Batting and bowling strikerates: how much do they matter?

[shortpitched713]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Xix2565]

Aggressive batting = taking risks to score. Anything else other than this basic fact is irrelevant since batters get out more when playing a shot compared to being defensive. Batting faster only works if the conditions & bowlers favour batting, otherwise you'll just get out eventually. So for me higher SRs when batting mean nothing about general player quality without context.

 

[Xix2565]

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?*

Exactly this. Generally the bowlers are the ones in control, and they tend to dominate proceedings considering one is bound to get out around 85% of the time overall (across all eras) compared to remaining not out. Bizarre to frame things as "imposing oneself" instead of "punishing bowling mistakes when possible".

 

[subshakerz]

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.

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.

Ponting is just one example and I feel his batting style mitigates against any average difference, which I think once you pass 50 is not that important anyways. Take Sangakkara for a better example who has pretty much the same average as Kallis, slightly better, and a much better SR.

Batsmen who are aggressive or defensive are usually like that naturally, that is the style they are most comfortable with, and with that comes intent. I dont think, as you imply, that all the top tier players have the same level of skill, and the more aggressive one just take more risks. I think it is patently obvious that players like Lara and Tendulkar are capable of certain strokeplay that others are not on a regular basis. I think players like Kallis and Dravid were capable of more extravagant shots but chose to play in a more reserved way as that was what came naturally.

If a single player bats slowly, it doesnt matter as much to causing a game to draw. If an entire batting lineup does, it creates more issues. But I do think an individual batting faster has an impact on pressuring the opposition and confidence of the rest of the lineup.

 

[subshakerz]

Aggressive batting = taking risks to score. Anything else other than this basic fact is irrelevant since batters get out more when playing a shot compared to being defensive. Batting faster only works if the conditions & bowlers favour batting, otherwise you'll just get out eventually. So for me higher SRs when batting mean nothing about general player quality without context.

No, aggressive batting is not just risk taking. It is active intent to score. It can even mean rotating a strike more.

If what you said is true, supposed non-risk guys like Dravid and Kallis should be averaging in the 60s.

 

[subshakerz]

Exactly this. Generally the bowlers are the ones in control, and they tend to dominate proceedings considering one is bound to get out around 85% of the time overall (across all eras) compared to remaining not out. Bizarre to frame things as "imposing oneself" instead of "punishing bowling mistakes when possible".

Most cricket watchers know batsmen are not these passive agents you describe, and frequently pick bowlers to attack pre-emptively or early in their spells to set the tone of the proceedings.

 

[Xix2565]

No, aggressive batting is not just risk taking. It is active intent to score. It can even mean rotating a strike more.

If what you said is true, supposed non-risk guys like Dravid and Kallis should be averaging in the 60s.

To score is to take risks. Some are minimal, some are not, but it's not like running singles is risk free scoring.

Most cricket watchers know batsmen are not these passive agents you describe, and frequently pick bowlers to attack pre-emptively or early in their spells to set the tone of the proceedings.

Yes, and most of the time they fail because their agency is so limited that without conditions massively helping them out the bowlers dominate most attempts by batters to attack. Hence the point about batting being this active part of cricket that has more sway is strange to consider considering how cricket works. Batters can only predict/react to what is being bowled, they can't mind control bowlers.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

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.

You started really strong in this thread, and keep getting better.

 

[shortpitched713]

Hmm, interesting exchange here.

For me, what attracts me about Test cricket is exactly that neither bat nor ball is in control, it's more or less 50/50. Just as a bowler can't help but release the odd bad ball in a spell (because yes bowling at Test level is ****ing hard), so too the most perfect batsman can't simply block everything threatening, like a robot. Sometimes that perfect swinging yorker at pace simply is unplayable and could eventually catch you (but it's damn hard for the bowler to produce that delivery, trust).

The game is a constant physical and mental battle to mitigate risks, while not missing out on opportunities, which goes for both batsman and bowler ( and fielders ). That's why it's called a "Test", and why it's been such a resounding and enduring contest to enjoy over ages of audience.

