Steve Smith vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Prince EWS]

Just got back to this.

You are all wrong and you should feel bad.

 

[Coronis]

Just got back to this.

You are all wrong and you should feel bad.

I’m glue and you’re rubber.

 

[Prince EWS]

I’m glue and you’re rubber.

No this is incorrect.

I'm gold and you're ****.

You are objectively wrong.

 

[Coronis]

No this in incorrect.

I'm gold and you're ****.

You are objectively wrong.

You’re an object.

 

[Prince EWS]

You’re an object.

Yeah a gold one. You're ****!

 

[subshakerz]

Just got back to this.

You are all wrong and you should feel bad.

You need to give some examples from real match play to show how slow scoring doesn't matter.

 

[trundler]

Avoiding losses being more valuable than turning draws into wins is also pure conjecture with no basis in reality. There's no reason why the latter is inferior as an approach to winning series.

 

[The Sean]

Avoiding losses being more valuable than turning wins into draws is also pure conjecture with no basis in reality. There's no reason why the latter is inferior as an approach to winning series.

How is turning a win into a draw a good thing?

 

[trundler]

How is turning a win into a draw a good thing?

. My bad.

 

[Prince EWS]

You need to give some examples from real match play to show how slow scoring doesn't matter.

Look mate, I like you, I even defend you sometimes... but no I ****ing do not need to do that! How dare you?
I can very much just give driveby theories and then stfu, like everyone else, if I feel like it.

But even if that wasn't true - the vast, vast, majority of matches are decided in a way that scoring speed doesn't matter.

Lets just look at whatver the most recent Test was. It was this one:

SL vs PAK Cricket Scorecard, 1st Test at Galle, July 04 - 07, 2009

Get cricket scorecard of 1st Test, SL vs PAK, Pakistan tour of Sri Lanka 2009 at Galle International Stadium dated July 04 - 07, 2009.

www.espncricinfo.com

Oh look, a team won by 50 runs! With over a day to spare!

You know who was saying, "Oh I wish we just scored the same amout of runs a little more quickly?"

Yeah, no-one. They won by better at betting at scoring runs before they got out. As almost all Tests are won.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The majority of scores batsmen get are <100 scores and yes, I'd rather they take more time to get the smaller scores than less time. There absolutely are downstream benefits to batting time that can positively affect your team. Pitches change how they play, and a lot of the time (but not always) , conditions progressively get easier as the innings goes on. If you admit that, then the benefit of batting time is pretty obvious.

 

[trundler]

Look mate, I like you, I even defend you sometimes... but no I ****ing do not need to do that! How dare you?
I can very much just give driveby theories and then stfu, like everyone else, if I feel like it.

But even if that wasn't true - the vast, vast, majority of matches are decided in a way that scoring speed doesn't matter.

Lets just look at whatver the most recent Test was. It was this one:

SL vs PAK Cricket Scorecard, 1st Test at Galle, July 04 - 07, 2009

Get cricket scorecard of 1st Test, SL vs PAK, Pakistan tour of Sri Lanka 2009 at Galle International Stadium dated July 04 - 07, 2009.

www.espncricinfo.com

Oh look, a team won by 50 runs! With over a day to spare!

You know who was saying, "Oh I wish we just scored the same amout of runs a little more quickly?"

Yeah, no-one. They won by better at betting at scoring runs before they got out. As almost all Tests are won.

The most recent test between these two sides was won because the team that won put pressure on the losing side by scoring quickly throughout the match. Scratching around at 2 rpo wouldn't have done that.

 

[Prince EWS]

The most recent test between these two sides was won because the team that won put pressure on the losing side by scoring quickly throughout the match. Scratching around at 2 rpo wouldn't have done that.

I actually don't know why cricinfo gave me that Test from 2009 when I asked it for the most recent Test ever, but either way as a probably random result I will claim it.

