Steve Smith vs Sachin Tendulkar

[OverratedSanity]

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.

Ideally yes. You'd want the batsman to carry on and make a big one. And if you get a big score, you'd want it to be a quick one in most situations.

However, most scores realistically aren't going to be big ones. If you assume two batsmen are going to get out at the same low-ish score, I can absolutely think of scenarios where the slower innings makes things easier for batsmen down the order.

Once you get to good batting conditions and the innings get to 70,80,90,100+, the value of a better strike rate becomes undeniable. But that's not all innings.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

I don't even think this is necessarily true. I'd rephrase that as one where conditions are bowler friendly but likely to get batting friendly.

Atleast you admitted there are real world scenarios where slower scoring can be more valuable than fast scoring though, a step i never thought you'd take.

 

[trundler]

Ideally yes. You'd want the batsman to carry on and make a big one. And if you get a big score, you'd want it to be a quick one in most situations.

However, most scores realistically aren't going to be big ones. If you assume two batsmen are going to get out at the same low-ish score, I can absolutely think of scenarios where the slower innings makes things easier for batsmen down the order.

Once you get to good batting conditions and the innings get to 70,80,90,100+, the value of a better strike rate becomes undeniable. But that's not all innings.

This is why you want someone who is great at pacing his innings like Lara or Viv or Tendulkar or even Younis. You don't want somebody slogging from ball one. However, when we're discussing guys like Boycott or even Kallis who did not accelerate even in friendly conditions then that is a point not in their favour. That's how this conversation started anyway.

 

[subshakerz]

Ideally yes. You'd want the batsman to carry on and make a big one. And if you get a big score, you'd want it to be a quick one in most situations.

However, most scores realistically aren't going to be big ones. If you assume two batsmen are going to get out at the same low-ish score, I can absolutely think of scenarios where the slower innings makes things easier for batsmen down the order.

Once you get to good batting conditions and the innings get to 70,80,90,100+, the value of a better strike rate becomes undeniable. But that's not all innings.

Yes but if we assume the cumulative innings is 300 or so, you need 1 or 2 breezy knocks in between otherwise you end up taking an extra session to get an otherwise moderate score. So the point on the general SR stands.

I don't even think this is necessarily true. I'd rephrase that as one where conditions are bowler friendly but likely to get batting friendly.

Atleast you admitted there are real world scenarios where slower scoring can be more valuable than fast scoring though, a step i never thought you'd take.

Again, it is not slow scoring accumulation, it is grinding through a tough period. It's subtly different.

 

[trundler]

I don't even think this is necessarily true. I'd rephrase that as one where conditions are bowler friendly but likely to get batting friendly.

Atleast you admitted there are real world scenarios where slower scoring can be more valuable than fast scoring though, a step i never thought you'd take.

I never said otherwise. Strike rate being a useless metric or not mattering at all is nonsensical though. What you guys are arguing is that 400 scored in 2 days is as valuable as 400 scored in a day which is so self-evidently untrue that it's not worth debating.

 

[OverratedSanity]

What you guys are arguing is that 400 scored in 2 days is as valuable as 400 scored in a day which is so self-evidently untrue that it's not worth debating.

I didn't argue anything close to that. If you want to argue with an imaginary foe (or PEWS) then you should probably stop quoting me.

I think having extra gears is useful (not as useful as you or subshakerz think but definitely useful). However I do think that overall career strike rate for an individual batsman is useless as a metric because even by your admission there are situations where slower scoring is marginally better. Your low career strike rate = bad only considers one extreme while ignoring the other.

Since you've given an example of Boycott to explain why a low strike rate might not always be bad, I'll give the natural example of Sehwag to explain why a high strike rate may not always be better than a lower one . I have argued time and time again (correctly) that sehwag would have been more useful to the team if he'd averaged the same mediocre mid 30s in overseas conditions if he'd got the runs at a Boycott strike rate.

 

[subshakerz]

So a few points to clarify:

- When we say a healthy SR, we generally mean above 50 or so, in other words, scoring 3/3.3 per over on average at least, for most but not all innings. Kallis and other accumulators are in the 40/45 range.

- There will be situations where batsmen need to bunker down and survive and fast scores are not imperative. However, most healthy SR scorers, outside of those on the extreme end, are capable of making this shift as a normal matter of test batting.

- Slow accumulators like Kallis, on the other hand, can't respond to match situations when they need to up the ante with the same ease. Much easier for a speedy scorer to slow down than the opposite.

- Momentum is so valuable in cricket and teams that, in general, keep the scoreboard ticking are ones that tend to keep the pressure on the opposition, regardless of loss of wickets. Whereas quick wickets with a slow scoring team generally means the road to recovery seems steeper.

 

[trundler]

I didn't argue anything close to that. If you want to argue with an imaginary foe (or PEWS) then you should probably stop quoting me.

