The Unpopular Opinions Thread

[Bolo]

Hmm, I understand what you're saying (although your bringing averages into it is spurious). My problem with strike rate is that a bowler only has so much control over it. The rest is down to who he's bowling too. Take Davidson and Rabada. Similar averages, but Davidson was bowling in an era of predominantly defensive batsmanship so ends up with a strike rate of 62 at a very low econ, while Rabada is bowling in an era of attacking batsmanship with poor defence so ends up with a s/r of 39 and a fairly high econ. So while I agree than taking wickets quickly is all well and good (and probably helps your WpM, if you play in fewer draws) I feel it's only a partial reflection on the bowler at best and the rest is all down to the batsmen. But I see people refer to strike rates on here without considering the batting as a factor.

The averages point is spurious in general terms. 90% of the time when we discuss individual bowling stats, we are discussing exceptional players, and it is a factor. Waqar striking 40%? faster than Wasim meant fewer overs bowled by players averaging 30.

SR, like average should be era adjusted, particularly the last few years. Rabadas 40 might be worth 50 or 55 in Davidsons time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

No. It allows your bats to go at their natural pace. They can grind the opposition bowlers down if they want, which could result in more runs against tired bowlers. It keeps your bowlers fresh, which means cheaper wickets. If you are looking at SR of better bowlers, it means a lower % of overs need to be bowled by weaker bowlers with higher averages, which means getting the other team out cheaper.

SRs for bats are overated though. An opener with a lower SR is better, assuming the same average. A middle order bat with a higher SR is better, but not to the extent of credit it is given, because it doesn't have the same range of advantages that bowling SR does.

Agree with the first part, not the second. Higher strike rates for batsmen are invaluable, even if they're openers. Helps you win more games rather than draw them.

 

[Flem274*]

if you meet the test cricket entry requirements, natural talent is fairly meaningless once you're in the door and it's more about mental strength, optimising your game for the conditions and your role

aka why many current players suck away from home 101

 

[cnerd123]

if you meet the test cricket entry requirements, natural talent is fairly meaningless once you're in the door and it's more about mental strength, optimising your game for the conditions and your role

Those are natural talents too IMO.

 

[Flem274*]

steve smith wasn't born with the ability to not bat like an australian against spin bowling, he engaged his brain and adapted.

it's easy to see how adapting to foreign conditions must seem godlike when you support bangers and india tho

 

[cnerd123]

You don't think some people are born with better brains than others?

 

[Gnske]

You don't think some people are born with better brains than others?

Can I respond to this like watson would?

 

[Flem274*]

You don't think some people are born with better brains than others?

clearly, but to make it to test cricket for a non-bangladesh side you tend to have a vague idea of what you're meant to do and that you need to adapt.

many of course, are lazy and fall back on excuses like "that's the way i play"

 

[cnerd123]

That work ethic and willingness/ability/desire to adapt is a natural ability IMO. Some people are just born better at it than others. Just like how we have all these naturally talented guys without the brains to consistently succeed at International level, domestic cricket is littered with these mentally gifted players who lack the physical talent to succeed at International cricket.

And then you have New Zealand, where the played lack either of these gifts and so they need to resort to poaching South Africans rejects and Associate stars.

 

[Bolo]

Agree with the first part, not the second. Higher strike rates for batsmen are invaluable, even if they're openers. Helps you win more games rather than draw them.

Ah opener who scores 30(60) has taken the shine off the ball and it is an acceptable innings. An opener who scores 30(20) is exposing bats who are not as competent against the new ball.

Similar for the tail. 1(30) is likely a very useful innings from a number 11, because it allows better bats to score in a partnership. 1(2) will almost always be a poor innings.

In the middle (and particularly the late middle) higher SRs are usually better. Wins are better than draws. But a team may not have the strength to play for wins. And there are other advantages. A bat who faces more balls will tire an attack and make it easier for everyone else.

The best bats are the ones that can adjust their strike rates according to the situation. Generally, quicker scoring bats are more capable of doing this than slower ones. Ponting wasn't really better than Kallis in this regard because he scored faster in general. They each had merits to their style, although Pontings may have been marginally superior in general and was definitely the way to go in his own team. Ponting was better because he was more capable of adjusting his SR to fit the game.