 

[subshakerz]

To score is to take risks. Some are minimal, some are not, but it's not like running singles is risk free scoring.

Yes, and most of the time they fail because their agency is so limited that without conditions massively helping them out the bowlers dominate most attempts by batters to attack. Hence the point about batting being this active part of cricket that has more sway is strange to consider considering how cricket works. Batters can only predict/react to what is being bowled, they can't mind control bowlers.

I never said batters have more sway than bowlers. I said that aggressive batters are more proactive in run-scoring opportunities than defensive batsmen and this can affect the way the bowlers bowl. Which is a point so obvious that I am truly shocked you are debating it.

You are generalizing way too much. Totally depends on the match context but you ignore completely things like gamesmanship, momentum, etc.

 

[subshakerz]

Hmm, interesting exchange here.

For me, what attracts me about Test cricket is exactly that neither bat nor ball is in control, it's more or less 50/50. Just as a bowler can't help but release the odd bad ball in a spell (because yes bowling at Test level is ****ing hard), so too the most perfect batsman can't simply block everything threatening, like a robot. Sometimes that perfect swinging yorker at pace simply is unplayable and could eventually catch you (but it's damn hard for the bowler to produce that delivery, trust).

The game is a constant physical and mental battle to mitigate risks, while not missing out on opportunities, which goes for both batsman and bowler ( and fielders ). That's why it's called a "Test", and why it's been such a resounding and enduring contest to enjoy over ages of audience.

Yes, I agree. But there is a whole psychological aspect of the game that comes with playing style that needs to be accounted for.

 

[Xix2565]

If the bat and ball were evenly matched people wouldn't be out as much as they have been over time.

 

[Xix2565]

I never said batters have more sway than bowlers. I said that aggressive batters are more proactive in run-scoring opportunities than defensive batsmen and this can affect the way the bowlers bowl. Which is a point so obvious that I am truly shocked you are debating it.

You are generalizing way too much. Totally depends on the match context but you ignore completely things like gamesmanship, momentum, etc.

Yes, but it's rarely going to be successful because bowlers are inherently more proactive in what they can and do bowl that forces the batters to make a choice, so I'm actually surprised this has managed to evade you for so long. Ascribing far too much agency to batting than is present in reality.

 

[shortpitched713]

If the bat and ball were evenly matched people wouldn't be out as much as they have been over time.

Bit confused at this. You could argue the exact opposite just by changing the words around. The vast majority of balls that are faced in a cricket match don't lead to wickets, and I think in ball by ball analysis by sites like cricinfo a majority are determined to be "in control". For context, you compare it to a game like baseball, and most of the time they play at the ball they literally just hit air, and there's determined to be a "balance" between bat and ball in that sport as well, just different.

I do know however, that when I see T20s on flat tracks, with batsmen recklessly throwing both bat and body around in front of the ball, I can't help but feel bored, as to me something about the balance is out of whack. But, that could be the subjective opinion that I've been conditioned with over all these years.

 

[Xix2565]

Bit confused at this. You could argue the exact opposite just by changing the words around. The vast majority of balls that are faced in a cricket match don't lead to wickets, and I think in ball by ball analysis by sites like cricinfo a majority are determined to be "in control". For context, you compare it to a game like baseball, and most of the time they play at the ball they literally just hit air, and there's determined to be a "balance" between bat and ball in that sport as well, just different.

I do know however, that when I see T20s on flat tracks, with batsmen recklessly throwing both bat and body around in front of the ball, I can't help but feel bored, as to me something about the balance is out of whack. But, that could be the subjective opinion that I've been conditioned with over all these years.

I mean it's hard to argue that a general overall batting average of 30, or a dismissal rate of batters of about 85% is a sign that in Test cricket bat and ball are evenly matched. You are far more likely to make what we generally consider to be a low score and get out than make big scores or remain not out. So I don't consider it to be a strong argument for batting being on par with bowling in Tests. The risks and rewards are too different and tilted in one direction for this to be the case.