I literally said grinding out runs can be valuable in my first post in this thread you oaf

 

[subshakerz]

I will always remember a quote that stuck in my mind from Asif regarding why he would prefer to bowl to someone like Dravid over Sehwag since the former allowed him to make his plans and didn't get him off his rhythm.

Now, Dravid had the advantage of letting other more aggressive bats bat around him while he was a backbone. Hence his role and scoring style was justified.

With Kallis, my bone of contention is that for much of his early and mid career, he was supposed to be the alpha bat who set the tempo. But he ended up batting more sedate than even his accumulator colleagues and took his sweet time even to rebuild the innings. It is very clear to me how 10 runs more in his SR would have benefitted SA tremendously.

 

[CricAddict]

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

The Dean Elgar innings against India is the first one that springs to mind when I think on these lines.

 

[subshakerz]

The Dean Elgar innings against India is the first one that springs to mind when I think on these lines.

Those grinding situations I would agree scoring rate isn't as important as there was plenty of time to get the runs.

 

[kyear2]

So a few points to clarify:

- When we say a healthy SR, we generally mean above 50 or so, in other words, scoring 3/3.3 per over on average at least, for most but not all innings. Kallis and other accumulators are in the 40/45 range.

- There will be situations where batsmen need to bunker down and survive and fast scores are not imperative. However, most healthy SR scorers, outside of those on the extreme end, are capable of making this shift as a normal matter of test batting.

- Slow accumulators like Kallis, on the other hand, can't respond to match situations when they need to up the ante with the same ease. Much easier for a speedy scorer to slow down than the opposite.

- Momentum is so valuable in cricket and teams that, in general, keep the scoreboard ticking are ones that tend to keep the pressure on the opposition, regardless of loss of wickets. Whereas quick wickets with a slow scoring team generally means the road to recovery seems steeper.

Exactly this, Richards, Tendulkar, Smith knew (mostly) when to adjust tempo and adjust to adverse conditions, Kallis didn't adjust as readily, if it was lack of ability or just reluctance to do so, I wouldn't connect, but just often didn't.

This is an extreme example, but in the last test played didn't Khawaja and Labs basically bat Australia of of the game? For which they were severely criticized? They basically batted the bowlers into form and out the team on the back door.

 

[trundler]

Exactly this, Richards, Tendulkar, Smith knew (mostly) when to adjust tempo and adjust to adverse conditions, Kallis didn't adjust as readily, if it was lack of ability or just reluctance to do so, I wouldn't connect, but just often didn't.

This is an extreme example, but in the last test played didn't Khawaja and Labs basically bat Australia of of the game? For which they were severely criticized? They basically batted the bowlers into form and out the team on the back door.

Yeah but the bowlers got tired so it was actually better than winning the match.

 

[BazBall21]

There are benefits to slow-scoring. There are benefits to fast-scoring. Overall, the benefits of fast scoring outweigh the former. But I tend to find other reasons to rate players higher besides strike rate in tests. It is a tiebreaker if you're really struggling to separate a jostling pair.

 

[trundler]

Even when time isn't a factor and the conditions favour bowlers, a Head at Hobart type blitz can seriously frazzle the bowling side's brains and put the game out of the opposition's reach quickly and decisively. Viv played many such knocks against Imran and Lillee too.

 

[BazBall21]

Even when time isn't a factor and the conditions favour bowlers, a Head at Hobart type blitz can seriously frazzle the bowling side's brains and put the game out of the opposition's reach quickly and decisively. Viv played many such knocks against Imran and Lillee too.

Yeah that's true. A smaller factor than time, but other batsmen can benefit from the efficient aggression of their teammate.

 

[Majestic]

Impact wise, Smith.

Longevity wise, Tendulkar.

 

[shortpitched713]

Why are we stereotyping relatively low SR batsmen as being ones who could not adjust their scoring rate to suit the circumstance? Putting aside the quibble on the single anecdote of Kallis, is there any evidence that this is the case, or are we ignoring the fact that good lower SR batsmen just happen to tend to play on worse teams?

I mean, has anyone actually tried to parse out which of the effect sizes could be greater, or are we just sort of pulling it out of our asses?

 

[kyear2]

Dravid played on the same team as Sachin.
Kallis was there with A. B and others
Hutton's teams weren't weak either
Not Sutcliff's or Hobbs

 

[subshakerz]

Why are we stereotyping relatively low SR batsmen as being ones who could not adjust their scoring rate to suit the circumstance? Putting aside the quibble on the single anecdote of Kallis, is there any evidence that this is the case, or are we ignoring the fact that good lower SR batsmen just happen to tend to play on worse teams?

I mean, has anyone actually tried to parse out which of the effect sizes could be greater, or are we just sort of pulling it out of our asses?

It was the case for Kallis most of his career until the end. Also somewhat the case for Dravid and Boycott. Others like Gavaskar could step it up if needed.

Point still remains that it's easier for a speedy bat to adjust to slow mode than the opposite.