 

[Flem274*]

work ethic and passion aren't talents ffs the former is a value and the latter is an emotion

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ah opener who scores 30(60) has taken the shine off the ball and it is an acceptable innings. An opener who scores 30(20) is exposing bats who are not as competent against the new ball.

Yeah I understood your point, just don't necessarily agree with it. Comparing 30 (60) to 30 (20) is a poor example though. How many openers with similar averages actually have Strike-rates that vary by factors of 3 lol.

A more realistic comparison would be comparing say an average of 30 (70) to 30 (55), and I'd go with the 30 (55) every time

 

[Bolo]

Yeah I understood your point, just don't necessarily agree with it. Comparing 30 (60) to 30 (20) is a poor example though. How many openers with similar averages actually have Strike-rates that vary by factors of 3 lol.

A more realistic comparison would be comparing say an average of 30 (70) to 30 (55), and I'd go with the 30 (55) every time

In your example, maybe. Both have blunted the new ball and quicker scoring is likely preferable after that point. But I would prefer an opener who faces 70 balls on average to one who faces 50 because it means less innings where they have only faced a few and not seen out the new ball.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In your example, maybe. Both have blunted the new ball and quicker scoring is likely preferable after that point. But I would prefer an opener who faces 70 balls on average to one who faces 50 because it means less innings where they have only faced a few and not seen out the new ball.

They don't always face exactly 50 or 70 balls though, it's an average. When they make a big score, the quicker scoring one does it a lot quicker, giving you more time to bowl. When they make a low score, the difference is virtually negligible. So one survives a few extra overs when they fail? Meh.

 

[Bolo]

They don't always face exactly 50 or 70 balls though, it's an average. When they make a big score, the quicker scoring one does it a lot quicker, giving you more time to bowl. When they make a low score, the difference is virtually negligible. So one survives a few extra overs when they fail? Meh.

The new ball (bowled by the fresher, premier bowlers) is often a question of survival, and runs are a consequence of survival. Those extra few overs can be the difference between having the new bat walk in to face Donald and Pollock with a moving ball vs facing Kallis with a ball that is doing nothing.

Once you cross a certain threshold of balls, you would probably want quick scoring. But it's more important to cross that threshold than to score quickly afterwards.

 

[trundler]

Yessss, my brainchild is back.

 

[trundler]

Ah opener who scores 30(60) has taken the shine off the ball and it is an acceptable innings. An opener who scores 30(20) is exposing bats who are not as competent against the new ball.

Similar for the tail. 1(30) is likely a very useful innings from a number 11, because it allows better bats to score in a partnership. 1(2) will almost always be a poor innings.

In the middle (and particularly the late middle) higher SRs are usually better. Wins are better than draws. But a team may not have the strength to play for wins. And there are other advantages. A bat who faces more balls will tire an attack and make it easier for everyone else.

The best bats are the ones that can adjust their strike rates according to the situation. Generally, quicker scoring bats are more capable of doing this than slower ones. Ponting wasn't really better than Kallis in this regard because he scored faster in general. They each had merits to their style, although Pontings may have been marginally superior in general and was definitely the way to go in his own team. Ponting was better because he was more capable of adjusting his SR to fit the game.

Old Trafford 2005 pops into mind.

 

[trundler]

Batsmen who bat long at a high SR are rarer than a good finger.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The new ball (bowled by the fresher, premier bowlers) is often a question of survival, and runs are a consequence of survival. Those extra few overs can be the difference between having the new bat walk in to face Donald and Pollock with a moving ball vs facing Kallis with a ball that is doing nothing.

Once you cross a certain threshold of balls, you would probably want quick scoring. But it's more important to cross that threshold than to score quickly afterwards.

Yes, again, I understand your point, I just don't agree that it's the more important factor. I can absolutely see the logic behind it though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Old Trafford 2005 pops into mind.

Sydney 06 tbh. Kallis plays at a SR of 50 odd in a situation where SA needed to score quickly to force a declaration. Ponting then comes out and smashes a hundred to chase it down anyway.