Who would you rather have come in at No. 6 for your team with 15 overs to go?

[AndyZaltzHair]

Noone is blaming him solely for the loss. This is a macro question of run scoring maximisation and SR - not a micro question on finding the sole and only reason why Australia lost last night in particular.

But I bet Australia is grateful that he didn't score a 100 and Australia only score 250 and lose a lot earlier.

It depends on game situation. You can not ask everyone to score run a ball. Game Circumstances is the answer. End of.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There are phases in the whole innings where batsmen get bogged down for one reason or the other. Bailey's one looks bad because he got out after slowing it down. Morgan was striking at like what 70 at one stage. He accelerated and put England in a winning position later. Same goes for Taylor in the last match. He slowed down in the middle. These breaks happen. It's wrong to blame the loss on Bailey.

well obviously, but that's not the issue

Bailey has been out of form for like 2 years and even when he does score runs it's ordinary looking and time-consuming

If not for Hastings and Wade getting a few lucky ones away at the end then Aus could have made 230-240. And then Bailey's struggles would look even worse.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

It depends on game situation. You can not ask everyone to score run a ball. Game Circumstances is the answer. End of.

If that was that true, how would anyone ever select a team before a match has started for the circumstances that the players will bat in? Think about it. You're smarter than this.

And if SR's and team totals continue to go past 300 with such regularity - its not completely far fetched to think you can ask all batsman to score at 85+ and onto 100+ as you may currently think.

There is an evolution of ODI run scoring occuring at the moment. Whether Glen Maxwell gets given the credit by historians, or Corey Anderson or James Faulkner, or even AB De Villiers (and support acts like Amla and Williamson at the top of an innings averaging high at 85 SR) does not really matter. Morgan has averaged 67 runs per match with no not outs at a SR of 110 this English summer. And he was playing second fiddle to Joe Root for a lot of it.

The name of the game is not to have as many "outs" as possible going into any single match, but to play a styles that will win as many matches as possible over the long term even if there are less "outs" per match. Meaning an increased prepardness to risk being bowled out for 150-180 but to put 300+ on the board (more often than previous eras) than crawl to 200-230 and lose anyway.

ODI cricket is getting efficient. Jedi Brah calls it the Maxwell factor. NZ may call it the McCullum factor. England credit NZ for it and copied it. Personally I wish NZ could find a Faulkner. SA have Miller and Roussow bat ahead of Duminy. Its exciting and logical times for ODI cricket.

But lets face it, all those T20 cricket scores of over 200 was probably the wake up call to limited over batsmen, coaches, analysts and selectors.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

well obviously, but that's not the issue

Bailey has been out of form for like 2 years and even when he does score runs it's ordinary looking and time-consuming

If not for Hastings and Wade getting a few lucky ones away at the end then Aus could have made 230-240. And then Bailey's struggles would look even worse.

Objected to the modelling of Bailey's innings for the experiment.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

But lets face it, all those T20 cricket scores of over 200 was probably the wake up call to limited over batsmen, coaches, analysts and selectors.

T20 revolutionised the concept of run maximisation. A dot ball in a T20 is a big win for the bowler, almost as big as a wicket. This is starting to leak over into ODI cricket as well.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Correct, you can even show that higher SRs by both batsmen don't necessarily equate to faster scoring:
..4414
142424

Extreme example, but my point is that the percentage of dots per 100 balls should be included as a supplemental factor in strike rates. In the above scenario the second is better but if you just look at the raw SRs with no other context you'd probably think differently. If we're talking purely macro "run maximisation" or "efficiency" or whatever, then the optimal strategy for most players is related to how you accumulate your runs not your overall total - you should simply give the strike to whoever has the highest SR at the time.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Correct, you can even show that higher SRs by both batsmen don't necessarily equate to faster scoring:
..4414
142424

Without a reference to extras in your example, this is no demonstrated at all. You cannot have less runs scored per over with both batsman scoring at higher SR than otherwise with more runs scored in the lower SR over (without a strange scenario of extras).

Example 1 : Batsman A scored 9 runs off 5 balls for a SR of 180. Batsman B SR 400.
Example 2 : Batsman A scores 1 off 1, SR 100, Batsman B 16 off 5 balls, SR 320.

You're either purporting to switch Batsman A and B around in terms of balls faced which is sophistry or you ignore the fact that Batsman B in scenario 2 does not have a higher SR than he does in scenario 1.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Yeah, you're right. Consider this. 10 overs (60 balls) to go, two batsmen at the crease. One striking at a run a ball, one at two runs a ball. If each faces half of the remaining balls -

Player 1 30 (30)
Player 2 60 (30)

Total 90 runs.

