What is the optimal batting strike rate in test cricket?

[venkyrenga]

For a given batting average, what do you think is the optimal SR? Do you guys think the higher the better? Because we definitely can't ignore the ability of a batsman to face more deliveries per innings as it has its own benefits like seeing off a new ball, forming more partnerships, avoiding a loss, etc.

If we had two batsmen with an avg. of 50 but one with an SR of 65 and the other 90 who would you say is more valuable to the team?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

600 obviously

 

[bagapath]

Superb question.

Super stroke makers like Sehwag, Adam Gilchrist and Viv Richards maintained very high SR throughout their long careers and also met the gold standard of 50+ batting average. But they were outliers for sure. Other rapid fire batsmen like Kapi Dev tended to average under 40, making their contributions exciting and but valuable only in a limited capacity.

On the other hand most great batsmen who got the top billing - like Greg Chappell, Tendulkar, Sangakara, Ponting and Lara - had career SR between 50 and 60. ABDV, too, falls within this bracket.

For the specific anchor roles they played, Gavaskar, Kallis, Dravid, S Waugh and Border batted slower than the spearheads and maintained mid 40 SRs.

So, to answer your question I would assume that depending on the role one plays within the team composition, the heavy scorers are expected to maintain a 3+ run rate and the attacking batsmen can go for 4.5 runs/ over. The anchors score their runs usually at 2.5 runs/ over.

For a successful test team all three categories have to be in the right balance in the top 6.

 

[Flem274*]

depends on your environment as well. england, south africa and new zealand are unlikely to produce swashbuckling openers with 50+ or even 45+ averages relative to other sides because their home conditions don't allow it. on the flipside asia and australia often rewards aggressive openers because the new ball comes onto the bat well and errant bowling can be destroyed to the extent it deserves.

 

[Starfighter]

50

 

[TheJediBrah]

Clearly there's no single correct answer. Depends on conditions, the strength of your team relative to the opposition, composition of the team etc.

Generally speaking I'd say if you're in a strong team the higher your SR the better, whereas in a weak team the opposite could be the case. But more often than not the higher SR the better is my philosophy

 

[Coronis]

Bradman’s strike rate.

 

[cnerd123]

Lower SR

Scoring 400 a/o in one day may give you more time to force a result, but that can go both ways. Also over the course of a 3-5 test match series, 400 a/o in 2 days is more valuable as it is twice as many overs in the legs of the opposition's bowlers. That means they are more likely to fatigue and break down as the series goes on, giving your team better chances at winning the later Tests. It's also time that your bowlers are resting, therefore improving your chances.

 

[Teja.]

I think batsman who can play well at different gears are ideal. Gavaskar had a SR of about 45 which was standard for the average top order batsman of his era but he could score run-a-ball centuries against the GOAT fast bowling attack and also play a grindy 30 SR style when batting to save a match. This is different from a different 45 SR batsman who had nowhere near the attacking/defensive range of Gavaskar.

Another batsman who was great at this is ABDv.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Awta. The physical demand on fast bowlers and the accumulated fatigue it brings over a series is probably one of the most underrated aspects of the game. Even at club/amateur level cricket it's demanding, I can't think to comprehend how a quick bowler can bowl 25 overs in a day and then go again the following morning.
I'm a huge Steyn fan, and one of the reasons was how savvy he was at throttling it back in the first session, and then would come hard at the batsman later in the day. A very very skillful, clever bowler, amongst his other undoubted assets (pace, outswing). I think Hadlee was similar in his methods, but not absolutely sure. Fast bowlers in general (99% of them) are just exceptional athletes

 

[Line and Length]

Some excellent responses with very valid points made.
A batsman's SR can vary according to the situation in a match. If batting to save a match, a no risk, defensive approach is required whereas if chasing quick runs in order to declare and set a target, an aggressive approach is required.
SR statistics are meaningful in T20 and ODIs but are almost pointless in Test matches

 

[Immenso]

Dot ball rate, or ticking it over rate, would be quite meaningful.

Memories of Warne tieing someone down until the inevitable wicket came.

