Is defensive cricket better?

[Johan]

There are some here who thing scoring more runs per wickets and conceding less runs per wicket is better regardless of scoring rates.

You have such an aggression bias that you see not preferring aggressive cricket as actually preferring defensive cricket, where it's just neutral.

I think this sums it all up tbh

 

[Coronis]

I think this sums it all up tbh

I mean I posted something similar earlier and conveniently subz didn’t respond to either post. Just happy to push this narrative.

 

[DrWolverine]

 

[andruid]

View attachment 55429

I wonder how the percentages for games going to day 5 ending in draws have evolved over the decades.

 

[Abhay423]

Lay the draw!

 

[DrWolverine]

Not sure about Day 5.

This is the overall result

 

[Coronis]

Yeah don’t think there’d be a filter for that. Clearly the 20’s, 50’s and 90’s must’ve been the best times for cricket. Around 1/3 draw rate sounds right to me, for an average team you’d be 33/33/33. Interesting that the 60’s are complained about yet the 80’s have a higher draw percentage.

 

[ankitj]

I love aggressive cricket. Like Dravid agressive.

"All this going around is not agression. If you want to see agression look into Rahul Dravid's eyes" – Matthew Hayden.

 

[Jane Austen]

Yeah don’t think there’d be a filter for that. Clearly the 20’s, 50’s and 90’s must’ve been the best times for cricket. Around 1/3 draw rate sounds right to me, for an average team you’d be 33/33/33. Interesting that the 60’s are complained about yet the 80’s have a higher draw percentage.

1960s music was amazing from Presley to Pink Floyd,there was Twiggy,Warhol,Kubrick,Ligeti.Sport gave us the phenomenal Sonny Liston and Jimmy Greaves.But,believe me Coronis,cricket was neither pretty nor exciting to watch at first-class or Test level during the sixties.The West Indies and also South Africa post 63 were exceptions but cricket,certainly in England,was dominated by skilful and accurate medium pace seamers and off-spin.Indeed,for the 1962/63 Ashes Tour England chose three,yes THREE,off-spinners,David Allen,Ray Illingworth and Fred Titmus! And England’s openers during the sixties----other than the occasional brilliance of Barber and Milburn most of the others were penny-plain---Pullar,Subba Row,Richardson,Russell,a stylist but a slow one,Bolus,Edrich,Boycott,Prideaux,----all very competent and in the cases of Boycott and,to a lesser extent Edrich,great batters,but,oh,they could be dreary.No Coronis,with average strike rates at about 2.3 per over,it wasn't even interesting at times.
At least in The County Championship after two days of yawn cricket,there would be a declaration and sometimes an exciting run-chase.Indeed,Hampshire won its very first title on the back of cunningly negotiated declarations by their horse-racing aficionado and dashing amateur ACD Ingleby-McKenzie.

I reference @Burgey's recent post because of his judgement on various players he had watched although I differ from him on some of his player evaluations.
Some players' have had attracted wildly differing opinions recently on this thread and quite a lot of it is statistic-led.Fair enough so far as that goes but I take a different view based on what I have seen.
Viv Richards----a Test average of just 50.Very good but not statistically awe-inspiring.Actually watching him bat however,he was the most awesome batter I have ever seen.
Leaving aside the slow swagger to the wicket the cold stare and menacing gum-chewing,he would usually start by using his extraordinary uber-talent to score boundaries from respectable deliveries which the merely very good batter would be happy to defend.Two of his favourite strokes would be the cover drive on-the-up to a good length ball on fourth stump and the famous step forward to a good length ball on off-stump which he would crack to wide mid-on with a STRAIGHT BAT---amazing.As the field was pushed back he picked off fours and the occasional six and casually sauntered easy singles.His strike-rate was the fastest of his time amongst regular batters.His role was to give his bowlers as much time as possible to take twenty wickets---HIS role because it was he who had that extra panache,power and virtuosity to do this.The other batters backed him up with solid runs.
He was exceptional.Of all the batters I've SEEN only Sobers,Pollock,Barry Richards,Lara and Tendulkar are in the same tier--the top tier.
Joe Root is the finest English batter I've seen.
For me he is a Root for all seasons,a kind of modern Jack Hobbs.A lovely,easy technique and style--ok he's in a bad patch but the old cliché--form is temporary,class is permanent---applies here.Steve Smith,a phenomenon both in technique and run-getting,has the advantage over Joe in that he has usually batted in a stronger line-up and hasn't had to face the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.I put Root and Smith along with Greg Chappell,Gavaskar,Javed Miandad Ponting,Kallis,AB de Villiers and maybe a few others,in the next tier to Sobers and co.
Bumrah is astonishing.His statistics,especially the all-important wicket strike-rate,are exceptional.Questions are raised over durability and longevity and are credible considerations to be taken into account.However for me they don’t take precedence over his actual career now.
If I'm considering the greatest and best fast bowlers I've seen,Marshall and then Lillee,closely pursued by Hadlee,McGrath,Garner,
Ambrose,Donald,Steyn,Imran Khan,Trueman Snow,Anderson,Wasim Akram,Waqar Younis plus Çummins,Rabada and especially Bumrah.

