shortpitched713
International Captain
Certainly, if you could do this at will, then you'd end up with a better average than your rivals who couldn't? The fact that for example Ponting, didn't end up with any better of an average than Kallis, means that in some of these situations he's being overconfident and getting himself out to a rash stroke on a good ball, so this ability to " hit good balls for runs and change the bowlers rhythm " really isn't as well established as you seem to indicate.I think what sets the top tier like Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting from the rest is that ability to hit good balls for runs and change the bowl rhythm.
Don't mean to overly nitpick, but you seem to imply these aggressive batsmen have a level of control, that they don't. I'd argue that it's just risk tolerance, that some equally great players will have more of than others, that is the determining factor between the difference in strike rates, not some difference in skill, or ability to "impose oneself" that the more aggressive batsman has over the other. After all, as long as they're both getting the full opportunity, and make use of it to get the runs their team needs, who really cares how long it took to get them?*
* Personally I think the possibility of batting so slowly, you bat your team out of a chance of winning a Test match, is truly a rare edge case. In my opinion, you'll run into it much less often, maybe 10% of the frequency of the also somewhat uncommon, but not rare situation of needing to bat for time to save a Test match. Basically, if you're scoring runs through your time at the crease, have a modicum of control and are not getting out, that's basically always a good thing in Test cricket, high strike rate fetishism be damned.