Hayden the best bat since this century?

[LongHopCassidy]

I disagree entirely.

Why? In terms of rating a batsman's usefulness, SR is the next logical step after average - even at Test level. The only case I can see for the defensive batsman is that you somehow believe that he'd be better company on a bad wicket, and thus averting defeat - of which there has no guarantee. In terms of facilitating the objective of any non-minnow team going into a Test match, the batsman who allows the bowlers more time to bowl the oppo out is far more valuable to a team.

It really isn't, though. It requires just as much skill to not get out - as long as you are scoring the same amount of runs, the skill level required is equal. The above sort of thinking is what ODIs have done to people.

Jason Gillespie has shown how easy it is to concentrate on retaining your wicket with scoring runs being a bonus. THat's the salient case in an upward trend of tailender standards - who were, as batsmen, endowed with as much skill as any tailender going before them.

 

[Prince EWS]

If you have 2 batsmen slogging 75s each with a strike-rate of 150, then yes, I'd still go for the faster duo. Still a partnership, still lasts a while and is very damaging.

Well, that's where we differ I guess.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Dominating isn't just scoring quickly. You take most of the strike, you control the tempo of the game. You hit good balls for four with cricket shots. You don't allow the batsman down the other end to get bogged down, or for the opposition to keep you off strike. That's what a dominating batsman is.

 

[Prince EWS]

In terms of facilitating the objective of any non-minnow team going into a Test match, the batsman who allows the bowlers more time to bowl the oppo out is far more valuable to a team.

Not if you end up being the poorer team in the match. Then you just give the opposition bowlers more time to bowl you out in the second dig!

 

[Prince EWS]

Jason Gillespie has shown how easy it is to concentrate on retaining your wicket with scoring runs being a bonus. THat's the salient case in an upward trend of tailender standards - who were, as batsmen, endowed with as much skill as any tailender going before them.

Jason Gillespie is simply a lot more skilled than people give him credit for.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I don't believe you should ever go for one from the outset. But that doesn't mean you don't end up going for them once the second innings rolls around.

Most batsmen have strike rates that range between 45 and 65 these days. It really isn't a great deal of difference either way when you take into account all the positives and negatives of scoring either quickly or slowly - and they'd be much less exaggerated given we've spoken in absolute extremes most of the time. I'd rather a batsman averaging 56 and striking at 45 than one averaging 53 and striking at 65 - the pros and cons of different scoring rates and the small difference leads me to just completely ignore it. Unless of course it is ridiculously fast or ridiculously slow - both can cause problems. I'm not talking about the difference between Ponting and Kallis here - I'm more talking Afridi-Hoggard proportions.

The difference becomes more pronounced when a bigger score is made - for instance, 150 off 180 (typical Ponting) or 150 off 375 (typical Kallis). When the difference here is potentially 195 balls - just under 33 overs - that's an entire session. When you consider that matches have been decided in final overs and even final balls, there's no telling how much difference this could have made to the match outcome, especially if Kallis' team drew and Ponting's won in the last over.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Jason Gillespie is simply a lot more skilled than people give him credit for.

Mentally, yes. His lack of ego in pursuing runs and meeting the team objective is unsurpassed. But that's no reflection on his quality of batsmanship.

 

[vic_orthdox]

A 150 partnership at a SR of 30 would be really demoralising IMO - the amount of time elapsed with the bowlers not taking any wickets would leave them more shattered than any quick 70 could ever do - or even a 150 partnership off 150 balls. The latter would rock the team slightly but it wouldn't grind them down into a complete sense of uselessness like the former would.

So you've taken up 500 balls and yet the opposition are still in the game if they take two more quick wickets!

The problem with batting slowly is that you keep the opposition in the game, they know that they can turn it around completely within 15 minutes.

The other thing about scoring quickly is that in some ways, it reduces the margin for error. You can only bat so long without getting out, and if you can score runs without much risk at a brisk rate, then you won't find your side being dug into a hole.

 

[Ikki]

I don't believe you should ever go for one from the outset. But that doesn't mean you don't end up going for them once the second innings rolls around.

