*Official* South Africa in India

[Jono]

You're not taking runs scored as a constant. If you don't do that your argument just amounts to "scoring more runs>scoring less runs". Sehwag faces significantly less balls than Dravid does, giving his opponent more time to win the game. Keeping total runs scored as a constant, a low strike rate would have been preferable for all of South Africa's batsmen in the match just past.

So you're saying that Player A for South Africa is going to score 30 (constant). And you're arguing that 30 off 100 balls will be better than 30 off 34 balls, because it would have taken up more deliveries/time and hence helped the greater possibility of a draw.

Fair enough then. That is true. It doesn't hold much relevance though, because in reality the runs aren't constant.

When you are looking at a player to draw a match for you, you look at the average deliveries they face. Not their strike rate.

 

[Jono]

Don't know why they took Power play so early... usually results in at least wicket.... if India had more wickets in hand... It would've made more sense.
Now If Raina goes out... they are in real danger of being bowled out.

Yeah I thought it was odd as well. Don't do it 5 down.

Should have done it in the 43rd or something.

 

[Prince EWS]

Uppercut and Prince, give me a situation where a player scoring at a lower strike rate is actually better in test cricket. Not that it's not worse, give me a situation where it is better.

Again, I stress, strike rate is not the same as deliveries faced. Sehwag and other batsmen that score quickly also face a lot of deliveries. Just because they are scoring more runs off those deliveries does not mean that they are giving their team a higher chance of losing by leaving more time for the other team to win. There is the same amount of time taken up (more actually considering the boundary balls) and yet their team has no runs.

With all due respect, can't see how your argument has any merit, and IMO is just an overreaction to counter people who put too much emphasis on SR when judging a batsman. Yes its far from everything, but don't try and pretend that a good strike rate can be a negative.

In no way am I trying to say that 150 (160) is the same as 70 (160) - scoring 150 runs is always going to be better than scoring 70 runs and that'll be reflected in one's batting average. What people tend to do, though, is suggest that if two batsmen average the same and one has a higher strike with all other things considered equal, the one with the higher strike rate is the better batsman. I don't buy that, because that's not a 150 (160) v 70 (160) comparison - that's a 150 (160) v 150 (300) comparison, and I don't believe one is outright more useful than the other. The former is more useful if you end up in front in the game and the latter is more useful if you end up behind - that's a 50/50 split, really.

In no way is scoring less runs before getting out off the same number of deliveries a preferable option - ever - but that's not really the debate here. If you score the same amount of runs at a lower strike rate you're going to face more deliveries, and half the time in cricket that'll out work out better for you than facing less deliveries for the same amount of runs. Note again that this is in stark contrast to facing the same amount of deliveries and scoring less runs, then getting out.

I'm not saying that we should ignore strike rate and just look at how many balls each batsman faces or anything like that - I'm saying we should just look at how many runs they score. Whether that be quickly or slowly.

 

[Jono]

SA get a wicket every ****ing time India look like they'll get 300.

 

[Jono]

I'll never like Nehra I reckon. I'll just always want to slap his stupid face. His ****ty fielding and his crap batting annoys the **** out of me.

You better bowl well.

 

[Jono]

In no way am I trying to say that 150 (160) is the same as 70 (160) - scoring 150 runs is always going to be better than scoring 70 runs and that'll be reflected in one's batting average. What people tend to do, though, is suggest that if two batsmen average the same and one has a higher strike with all other things considered equal, the one with the higher strike rate is the better batsman. I don't buy that, because that's not a 150 (160) v 70 (160) comparison - that's a 150 (160) v 150 (300) comparison, and I don't believe one is outright more useful than the other. The former is more useful if you end up in front in the game and the latter is more useful if you end up behind - that's a 50/50 split, really.

In no way is scoring more runs before getting out off the same number of deliveries a preferable option - ever - but that's not really the debate here. If you score the same amount of runs at a lower strike rate you're going to face more deliveries, and half the time in cricket that'll out work out better for you than facing less deliveries for the same amount of runs. Note again that this is in stark contrast to facing the same amount of deliveries and scoring less runs, then getting out.

I'm not saying that we should ignore strike rate and just look at how many balls each batsman faces or anything like that - I'm saying we should just look at how many runs they score. Whether that be quickly or slowly.

Yeah I agree. But as I said above, you may as well just analyse average deliveries faced.

 

[Jono]

Ummm, was that really Nehra that hit that 6? I had to look twice!

 

[TT Boy]

Wow, that six came out of nowhere.

 

[TT Boy]

Kallis in for a big fine or a ban. South Africa taken four hours to get through 50 overs.

 

[Uppercut]

So you're saying that Player A for South Africa is going to score 30 (constant). And you're arguing that 30 off 100 balls will be better than 30 off 34 balls, because it would have taken up more deliveries/time and hence helped the greater possibility of a draw.

Fair enough then. That is true. It doesn't hold much relevance though, because in reality the runs aren't constant.

When you are looking at a player to draw a match for you, you look at the average deliveries they face. Not their strike rate.

Haha in reality nothing's constant! That's why we control for it.

The point we're making is that of two batsmen averaging 50 (e.g. Dravid and Sehwag), the one with the lower strike rate will inevitably use up more deliveries. Which could be good or bad for either team. There are arguments about the demoralising effect on the opposition, but it's difficult to quantify against, say, wearing bowlers down. It's very opponent specific.

There's an argument that fields become more defensive for the batsman at the other end, hence making things easier. Well... maybe. There's no particular reason why they would, but the captain might decide to anyway. In any case, Dravid's ridiculously good record in partnerships renders that idea worthless in his specific case at least. He's statistically one of the best batsman to bat in a partnership with of all time.

 

[TT Boy]

Anyhow, congrats to Jacques Kallis on becoming only the second cricketer to score over 10,000 ODI runs and take over 250 ODI wickets.

 

[Jono]

hahahah it hit off stump and the bails didn't come off. 4 byes!

 

[TT Boy]

Wtf?

 

[Jono]

Haha in reality nothing's constant! That's why we control for it.

The point we're making is that of two batsmen averaging 50 (e.g. Dravid and Sehwag), the one with the lower strike rate will inevitably use up more deliveries. Which could be good or bad for either team. There are arguments about the demoralising effect on the opposition, but it's difficult to quantify against, say, wearing bowlers down. It's very opponent specific.

There's an argument that fields become more defensive for the batsman at the other end, hence making things easier. Well... maybe. There's no particular reason why they would, but the captain might decide to anyway. In any case, Dravid's ridiculously good record in partnerships renders that idea worthless in his specific case at least. He's statistically one of the best batsman to bat in a partnership with of all time.

Yeah don't disagree with any of that.

 

[TT Boy]

Not a bad effort from South Africa, probably won't get nowhere near it but at one stage 350 was on. Albie and Botha causing a real headache to the selectors.

 

[Jono]

Do you really think they'll get nowhere near it, or are you just being pessimistic TT?

I have a worrying feeling that iether Gibbs or Bossman will cut loose.

 

[TT Boy]

If Bosman is still there after 15 overs, then they will walk home but he and Gibbs are so unpredictable and Kumar is the type of bowler who will trouble both of them.

 

[TT Boy]

Kumar swinging it both ways. Gibbs clueless.

 

[Jono]

Man that was out I reckon. Not given

 

[TT Boy]

The Kumar LBW shout against Gibbs was out but I don't think Gibbs hit the Nehra ball. He is looking terrible though.