Jacques Kallis vs Jack Hobbs

[kyear2]

A SR of 45 is not "slow". Anyways, the Gavaskar example was provided already.
Sachin, Smith and Sobers don't necessarily even compares that well as fast scoring players like Richards. They scored at a reasonable rate, Lara was fast scoring, but not that fast generally.
Yes, Sutcliffe and Hutton scored slowly because that worked the best for them. They were champion players with an excess of memorable innings and honestly, I haven't even read of a situation where they needed to score fast but didn't. Read of those of Boycott, can criticize him for that, but show me a match Hutton failed England to win/draw for scoring slowly and this discussion will have merit.
No, I think both require different sets of skills and saying one of Richards or Hutton was more skillful is delusional imo.

For a gentleman who scored at the rate he scored at, 45 wasn't slow? Just shifting the goal posts at this point.

Sobers, Smith, Tendulkar and Ponting all scored around the same rate, especially adjusting for era. And you're missing the point, it's easier to slow down when required than it is to go outside of your comfort zone to accelerate.

And yes, Hutton was criticized for his scoring rate during his career and inability or interest in dominating even lesser attacks.

You can't pretend that it takes the same amount of ability to have a career scoring at a s/r of 60 and 35.

At the end of the day, the bolwers objective is to keep the scoring rate as low as possible, there's no argument to that, hence a batsman who plays into that is preferred from the bolwers perspective that one who goes against that.

You'll just try to be contrarian for the sake of being so.

 

[capt_Luffy]

For a gentleman who scored at the rate he scored at, 45 wasn't slow? Just shifting the goal posts at this point.

Sobers, Smith, Tendulkar and Ponting all scored around the same rate, especially adjusting for era. And you're missing the point, it's easier to slow down when required than it is to go outside of your comfort zone to accelerate.

And yes, Hutton was criticized for his scoring rate during his career and inability or interest in dominating even lesser attacks.

You can't pretend that it takes the same amount of ability to have a career scoring at a s/r of 60 and 35.

At the end of the day, the bolwers objective is to keep the scoring rate as low as possible, there's no argument to that, hence a batsman who plays into that is preferred from the bolwers perspective that one who goes against that.

You'll just try to be contrarian for the sake of being so.

For anyone, 45 SR is middling at best. It was slower than his usual, but to turn that into being a grinding effort, is very wilfully misleading, to say the least.

I think also are missing the point that none of them were extremely fast. They scored at a SR a bit higher than of their era, but that doesn't really makes sense to pass of as Fast scoring.

Hutton had a physical disadvantage, you know that well. But I didn't asked for a criticism his main rival at the time, who hardly scored any faster, threw at him. Show me match where he him scoring slower costed England a potential victory/draw.

Nope, very different abilities and if both end up with similar averages, in most cases the player I will take will depend on my overall team combination and their role in the game. If I already have Lara and Sachin with me, I am not taking Viv over Hutton as I would take Viv of I have Sutcliffe or Barrington.

No. Are you being serious here?? What are your bowlers, part time fillers?? A bowler only has one objective, taking 10 wickets as cheaply as possible, and ofcourse, doing so as fast as possible too. I grinder isn't really making a bowler's job easy here. I don't like many of your takes, but this one was just plain inaccurate.

At the end of the day, I think your last point was really poorly thought out and really exposes your faulty logic here.

 

[Bolo.]

You can't pretend that it takes the same amount of ability to have a career facing 90 balls as one who faces 140.

At the end of the day, the bolwers objective is to get batsmen out, there's no argument to that, hence a batsman who plays into that is preferred from the bolwers perspective that one who goes against that.

Scoring rate works both ways. Assuming the same amount of runs scored, the ideal scoring rate is extremely situational.

 

[OverratedSanity]

At the end of the day, the bolwers objective is to keep the scoring rate as low as possible, there's no argument to that, hence a batsman who plays into that is preferred from the bolwers perspective that one who goes against that.