 

[Coronis]

1960s music was amazing from Presley to Pink Floyd,there was Twiggy,Warhol,Kubrick,Ligeti.Sport gave us the phenomenal Sonny Liston and Jimmy Greaves.But,believe me Coronis,cricket was neither pretty nor exciting to watch at first-class or Test level during the sixties.The West Indies and also South Africa post 63 were exceptions but cricket,certainly in England,was dominated by skilful and accurate medium pace seamers and off-spin.Indeed,for the 1962/63 Ashes Tour England chose three,yes THREE,off-spinners,David Allen,Ray Illingworth and Fred Titmus! And England’s openers during the sixties----other than the occasional brilliance of Barber and Milburn most of the others were penny-plain---Pullar,Subba Row,Richardson,Russell,a stylist but a slow one,Bolus,Edrich,Boycott,Prideaux,----all very competent and in the cases of Boycott and,to a lesser extent Edrich,great batters,but,oh,they could be dreary.No Coronis,with average strike rates at about 2.3 per over,it wasn't even interesting at times.
At least in The County Championship after two days of yawn cricket,there would be a declaration and sometimes an exciting run-chase.Indeed,Hampshire won its very first title on the back of cunningly negotiated declarations by their horse-racing aficionado and dashing amateur ACD Ingleby-McKenzie.

I reference @Burgey's recent post because of his judgement on various players he had watched although I differ from him on some of his player evaluations.
Some players' have had attracted wildly differing opinions recently on this thread and quite a lot of it is statistic-led.Fair enough so far as that goes but I take a different view based on what I have seen.
Viv Richards----a Test average of just 50.Very good but not statistically awe-inspiring.Actually watching him bat however,he was the most awesome batter I have ever seen.
Leaving aside the slow swagger to the wicket the cold stare and menacing gum-chewing,he would usually start by using his extraordinary uber-talent to score boundaries from respectable deliveries which the merely very good batter would be happy to defend.Two of his favourite strokes would be the cover drive on-the-up to a good length ball on fourth stump and the famous step forward to a good length ball on off-stump which he would crack to wide mid-on with a STRAIGHT BAT---amazing.As the field was pushed back he picked off fours and the occasional six and casually sauntered easy singles.His strike-rate was the fastest of his time amongst regular batters.His role was to give his bowlers as much time as possible to take twenty wickets---HIS role because it was he who had that extra panache,power and virtuosity to do this.The other batters backed him up with solid runs.
He was exceptional.Of all the batters I've SEEN only Sobers,Pollock,Barry Richards,Lara and Tendulkar are in the same tier--the top tier.
Joe Root is the finest English batter I've seen.
For me he is a Root for all seasons,a kind of modern Jack Hobbs.A lovely,easy technique and style--ok he's in a bad patch but the old cliché--form is temporary,class is permanent---applies here.Steve Smith,a phenomenon both in technique and run-getting,has the advantage over Joe in that he has usually batted in a stronger line-up and hasn't had to face the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.I put Root and Smith along with Greg Chappell,Gavaskar,Javed Miandad Ponting,Kallis,AB de Villiers and maybe a few others,in the next tier to Sobers and co.
Bumrah is astonishing.His statistics,especially the all-important wicket strike-rate,are exceptional.Questions are raised over durability and longevity and are credible considerations to be taken into account.However for me they don’t take precedence over his actual career now.
If I'm considering the greatest and best fast bowlers I've seen,Marshall and then Lillee,closely pursued by Hadlee,McGrath,Garner,
Ambrose,Donald,Steyn,Imran Khan,Trueman Snow,Anderson,Wasim Akram,Waqar Younis plus Çummins,Rabada and especially Bumrah.

Well actually the RPO rate for the 60’s was 2.49 bout the same gap to the 80’s as the 80’s has to the 00’s.

