capt_Luffy]

NO NO Capt-----For every team that won a Test due to batting quickly enough,there is a team that lost a Test due to not batting WELL enough.
However I think your comment is without foundation and just mere supposition which is unusual for you.
Regards as usual though Capt.

To address this post:

1. That post was made by Bolo, not me. Though I happen to agree with it.

2. Like, we can also say matches aren't won for batting fast, but WELL enough. The point he made was, in practicality, many a teams won games which would have been draws by taking risks and playing attacking cricket; and an equal number of games which could be saved by taking no risks were lost for trying to break a win. A balance is needed. Well enough is a huge umbrella term. Attacking cricket is inherently risky in that regards.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Yep. My own personal model gives batsmen who played exactly 99 innings, with exactly 62 of them at number 8 quadruple points. It isn't right or wrong because there's no objective truth.

Just to say that this is indeed objectively correct and I strongly recommend that DoG incorporate it into his model (if he hasn't already).