 

[subshakerz]

Look mate, I like you, I even defend you sometimes... but no I ****ing do not need to do that! How dare you?
I can very much just give driveby theories and then stfu, like everyone else, if I feel like it.

But even if that wasn't true - the vast, vast, majority of matches are decided in a way that scoring speed doesn't matter.

Lets just look at whatver the most recent Test was. It was this one:

SL vs PAK Cricket Scorecard, 1st Test at Galle, July 04 - 07, 2009

Get cricket scorecard of 1st Test, SL vs PAK, Pakistan tour of Sri Lanka 2009 at Galle International Stadium dated July 04 - 07, 2009.

www.espncricinfo.com

Oh look, a team won by 50 runs! With over a day to spare!

You know who was saying, "Oh I wish we just scored the same amout of runs a little more quickly?"

Yeah, no-one. They won by better at betting at scoring runs before they got out. As almost all Tests are won.

Bro nobody is arguing that runs scored at a faster rate are worth more than more runs. We are talking about taking different times to score the same runs.

 

[trundler]

The majority of scores batsmen get are <100 scores and yes, I'd rather they take more time to get the smaller scores than less time. There absolutely are downstream benefits to batting time that can positively affect your team. Pitches change how they play, and a lot of the time (but not always) , conditions progressively get easier as the innings goes on. If you admit that, then the benefit of batting time is pretty obvious.

A 200 ball 50 is almost always a worse innings than a 70 ball 50 outside of matches where a result is guaranteed in 2 days though. Slow scoring like that is only beneficial if a) you are guaranteed a result regardless of loss of time or b) someone else does the quick scoring and takes advantage of conditions easing up. In the latter, more common case scoring more quickly still isn't worthless or "voodoo". That's now how cricket works. Extreme slow scoring leads to slogs and therefore wickets for a reason.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Bro nobody is arguing that runs scored at a faster rate are worth more than more runs. We are talking about taking different times to score the same runs.

Do you think scoring runs faster is more valuable than taking time in every situation?

Ignore situations where a team is trying to save a game. What about an opener who comes in when conditions are very cloudy and there's a ton of seam movement around or the opposition has only 1-2 high level quality steamers. Do you think an innings of 30(20) would be more valuable than one where he scores 30(70) ensuring the middle order has measurably easier conditions to bat in?

 

[subshakerz]

The majority of scores batsmen get are <100 scores and yes, I'd rather they take more time to get the smaller scores than less time. There absolutely are downstream benefits to batting time that can positively affect your team. Pitches change how they play, and a lot of the time (but not always) , conditions progressively get easier as the innings goes on. If you admit that, then the benefit of batting time is pretty obvious.

Ok now we are having a real conversation.

We can all agree that taking time to get used to the crease is necessary. And to wait until conditions are easier. But the point is not to play slow, the point is to ride out the difficulty and then score more freely. There is no doubt that if conditions allow, we should score at a better pace

But overall over the course of an innings does it being scored at 2.5 per over the same as 3.3 per over? Of course the latter is more benficial.

 

[OverratedSanity]

A 200 ball 50 is almost always a worse innings than a 70 ball 50 outside of matches where a result is guaranteed in 2 days though.

It is impossible to have an actual conversation on this if you keep exaggerating the strike rates to this extent
. If you want to actually talk about the impact on real world test matches atleast use example of innings that are likely going to happen in test matches.

 

[subshakerz]

Do you think scoring runs faster is more valuable than taking time in every situation?

No, of course, not in every situation, but in general as a natural style of play for a batting lineup, yes.

 

[trundler]

It is impossible to have an actual conversation on this if you keep exaggerating the strike rates like this. If you want to actually talk about the impact on real world test matches atleast use example of innings that are likely going to happen in test matches.

The idea in this thread is that scoring quickly is irrelevant. PEWS literally called it voodoo. A 50 at a strike rate of 60 is going to be more valuable than one at 30 in most cases though, except bowler friendly conditions.