There is actually a lot of argument to this. I prefer my bowlers to strike quickly even if it comes at the cost of some quicker run scoring.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The idea that a bowlers main objective is to be economical is so ****ing stupid lmao you can't convince me even you believe it.

 

[kyear2]

For anyone, 45 SR is middling at best. It was slower than his usual, but to turn that into being a grinding effort, is very wilfully misleading, to say the least.

I think also are missing the point that none of them were extremely fast. They scored at a SR a bit higher than of their era, but that doesn't really makes sense to pass of as Fast scoring.

Hutton had a physical disadvantage, you know that well. But I didn't asked for a criticism his main rival at the time, who hardly scored any faster, threw at him. Show me match where he him scoring slower costed England a potential victory/draw.

Nope, very different abilities and if both end up with similar averages, in most cases the player I will take will depend on my overall team combination and their role in the game. If I already have Lara and Sachin with me, I am not taking Viv over Hutton as I would take Viv of I have Sutcliffe or Barrington.

No. Are you being serious here?? What are your bowlers, part time fillers?? A bowler only has one objective, taking 10 wickets as cheaply as possible, and ofcourse, doing so as fast as possible too. I grinder isn't really making a bowler's job easy here. I don't like many of your takes, but this one was just plain inaccurate.

At the end of the day, I think your last point was really poorly thought out and really exposes your faulty logic here.

Yes a bowler has the objective to take 10 wickets as cheaply as possibly. That's literally taking into account for for as little runs as possible. Why do you make these arguments so difficult while being disingenuous.

If you have guys going at 4.5 / 5 runs per over you have to take them out of the attack, it forces you to change the rotation, alter the field, and go deeper into your bowling depth.

Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it not well though out.

To believe there isn't a substantive argument for having batsmen who can adapt to the situation and up the scoring rate as required and even destroy an attack, and that they don't bring additional value over players who can't, is just being contrarian for the point of being so.

 

[kyear2]

The idea that a bowlers main objective is to be economical is so ****ing stupid lmao you can't convince me even you believe it.

Jesus Christ, yes it's to take wickets, but it's to also not allow the run rate to go crazy.

You know this, you don't want your bolwers going at 5 runs an over and being dispatched to the boundary.

Yes wickets, you don't take wickets every delivery and in between you want to maintain pressure and control the run rate.

When you have a batsman who can elevate the run rate and disrupt your rotation, that's a huge plus for the batting team.

 

[kyear2]

Scoring rate works both ways. Assuming the same amount of runs scored, the ideal scoring rate is extremely situational.

It's one thing to occupy the crease, and another thing to do so while scoring at a higher rate.

A session of Hutton and Sutcliffe may produce 60 runs, the rotations remains the same and even though you're not taking wickets, you're not behind the game.

A session of the two Richards would at the very least double that if not more, and you already have the fielding team behind the game and they've lost the session and setting the platform for a much bigger score.

The bolwers are thrown off their lines and the the field is spread and you have less fielders in catching positions.

I keep going back to this, look at the greatest teams in history, there's definitely a template for this.

A solid opening pair with one fairly assertive scorer. That aggressive alpha at 3 or 4, with similar support down the order. You want proactive players who can adapt and turn the tide of the game when the situation calls for it.

It's not been the ultra defensive, stodgy teams that allows themselves to be dictated to.
Guys like Barry, Viv, Bradman etc could change the course of a game in a session, turn a loosing proposition into a winning one, totally disrupt the plans of a fielding team and captain, there's a value to this that's being totally ignored.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes a bowler has the objective to take 10 wickets as cheaply as possibly. That's literally taking into account for for as little runs as possible. Why do you make these arguments so difficult while being disingenuous.

If you have guys going at 4.5 / 5 runs per over you have to take them out of the attack, it forces you to change the rotation, alter the field, and go deeper into your bowling depth.

Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it not well though out.

To believe there isn't a substantive argument for having batsmen who can adapt to the situation and up the scoring rate as required and even destroy an attack, and that they don't bring additional value over players who can't, is just being contrarian for the point of being so.