 

[Daemon]

Lower SR

Scoring 400 a/o in one day may give you more time to force a result, but that can go both ways. Also over the course of a 3-5 test match series, 400 a/o in 2 days is more valuable as it is twice as many overs in the legs of the opposition's bowlers. That means they are more likely to fatigue and break down as the series goes on, giving your team better chances at winning the later Tests. It's also time that your bowlers are resting, therefore improving your chances.

This underestimates the demoralising effect batting at a high strike rate has on bowlers and even fielders. It also ****s the ball up, makes it easier for the batsmen at the opposite end, makes captains go defensive, etc.

Like TJB says it all depends on the rest of your team. Would Australia have benefitted from Gilchrist batting at half his SR with the same average?

Also you say lower but how low?

 

[Athlai]

600 obviously

 

[Engle]

Lower SR generally result in drawn matches - what good is scoring tons of runs that result in drawn games ? Unless it’s a strategy for a touring team to settle down and grind out the opposition before going for the coup de grâce.
Players have even been dropped for slow batting (Barrington, Boycott)

Higher SR is more likely to wrest the initiative, lift the morale of your team, demoralize the opposition thereby resulting in wins as well as exciting the crowds and being beneficial to the game. This is one of the reasons why Viv Richards is so highly talked about, even though he barely breached the 50 Test avg.

That’s not necessarily saying that higher the SR, the better. There has to be an optimal balance between a rampaging Afridi and a stonewalling Tavare. All factors considered, it should definitely be above 50, a 70+ or so range would garner attention

 

[cnerd123]

This underestimates the demoralising effect batting at a high strike rate has on bowlers and even fielders. It also ****s the ball up, makes it easier for the batsmen at the opposite end, makes captains go defensive, etc.

I think these factors are a bit overplayed tbh, especially in modern-day cricket. We've had ODIs since the 80s, so fast-paced scoring isn't something novel. Modern day bowlers know how to deal with aggressive batters. Go defensive, dry up the boundaries, and wait. But how do you deal with a guy who doesn't want to get out? Bowlers like Akhtar have spoken about how bowling to Dravid was more demoralising than bowling to Sehwag, because at least with Viru you felt you had a chance.

Similarly ****ing up the new ball quick isn't always the best strategy for the batting side. Sometimes it's harder to bat against the older ball.

Like TJB says it all depends on the rest of your team. Would Australia have benefitted from Gilchrist batting at half his SR with the same average?

I think this is a different conversation. My point is that if I was building a batting unit for Test cricket, particularly to play in long series with short breaks between games, then I would prefer one that regularly scores 400+ runs at 2-3 RPO over one that scores just as many at 3-4 RPO. Whether the Australian side would have befitted with a slower Gilchrist is a different question. They obviously built a unit that went about cricket in a different way, and if you have that many ATG/ATVGs available to you then you just let them bat however the **** they want to bat. They're going to score mountains of runs and win lots of games regardless.

Also you say lower but how low?

Dunnow, good question. Changes with the era, pitch conditions, and the number of overs per day + number of days I suppose. In current day 5-day Test matches, which have around 90 overs/day, and in an era where 3 RPO is fairly easy to achieve, and on a wicket that is fairly balanced, I think batting around 150-180 overs in the first innings for around 450-550 runs is optimal. You probably go at 1.5-2 RPO early on Day 1, and by end of Day 2 you're scoring closer to 4 RPO before getting bowled out/declaring. If you can still score 450-550 but do so in 90-110 overs, I think you're putting yourself at a bit of a disadvantage. You give the other team plenty of time to bat their way back into the game, you don't fatigue them as much, and you haven't let the pitch deteriorate significantly before they get to bat.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

600 obviously

Genuinely great post.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Australia 10000% would not have benefited from a slower Gilchrist. Quite the opposite.

But if it was say NZ, Zim or SL from the 00s they might have been better off with a slower 50 average batsman than a Gilchrist

 

[Flem274*]

in practice you don't get to be picky. it's challenging enough to develop batsmen who average 50 unless you're 00s aus. you don't care what their strike rate is because they cruise into the side.

 

[CricAddict]

in practice you don't get to be picky. it's challenging enough to develop batsmen who average 50 unless you're 00s aus. you don't care what their strike rate is because they cruise into the side.

Best post of the thread, I would say. I am happy if the batsman averages 50+. Will take any strike rate that comes with it.