Most batsmen have strike rates that range between 45 and 65 these days. It really isn't a great deal of difference either way when you take into account all the positives and negatives of scoring either quickly or slowly - and they'd be much less exaggerated given we've spoken in absolute extremes most of the time. I'd rather a batsman averaging 56 and striking at 45 than one averaging 53 and striking at 65 - the pros and cons of different scoring rates and the small difference leads me to just completely ignore it. Unless of course it is ridiculously fast or ridiculously slow - both can cause problems. I'm not talking about the difference between Ponting and Kallis here - I'm more talking Afridi-Hoggard proportions.

Yes, but if a player is doing what you're saying in the first innings, then no doubt they'd go for the draw. They're cornering themselves into it. But if you want to actually win, then you need to score lots and doing it quicker will give a chance for your other batsmen to take their time.

But true, the difference between a Ponting and a Kallis is quite different here. Although this is off-topic, it's the reason I rate Gilchrist as a batsman so highly. His SR IS very pronounced and maybe his name should also be mentioned in this elite group.

He is in reality only 200 runs off from having his average back in the 50s, and for most of his career was that high. Pretty amazing feat as well for a lower order batsman.

 

[Prince EWS]

The difference becomes more pronounced when a bigger score is made - for instance, 150 off 180 (typical Ponting) or 150 off 375 (typical Kallis). When the difference here is potentially 195 balls - just under 33 overs - that's an entire session. When you consider that matches have been decided in final overs and even final balls, there's no telling how much difference this could have made to the match outcome, especially if Kallis' team drew and Ponting's won in the last over.

Or if Kallis's team drew and Ponting's lost in the last over. See what I'm getting at?

 

[Matt79]

Hayden is right up there for me, but Ponting, Dravid and Kallis are ahead of him. Easily the best opener of this century so far though.

And after this tour of India, I reckon he's now moved ahead of Mark Waugh as Australia's best ODI opener.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Not if you end up being the poorer team in the match. Then you just give the opposition bowlers more time to bowl you out in the second dig!

Yeah, but that's under the assumption that positive play will have had no effect on the opposition.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Or if Kallis's team drew and Ponting's lost in the last over. See what I'm getting at?

Just get your English passport already.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Or if Kallis's team drew and Ponting's lost in the last over. See what I'm getting at?

If you lose after a batsman scores 150, then clearly pacing of innings is not your biggest problem as a team.

 

[JBMAC]

Hayden is right up there for me, but Ponting, Dravid and Kallis are ahead of him. Easily the best opener of this century so far though.

And after this tour of India, I reckon he's now moved ahead of Mark Waugh as Australia's best ODI opener.

Hayden is good in all forms of the game but to say he is the best is a little bit of heroworship..theres a coupla blokes with the names of Greenidge and Haynes might disagree with you

 

[Ikki]

Or if Kallis's team drew and Ponting's lost in the last over. See what I'm getting at?

Oh, but here is the difference, and finally my mind has clicked - I am a bit tired. If the players are scoring the same amount of runs, then it is also natural to include them not getting out.

You can only tie if you don't get out when scoring that low. If we're holding the same standards, the batsman that is dominating and not getting out is not only still holding on for a draw, but pushing for a win.

 

[Ikki]

Hayden is good in all forms of the game but to say he is the best is a little bit of heroworship..theres a coupla blokes with the names of Greenidge and Haynes might disagree with you

They batted in this century?

 

[Prince EWS]

If we're holding the same standards, the batsman that is dominating and not getting out is not only still holding on for a draw, but pushing for a win.

I don't quite get your point. A player that scores the same amount of runs - quicker - is going to be a worse player to have in a drawn effort. Someone who scores 150 (320) can still contribute to a win a lot of times as well.

 

[Matt79]

Hayden is good in all forms of the game but to say he is the best is a little bit of heroworship..theres a coupla blokes with the names of Greenidge and Haynes might disagree with you

Yeah, do you remember a rather big party on 31 December 1999?

 

[Ikki]

I don't quite get your point. A player that scores the same amount of runs - quicker - is going to be a worse player to have in a drawn effort. Someone who scores 150 (320) can still contribute to a win a lot of times as well.

But one with 150 (150) even moreso.