You literally said the main objective of a bowler was to maintain the run rate. Which is just, well wrong. If my bowler goes for 5 runs an over and has SR of 25, I will take him over most bowlers and mostly ahead of a bowler going 2 runs an over with a SR of 60. I don't want my bowlers to wear themselves down. If two batsmen have equal average, it literally means they have an around equal output. Now, those 40 runs coming in 10 overs is better for a bowler than them coming in 30, simply because they will be fresher in the second innings and against the batsmen to come. There is a reason almost everyone goes for a bowler with a higher SR given equal adjusted average. That's my point, is OS' and is Bolo's.

 

[subshakerz]

That's a bit hypocritical, bit to add inaccurate.

Can't praise one and condemn the other when they played the same role. And I rate Kallis well ahead of Dravid due to the quality of home pitches Kallis had to endure.

And SA did have Smith and de Villiers among others who were very aggressive scorers.

I don't rate either Dravid or Kallis as ATGs. But they are saying that Dravid's slower rate is less harmful for the team given the other aggressive bats compared to Kallis'. Not that hard to understand.

 

[subshakerz]

There is actually a lot of argument to this. I prefer my bowlers to strike quickly even if it comes at the cost of some quicker run scoring.

It depends. You can't have an attack of just quick strike and loose bowlers in tests.

 

[kyear2]

It depends. You can't have an attack of just quick strike and loose bowlers in tests.

No you can't, and any who's watched a ball of cricket knows this. It's to take wickets with an eye on the run rate...

 

[capt_Luffy]

It depends. You can't have an attack of just quick strike and loose bowlers in tests.

Definitely you can't. But I think most of us agree that given two bowlers have equal longevity, average, WPM and record across conditions; the one with the lower Strike Rate is better.

 

[subshakerz]

Definitely you can't. But I think most of us agree that given two bowlers have equal longevity, average, WPM and record across conditions; the one with the lower Strike Rate is better.

I don't agree. If the lower SR is with an unusually high ER, then I prefer the higher SR bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

No you can't, and any who's watched a ball of cricket knows this. It's to take wickets with an eye on the run rate...

The thing that annoy me with those who give these raw stat opinions is that in tests, the advantage of getting quick wickets is far less than in limited overs. You can take time to build up to a wicket, within limits.

Whereas I have actually seen Steyn lose test matches because of how loose and poor he bowled.

 

[kyear2]

The thing that annoy me with those who give these raw stat opinions is that in tests, the advantage of getting quick wickets is far less than in limited overs. You can take time to build up to a wicket, within limits.

Whereas I have actually seen Steyn lose test matches because of how loose and poor he bowled.

There's still some benefit, quicker is always better. But can't be at the expense of quick runs.

 

[subshakerz]

There's still some benefit, quicker is always better. But can't be at the expense of quick runs.

If I had two spells of 2-25, one in five overs and the other in ten overs, I prefer the latter. Control over the game is important. And SR bowlers tend to bowl less overs per game because they tend to be pulled out of the attack when going for runs.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't agree. If the lower SR is with an unusually high ER, then I prefer the higher SR bowler.

Given Average is equal, it literally means that the SR and ER balances themselves. In such a case, I think most will prefer the opposition to be out faster. Gives them less of a chance to set their feet and gives your bowlers more rest.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If I had two spells of 2-25, one in five overs and the other in ten overs, I prefer the latter. Control over the game is important. And SR bowlers tend to bowl less overs per game because they tend to be pulled out of the attack when going for runs.

I think this pretty much raps it. I will definitely prefer the former based on pure statistics (how well the bowler actually bowled is a different thing).

 

[subshakerz]

Given Average is equal, it literally means that the SR and ER balances themselves. In such a case, I think most will prefer the opposition to be out faster. Gives them less of a chance to set their feet and gives your bowlers more rest.

Not in test cricket. Rarely do you need that extra time of a few overs. Most captains are fine taking time to build pressure. I haven't come across a captain thinking, yeah XYZ bowler can run through quicker to give us a few extra overs. Whereas McGrath always gave a team a sense that at least one hand was one the steering wheel.