But if Player 1 drops his strike rate to 80 in order to concentrate on feeding the strike to Player 2, who faces 40 balls instead of 30, it becomes

Player 1 16 (20)
Player 2 80 (40)

Total 96 runs.

AB de Villiers did this in the CWC semifinal against NZ. In the last overs he fed the strike to Miller, who was hitting even better than AB was. So AB didn't end up with a great SR but SA put up a great score.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Yeah, you're right. Consider this. 10 overs (60 balls) to go, two batsmen at the crease. One striking at a run a ball, one at two runs a ball. If each faces half of the remaining balls -

Player 1 30 (30)
Player 2 60 (30)

Total 90 runs.

But if Player 1 drops his strike rate to 80 in order to concentrate on feeding the strike to Player 2, who faces 40 balls instead of 30, it becomes

Player 1 16 (20)
Player 2 80 (40)

Total 96 runs.

AB de Villiers did this in the CWC semifinal against NZ. In the last overs he fed the strike to Miller, who was hitting even better than AB was. So AB didn't end up with a great SR but SA put up a great score.

No. Wrong.

You're forgetting each batsman is limited by their own skill (and dismissal per amount of balls also known as batting average).

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Without a reference to extras in your example, this is no demonstrated at all. You cannot have less runs scored per over with both batsman scoring at higher SR than otherwise with more runs scored in the lower SR over (without a strange scenario of extras).

Example 1 : Batsman A scored 9 runs off 5 balls for a SR of 180. Batsman B SR 400.
Example 2 : Batsman A scores 1 off 1, SR 100, Batsman B 16 off 5 balls, SR 320.

You're either purporting to switch Batsman A and B around which is sophistry or you ignore the fact that Batsman B in scenario 2 does not have a higher SR than he does in scenario 1.

Nope actually what I posted is right and you're desperately trying to backpedal.

No. Wrong.

You're forgetting each batsman is limited by their own skill (and dismissal per amount of balls also known as batting average).

Batting average has nothing to do with balls faced. Wait a minute, are we including skill-sets in the analysis now? I thought we were talking about pure numbers. It's almost like you're trying to shift the goalposts.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Yeah, you're right. Consider this. 10 overs (60 balls) to go, two batsmen at the crease. One striking at a run a ball, one at two runs a ball. If each faces half of the remaining balls -

Player 1 30 (30)
Player 2 60 (30)

Total 90 runs.

But if Player 1 drops his strike rate to 80 in order to concentrate on feeding the strike to Player 2, who faces 40 balls instead of 30, it becomes

Player 1 16 (20)
Player 2 80 (40)

Total 96 runs.

AB de Villiers did this in the CWC semifinal against NZ. In the last overs he fed the strike to Miller, who was hitting even better than AB was. So AB didn't end up with a great SR but SA put up a great score.

Exactly. I'm pretty sure this is the mindset of modern batting. Especially guys who don't take long to get their SR up.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Nope actually what I posted is right and you're desperately trying to backpedal.

Nope. You're wrong. As I posted. You did not increase the SR of both batsmen. Furthermore, whose on strike the next over - do we repeat the formula for each batsman? Think about it. You're smarter than this. You're quite wrong.

Batting average has nothing to do with balls faced. Wait a minute, are we including skill-sets in the analysis now? I thought we were talking about pure numbers. It's almost like you're trying to shift the goalposts.

No goal posts have been moved. You just do not understand or comprehend it. There is a limit to any batsman of their average. A SR of 150 and all out in 20 overs equals 150 runs. That would lose in the 1980s.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Nope. You're wrong. As I posted. You did not increase the SR of both batsmen..

Hahahahaha.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

You're smarter than me.

Fixed.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Hahahahaha.

You think thats funny. In Example 1 you have have a guy with SR of 400 getting one ball in 6.

You're deluded and illogical or amusing yourself with sophistry.

You think your point is proved, when you have shot yourself in the foot.

Batting average is a limit of a batsman. A batsman can face x amount of balls at his SR before being dismissed. That is his batting average. You're wrong when you say that they are distinct concepts. They are directly related.

By giving Mr Hercules batsman who has a SR of 320 or 400 - how long before he gets out on average? What is his average balls faced per innings to be?

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

 

[Daemon]

Is it really surprising that Blo CaptainGrumpy is so against players like Bevan and say, Ross Taylor?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

What's wrong with Ross Taylor?

 

[Athlai]

What's wrong with Ross Taylor?

Some think he may not be boss.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

What's wrong with Ross Taylor?

Consumed deliveries against Zimbabwe