• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Steve Smith vs Sachin Tendulkar

Who is the better test batsman?

  • Total voters
    71
Adorable Asshole

Adorable Asshole

International Regular
Prince EWS said:
Speak for yourself. I do rate Kallis as highly.

I think there are two prime reasons I don't care about strike rate at all for top order batsmen while most others on this forum do.

1. I care about winning series, not winning matches.
2. I care about how much players would have average and poor teams as much as how much they'd help good ones.

It's absolutely true that all other things equal, if you compared two batsmen who scored the same amount of runs every time but one did it quicker, that would change some draws into results.

But if 70% of your draws are games you would have lost if they had a sixth day, how on earth is that a good thing? You just lose more.

Scoring the same of runs but quicker creates more Test wins but also creates more Test losses. And depending on the strength of the team at the time that could be either good or bad overall for your series results.

And in the cases of Richards and Kallis we're not even just talking about "all things equal" comparisons a lot of the time. People often rate Richards ahead of players who they even admit was probably better at scoring runs before getting out because strike rate apparently closes the gap, which is I think is insane.
Click to expand...
Hobbs or Sutcliffe?
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
Prince EWS said:
Speak for yourself. I do rate Kallis as highly.

I think there are two prime reasons I don't care about strike rate at all for top order batsmen while most others on this forum do.

1. I care about winning series, not winning matches.
2. I care about how much players would help average and poor teams as much as how much they'd help good ones.

It's absolutely true that all other things equal, if you compared two batsmen who scored the same amount of runs every time but one did it quicker, that would change some draws into results.

But if 70% of your draws are games you would have lost if they had a sixth day, how on earth is that a good thing? You just lose more.

Scoring the same of runs but quicker creates more Test wins but also creates more Test losses. And depending on the strength of the team at the time that could be either good or bad overall for your series results.

And in the cases of Richards and Kallis we're not even just talking about "all things equal" comparisons a lot of the time. People often rate Richards ahead of players who they even admit was probably better at scoring runs before getting out because strike rate apparently closes the gap, which is I think is insane.
Click to expand...
People forget the extent to which this was RSAs strategy. They were playing for series, not games. They were very happy to play out draws and exhaust bowlers while punching through a single win to take the series. And their series results were typically good in relation to quality during his career.

If people don't like the strategy, their quibble is with leadership/management, not him.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
honestbharani said:
Not unless you have actually won test(s) in said series though...
Click to expand...
Yes but assuming you haven't also presupposes most Tests get down to the last hour with one team 8 down and one team thinking "well I really wish the bloke who make 180 first dig did it a bit quicker" - which is ****ing dumb.

Draws are rare to begin with. When they happen, they often couldn't have been prevented by slightly quicker scoring of one player. And when they have - narrow late wins could have been prevented at a similar rate by slightly slower scoring anyway.

And even beyond allllll that, if you're a crap team that gets outplayed twice in a two test series and and it's 0-0 because your batsmen are slow, that's actually ****ing awesome. #BadTeamsMatter

It's all a wash, and barely ever matters anyway.

There is the separate issue of the wannabe alpha voodoo of TJB about the jedi mind tricks imposed on bowlers but that's a separate argument.
 
Adorable Asshole

Adorable Asshole

International Regular
Prince EWS said:
Yes but assuming you haven't also presupposes most Tests get down to the last hour with one team 8 down and one team thinking "well I really wish the bloke who make 180 first dig did it a bit quicker" - which is ****ing dumb.

Draws are rare to begin with. When they happen, they often couldn't have been prevented by slightly quicker scoring of one player. And when they have - narrow late wins could have been prevented at a similar rate by slightly slower scoring anyway.

And even beyond allllll that, if you're a crap team that gets outplayed twice in a two test series and and it's 0-0 because your batsmen are slow, that's actually ****ing awesome. #BadTeamsMatter

It's all a wash, and barely ever matters anyway.

There is the separate issue of the wannabe alpha voodoo of TJB about the jedi mind tricks imposed on bowlers but that's a separate argument.
Click to expand...
They were not in pre-bazball era.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Bolo. said:
People forget the extent to which this was RSAs strategy. They were playing for series, not games. They were very happy to play out draws and exhaust bowlers while punching through a single win to take the series. And their series results were typically good in relation to quality during his career.

If people don't like the strategy, their quibble is with leadership/management, not him.
Click to expand...
I would contend that this defensive approach, just playing good enough but no really pushing all buttons every game for a win, probably cost SA key moments of crucial games, and series, where that killer instinct was needed. There are so many examples, SA in England in 98 or the last test of the 93/94 series at home against Australia or 2nd test of the 96 home series against Australia or last test of the 97 series in Australia.

It definitely doesn't work against superior teams where you need to be aggressive to even have a chance.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Prince EWS said:
Speak for yourself. I do rate Kallis as highly.

I think there are two prime reasons I don't care about strike rate at all for top order batsmen while most others on this forum do.

1. I care about winning series, not winning matches.
2. I care about how much players would help average and poor teams as much as how much they'd help good ones.

It's absolutely true that all other things equal, if you compared two batsmen who scored the same amount of runs every time but one did it quicker, that would change some draws into results.

But if 70% of your draws are games you would have lost if they had a sixth day, how on earth is that a good thing? You just lose more.

Scoring the same of runs but quicker creates more Test wins but also creates more Test losses. And depending on the strength of the team at the time that could be either good or bad overall for your series results.

And in the cases of Richards and Kallis we're not even just talking about "all things equal" comparisons a lot of the time. People often rate Richards ahead of players who they even admit was probably better at scoring runs before getting out because strike rate apparently closes the gap, which is I think is insane.
Click to expand...
You need to win matches to win series. Scoring quicker has a net psychological effect on demoralizing opposition which which is why SR is important. Cricket is about which team is in control session to session and sedate bats simply don't threaten the way any reasonably aggressive bat does. Shifts in momentum are so critical to cricket and you need bats that have an extra gear and not accumulator robots like Kallis.

Your entire framing is negative and divorced from realities we see on cricket grounds. Teams that play for draws in a risk-adverse way from the outset inevitably end up with less results than their potential suggests. Risks bring greater rewards in the long run.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top