 

[Starfighter]

Yeah don’t think there’d be a filter for that. Clearly the 20’s, 50’s and 90’s must’ve been the best times for cricket. Around 1/3 draw rate sounds right to me, for an average team you’d be 33/33/33. Interesting that the 60’s are complained about yet the 80’s have a higher draw percentage.

A lot of twenties draws were due to three day games on pitches that had become too batting friendly for matches that length. A disproportionate amount of the eighties draws were in India and Pakistan where pitches tended to be very flat.

 

[shortpitched713]

Not sure about Day 5.

This is the overall result

View attachment 55430

2000s and 2010s Test cricket has been the best "balanced" of our lifetime, clearly.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah don’t think there’d be a filter for that. Clearly the 20’s, 50’s and 90’s must’ve been the best times for cricket. Around 1/3 draw rate sounds right to me, for an average team you’d be 33/33/33. Interesting that the 60’s are complained about yet the 80’s have a higher draw percentage.

Actually, I think the ideal isn't 1/3 draw rate. The 2000s and 2010s showed that you could have a very, very high percentage of 5 day Tests, while also have a result rate of over 75%.

Whatever complaints we had at the time, we have to accept that is what ideal Test cricket, competitiveness, and pitch curation looks like.

 

[subshakerz]

.
If I'm considering the greatest and best fast bowlers I've seen,Marshall and then Lillee,closely pursued by Hadlee,McGrath,Garner,
Ambrose,Donald,Steyn,Imran Khan,Trueman Snow,Anderson,Wasim Akram,Waqar Younis plus Çummins,Rabada and especially Bumrah.

Is that in order aside from Bumrah?

 

[Jane Austen]

Is that in order aside from Bumrah?

No.For me there are so many bowlers named and,yet,so very little to choose between them all,that it would use up all my few remaining brain cells trying to put them into an ordered list. .On a different thread there is a fascinating debate raging about whom is the greater bowler,Lillee or Hadlee.
Both are ATG tier of course.
Now I put Lillee JUST ABOUT ahead but haven't really entered the debate because,if cross-examined,especially by one of you statistical whizz kids,I wouldn't be able to give any convincing answer as to why I would choose Lillee.
It's like being asked whether I prefer Elvis (1956-62) or Dylan (1964-1970) I can't.Most of the music from both during the respective periods have an extraordinary appeal,both through the ear and emotionally (any intellectual or analytical approach to any music has no input so far as the appeal per se,whether it be Wagner's 15 hour Ring Cycle or three minutes of bliss listening to Teenager In Love by Dion or Wonderful World by Sam Cooke).

Mind you,I will defend the unique genius of Trumper to the bitter end!!

 

[Coronis]

Whatever complaints we had at the time, we have to accept that is what ideal Test cricket, competitiveness, and pitch curation looks like.

Why exactly?

 

[shortpitched713]

Why exactly?

Kind of tongue in cheek. But also kind of real.

Most people would prefer there to be "just enough" time for a result more often than not, as opposed to "almost but not quite enough" time, as long as both are 5 day Tests.

33/33/33 seems nice in theory, but there would be quite a few more bore draws than suit most peoples' tastes. In 2000's and 2010's you're getting just about the best of both worlds, with a big majority of Tests getting to 5 days, but also having a result.

 

[thierry henry]

Cricket is supposed to be, to steal concepts from baseball (a terrible sport), the fielding team playing "offence" and the batting team playing "defence". The fundamental nature of the game being reversed in baseball is why baseball sucks and also why a decent chunk of modern cricket sucks.

Cricket is not a good or interesting sport when score runs/stop runs is the main dynamic, as opposed to take wickets/stop wickets. Aggressive batting disregarding the primary objective of "don't get out" is a fun subplot or mini-game but ruins the sport when it becomes the main thing.

 

[Starfighter]

Cricket is supposed to be, to steal concepts from baseball (a terrible sport), the fielding team playing "offence" and the batting team playing "defence". The fundamental nature of the game being reversed in baseball is why baseball sucks and also why a decent chunk of modern cricket sucks.

Cricket is not a good or interesting sport when score runs/stop runs is the main dynamic, as opposed to take wickets/stop wickets. Aggressive batting disregarding the primary objective of "don't get out" is a fun subplot or mini-game but ruins the sport when it becomes the main thing.

What? Whenever these concepts come up it's always the fielding side is defending (like when we talk about defending a total).

 

[thierry henry]

What?

You heard me pal